< 19 May	21 May >

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

The result was redirect to Lynden School District. Schools aren't going to be deleted, and merges don't need to spend a week at AfD. Content under the re0direct for whomever wants to perform the actual merge. StarM 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynden Middle School[edit]

Lacks any real significance Nubzor (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed since March 2007 and has very little to show for it. Content-wise, this article lacks any real purpose or significance. Beyond dates constructed, colors/mascot, and current principal, I see absolutely no reason why this article should exist. The "grade" breakdown seems rather juvenile (as if the page was created by one of the students), and adds no real information to the article. Thoughts/feedback? Nubzor (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not per the nom, but because it is unreferenced and does not demonstrate notability. Middle schools are generally not notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I was unable to establish notability via a Google search for significant coverage by reliable third party sources with verifiable information. This included Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Web. Such coverage as exists is "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources" and "is not sufficient to establish notability." Does not meet default WP:N. There are no indications in the sources I reviewed of awards, outstanding achievement of other indicators of notability. Dlohcierekim 01:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 7, and redirect per DPMUK well said, and thanks for finding the redirect I should have. Dlohcierekim 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the article for the town or school district, as we always do for middle schools without very obvious special distinction. We should try to find some way of warning people creating these articles that it is usually not a good idea. There is no need to approach an article like this as a new problem--we routinely merge.DGG (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could merge it, however, as the article currently stands, you'd probably get around one sentence of good, worthwhile informaiton. I hardly think what time students go to lunch is worth mentioning. Or that 8th grade is (naturally) more difficult than 7th. The entire page just seems rather irrelevant, unnotable, and not at all helpful. Nubzor (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lynden School District. Better to save one line than to lose the whole thing. Suggest the one line can include: the school name, the grades taught, and perhaps the principal. I'm happy to do that work myself if subsequent posters agree. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 03:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge per 7. tedder (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually it's been "merged" for some time apparently - Lynden School District already contains "Lynden Middle School enrolls students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. The school mascot is a lion; school colors are green and gold. The school is located at 516 Main Street in Lynden. The location is two blocks north of historic downtown Lynden.". Ok to delete. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging anything useful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry; not possible. If any content is merged then the page must be redirected not deleted for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lynden School District as there seems to be nothing worth merging. Redirects are cheap and it seems a likely search term. Dpmuk (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per 7, DGG, et al. - this is a valid search term, and most of the important information is already in the Lynden School District. 7, you may add the other stuff that's necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lynden School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like there is consensus so far for merge/redir. All useful content from this article is already in the merged article so after the discussion period is over I'll do a NAC and redirect unless there are further comments. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge: not enough on its own as it stands.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lynden School District. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for reasons already explained. Wizardman 05:14, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vehicles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I feel this list will never be complete as a number of those do not have its own article - many of these I have deleted.

Even cleaning up this list, which I have attempted to do so, I take it is too much of an effort to clean up this list, hence nomination. The other reason is the issue with WP:VERIFY. Donnie Park (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: might I suggest making this into a list only of fictional vehicles which are notable enough and have enough to say about them that they already have articles about them on Wikipedia? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, that was what I attempted to do, as well as keeping those only with its own article, but I getting to a point where it was too much of an effort to clean up. Feel welcome to have a go, if that is done, I will decide if it is worth withdrawing my nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was no need to limit it that way; such is not done for other lists of X in fiction. The vehicle just has to have a major role in the story. DGG (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And I like odd lists -- but this one has no cohesiveness at all. Collect (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refinements should be discussed on article talk page. But this is certainly a notable topic. How it should be best handled is an appropriate discussion that's not well addressed in an AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm all in favor of a list of fictional automobiles, list of fictional boats, list of fictional spacecraft, list of fictional trains, etc. but not all on the same page, and not without some context. The section "list of armed vechicles" is the straw that injured the fictional camel that used to be a vehicle until its back was broken. Mandsford (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This was how it looked before I came in and quit part way through when I decided on a AfD. If this was decided on a keep basis, then only entrants with its own articles are allowed to stay, why, because of the WP:WTAF guideline, anything without it will simply clutter it up. Donnie Park (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major plot components of notable fiction are appropriate for a list. The rule is not vehicles with their own articles for the vehicle, but that the book or film involved must have their own article--this has been the practice with all of these. Each entry needs to be sourced, and trivial ones removed, as always, but thats an editing question. I'm not sure why thislist is worse than the others--and if it is, then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. DGG (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What can you say about videogames, that list was cluttered with entried from editors favourite games, which most of these have no articles, are you trying to say that every game vehicles should be listed, plus how can you tell if the are trivial especially the hundred of those in the Grand Theft Auto series. Donnie Park (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - This seems like such a brooooaaaaadddd list. I wonder if this wouldn't be better off as a Category into which all the tons of List of vehicles/spaceships/submarines in X franchise/text/work (along with articles on specific, notable vehicles) get tossed. A list for such a broad topic just seems like a nightmare to maintain. Or, alternatively, replace some of the individual entires (like the AT-xs) with ((seealso))s to e.g. List of Star Wars aquatic, air, and ground vehicles. --EEMIV (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an indiscriminate list of fictional cars? Please. No. This is supposed to be pretending to be an encyclopedia, not a trivia compendium.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No way can this ever be complete, or free from bias - even if some sort of notability criteria were applied. And why isn't the 6000SUX from the Robocop movies even on this list? Eddie.willers (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I thought it was at some point. ----DanTD (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is perfect valid and no reason to delete it. If you were curious about the most widely known vehicles ever used in fiction, then this would be the place to find it. Quite useful and interesting to some. There should be a separate page or fold down list for the Gran Theft Auto series, and a all the Star Wars vehicles moved to their own page of course. Please don't go through and delete something you personally haven't heard of, without checking first. Wouldn't the vehicle used by Batgirl, and the one used by the Green Arrow, both major comic book characters, be notable? I'm adding those two back in. Dream Focus 01:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Of course there is a reason why I nominated this list for deletion, as one hightlighted by a nominee which I forgot to state earlier is this list is more useful as a category and too indiscriminate for a list. There will always be a reason why there has to be a fictional car, such as those in GTA, Burnout and Ridge Racer - one of these would be copyright. If we are going to include all these cars, then it will do nothing but clutter the list, hence my rationale. According to a friend, there used to be a list for GTA vehicles which he assumed got deleted some times ago. Donnie Park (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list's subject is way too broad. It's way too broad even for a category. It needs to be broken down into vehicles by type, especially the "armed vehicles" section which includes everything from helicopters to AT-ATs. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and migrate references from the main articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until such time it can be migrated to a category. Then redirect to the category. Artw (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (provisionally): The list seems to be appropriate; however, there must be thousands upon thousands of fictional vehicles out there (we don't need the unicycle that badguy 3 used on level 3, section 4, subsection alpha in HALO 2). The list should be restricted to notable vehicles. Specifically, ones that already have an article --It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not informative to the reader. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completeness is not a reason to delete as many lists are inherently incomplete. Our editing policy does not require perfection. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referencing will keep the list manageable. Manifestly notable topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly completely indiscriminate, unmaintainable, not useful for navigation. I can't see any conceivable purpose this serves for the reader. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be moving towards a cowardly "no consensus", but there is no rational reason for maintaining a list of this sort. At what point is a car fictional? Is Herbie a fictional car, even though it's a stock VW Beetle? What about <insert name of Transformer here>, which was a bit more than a vehicle? Does Columbo's car count, since it was, in fact, a vehicle in fiction? A sprawling, completely unmaintainable list that serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is what categories are for. Badger Drink (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herbie is so going in there; see also: List of fictional vehicles#Starlight Express. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is completely an indiscriminate list that could be absolutely huge (do we include every car that was in any movie)? I think this would make a much better category, but as a list it is useless. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting topic. It could use some work, though. I like Sallicio's idea for restricting its content to fictional vehicles related to some notable entry in the encyclopedia.Synchronism (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret campground[edit]

WP:MADEUP / WP:NEO - Not sure how this wasn't speedy for spam (because original poster, now blocked, was linking people to their own site). Regardless, I've removed the spam and now it should be deleted for being a non-notable neologism. All google hits for "secret campground" and "free" bring up hits for campgrounds that are actually named "Secret Campground" and are not free. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here at all. NBeale (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...nothing to see here. Nothing to comment upon or mark as notable. Move along, now. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At worst, it's a neologism, at best, it's a topic the notability of which cannot be ascertained by its very nature. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as n/n neologism.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:56, 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. Weighing the comments in this discussion, deletion ends as the predominant sentiment; most of the commenters agreed that these two nations have a relationship that is essentially trivial and not notable for inclusion. The "keep" opinions, contrary to deletion, were apparently influenced by some canvassing and held no convincing arguments. Jamie^☆S93 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comorian–Kosovan relations[edit]

I find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth. In fact, the only sources that mention these two words at the same time, merely mention in brief that Comoros recognized Kosovo's independence. Now, if someone could find a Bob Denard connection to Kosovo, i might reconsider. He was one of the late 20th centuries great scumbags, and i find him fascinating. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe when the comprehensive single country articles make their appearance, we will have legitimate material, but there is absolutely no specific redeeming quality to this one. Collect (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't merit article --Tocino 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no coverage of bilateral relations, just passing mentions in multilateral context. [1] this is an example of a bilateral relationship has zero basis for an article. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre topic for an article as WP:N isn't met and there's obviously little prospect of it ever being met. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no relations to speak of, except for the trivia that the two countries recognize each other. — Emil J. 10:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments above. Buckshot06(prof) 10:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comoros recognises Kosovo's independence. That's the only substantial fact. Contrary to above, it's not trivia, but it's not enough for an article, either. HJMitchell You rang? 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources describe these relations in any substantial detail. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a stub and will be improved in the near future. We can improve it and save it from deletion. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which sources will be used to improve the article? Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maniaqq (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt just noticing some canvassing going on [2] [3]. I hope it stops.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not really canvassing, it's about as neutral a message as you can get informing people of an AfD that might be of interest to them- at face value, at least. HJMitchell You rang?
    - Selectively informing editors he thinks are likely to vote "keep" is canvassing, no matter how neutral the message.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with being so short. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved. --♪♫Berkay^0652|message 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the length of the article was one of the concerns here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I fail to see how the article can pan out in the near future, nor the possibility that it will be notable.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct - Preserve the name by redirecting it to Foreign relations of Kosovo. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. There's no real justification to delete it, as relations can only get better (or worse, presumably). The establishment of diplomatic relations will occur in the future and that's something worthy of being mentioned. If it's deleted, where will we mention it? Some pretty bizarre justifications for deleting it. --alchaemia (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and articles shouldn't be kept just in case the topic ever becomes notable - no-one is proposing salting the article, so it can be easily recreated in the very unlikely event of there being a relationship between these countries which meets WP:N Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its important to keep this articleMax Mux (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Why? Comments in AfD discussions which don't provide a rationale may be "discounted at the discretion of the closing admin" according to WP:GTD. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, max mux seems to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing asserts notability of the topic of the article. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the one salient fact, that Comoros recogises Kosovo, is already recorded at International recognition of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats nonsense. There can be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mux (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence then. so far your comments have not shown in anyway how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article should stay and contribute, and I am completely against deletion.--Liridon 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sintonak.X (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for keeping the article is?Knobbly (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As there are no sources on this topic, it horribly fails WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for an article on every single combination of countries.Knobbly (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per precedent decision to merge these articles into International recognition of Kosovo and because this article will never get any expansion.--Avala (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the only relevant sentence to International recognition of Kosovo; redirects are cheap. Skomorokh 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That info is already in the redirect target.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you mentioned that above. Skomorokh 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 2013 Stock[edit]

Re-creation of crystal ball violation and also possible hoax, previously deleted via PROD. Official and other reliable sources all indicate Bakerloo train replacement is scheduled for 2019, not 2013 as claimed in this unreferenced article. [4][5][6]. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Most proably a hoax, as yahoo and google shows no good results for this at all. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree completely with the nomination. (I endorsed the prod nomination due to the inconsistency of 1972 stock being withdrawn in 2019, not 2013.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? - It could be, but not sure. I went on Wikipedia to check out some new plans on London Underground, and then I saw the 2013 stock. It was very short, wthout a infobox and nothing, so I edited it with a infobox, refeences, see also etc. But now I see that there are a lot of websites that say that it is going to be replaced in around 2019. I have been searching for this on Yahoo! and it didn't say something about the 1972 stock being replaced by 2013 stock.
Delete as flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take London Underground 2014 Stock with it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: however, doesn't appear to be a WP:CRYSTAL violation as the article asserts that it definitely will be in service (as opposed to being speculated). Delete nonetheless because google shows nothing with that word grouping.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to disagree with It's me...Sallicio!. It is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL because we are talking about an organization with a history (and precedent) of announcing the introduction of a new type rolling stock, only for the launch to be delayed or the entire order to be cancelled. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be just speculation, with no third-party sources to confirm it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 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 Speedily deleted, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not a chat board. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best-online[edit]

Can't find a CSD category for this so I'm bringing it here. An unsourced and highly POV list of "what people think are best place online for certain things". Yintaɳ 21:01, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney MS[edit]

Delete is this server notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability; would this be speediable per WP:SD#A7 as web content? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A private server of MapleStory. Just a sad attempt to advertize. --Blake (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable subject and no reiabe source found.--Caspian blue 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject and utter piffle, to boot! Eddie.willers (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't even really assert any importance. An admin braver than I would probably be justified deleting this CSD A7 as non-notable web content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum fractal[edit]

Delete seems that this may be a hoax. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, it may or may not be a hoax but it would be better to revert to the version with content before discussing it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as non-notable, original work, ~~or a hoax. The article appears to be a hoax, but~~ it could be just a non-notable term, or more likely, original research. Actually, it is a possibly useful concept or phrase, relevant to the theory of periodicity, so it should not be "salted". Bearian (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - I repaired the stub and added tags. If someone else wants to rescue this stub, there is research out there -- see [7] and [8]. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the more I read, the more I am convinced this is a notable topic, but is a mess as written. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to write an article on. Also, totally unsourced. The google searches listed have nothing to do with "Quantum Fractals" as described as a "a new method of routing highly complex interconnected entities." Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this stuff is. The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System on the Harvard website[9] uses the term, but for something else perhaps? I didn't bother clicking on the main article, since I know nothing of this sort of thing. I see a government website with an article titled "Quantum fractal fluctuations". Something different than the theory the article suggest, perhaps? Dream Focus 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unsourced, incomprehensible nonesense. It seems to be some kind of restatement of the Uncertainty principle but that's just a guess on my part; it doesn't make much sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quantum fractal seems to be a notable topic [10], but this article about the Quantum fractal is possibly original research. [11] Salih (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, Salih. If the consensus of the community is to delete it, because it is too much of a mess, we may have to do so and wait until later to re-create a proper article. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are proper and substantial references - which there are not at present> NBeale (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is sensible physics here, but this requires a real expert. If the article has been completely rewritten based on the real stuff by the end of the AfD, then it should obviously be kept. I doubt it will happen though. Vesal (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nobody here can discern what this article is supposed to be about I posted a help-wanted notice at Wikiproject Physics. Them From Space 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a legitimate topic, not crank science. The Physical Review Letters citation should make that clear enough. However, I really don't know whether it's a notable concept, or whether the article is original research. Since the physics project was only contacted towards the end of this AfD, I would recommend extending the duration of this AfD (or relist it).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tried to look up info on this. It does look like a real topic, but I can't understand head nor tail of it. I support Headbomb's suggestion of extending this AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Original research or a hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't comment if you can't be arsed to at least read the thing. The PRL article establishes this not a hoax. There's a load of improvement that could be made to this page, sure, and notability is currently undetermined. Glancing at a page, not understanding it, and declaring this as OR or hoax isn't how AfD should work. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while this might be an area of research, this article does nothing to explain it. It should not be kept just on the basis that someone might improve it from its currently speedyable state. The article as it stands is fundamentally useless, and editors should be allowed to work from a clean slate on this topic. Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requires another source to meet WP:N. Seems kind of suspect. Artw (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation removed, notability established. Jamie^☆S93 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LimeLife[edit]

Search of Yahoo turned up only one non-trivial article on this company--most other hits appear to be press releases. Not enough notability to overcome high COI. Closing admin should take into account massive spree of linkspamming by accounts linked with this company; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mpmccart. Blueboy 96 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio see here. Also promotional spam written in first person plural. The references are press releases reprinted. Drawn Some (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Drawn some. Purely a promotional fluff piece from a spammer with no true notability asserted, only using copies of their own press releases to give the appearance of it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As blatant advertisement. Diana LeCrois : 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an editor has removed the copyrighted material. News, San Jose Mercury News, Washington Post, and BBC have all covered them just to pick a few articles out from a large volume of Google news results. There are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Adavertising tone can be dealt with htrough editting. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:CORP, recognized and covered by independent third-party sources.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reference section should convince anyone of its notability. Dream Focus 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient media coverage suggests notability: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Limelife+-leading&cf=all — Rankiri (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. moved to User:Flyingthing/PeepLaukFlyingWing (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeepLaukFlyingWing[edit]

Non-notable home-built project. Project has not yet even achieved success. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even non-successful flying wings are notable in aviation history. Considering the 11 year effort and excellent craftmanship it really deserves to be listed. Flyingthing^ChatMe! — Flyingthing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Many people spend long years creating wonderful pieces of craftwork for their own enjoyment. This does not make such efforts notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, could you then pass here some links to post WWII flying wing glider ? .. of comparable parameters ? Or twin-engine motorglider ? Or competition class flying wing glider ? I might agree that maybe it is too early to make it public. Flyingthing^ChatMe! —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I would suggest that reference be made to the WikiProject Aircraft standards for this exact issue found at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). These guidelines indicate that it does not currently meet the notability standard, but it is quite possible that it will in the near future. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to sandbox. I agree with Ahunt that until it actually flies and is covered in the mainstream aviation press, it does not meet WP:AIR notability standards ... yet. Should it prove successful, though, I have little doubt but that it will be notable for the reasons given here and in the article. I would encourage that the article be moved to the creator’s sandbox (or offwiki) for continuing development until it meets inclusion standards and can be recreated in mainspace. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to sandbox. I am with User:Askari Mark on this one - move it to the sandbox and then once it meets the project criteria, which it should soon, recreate the article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox: until it functions and receives more coverage, if not then delete per the logic presented concerning BLP notability in WP:BLP1E.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:14, 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 article can not be transwikied to Wikiquote, since it contains three sayings, not anything that fits the definition of Wikiquote: "Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language"[12]. Fram (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English quotes about birds[edit]

original research, 3 unreferenced quotes, with somebodys interpretation of them Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a place for the original research in the notes column.--RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely article topic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This doesn't explicitly fall into "not an indiscriminate collection" - there are plenty of similar sorts of "collections" on Wikipedia. As long as the creator here can substantiate with references that this isn't original research, keep. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, transwiki to Wikiquote or delete. Vicenarian (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, which would be a much better place for something like this. It does seem to be a bit homework-esque. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: provided there are some references added, otherwise transwiki per above.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, which is probably a better home for content like this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki. While the title of the article is so oddly specific it amuses me, it's so short, and would work better in Wikiquote anyways. But those quotes are probably already over there in some status. Basically, delete it, or move it, but get it offa my lawn. Zivlok (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Better off in wikiquote than wikipedia. On wikipedia it is a gross violation of [{WP:NOR]] and looks like funcruft. Would be better off on wikiquote. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the chase[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC,, sources are questionable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At least one of the references is a blog. Another is an editorial that says christian music radio stations won't play their stuff even when it's requested. Drawn Some (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. In addition to the rated album review already in the article; [13], I found some more here, here and here. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if the secondary sources can be improved, otherwise delete. Symplectic Map (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TVARK[edit]

Non-notable article on television presentation website. Serves as more of an advertisement for the site than a encyclopedia article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failure to pass WP:N standards, barely scrapes WP:CSD#A7. ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. As much as it pains me, I concur with the above points. It's a shame though. Malpass93 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm of two minds with this one. On one hand, it has been referenced by several notable people, and won a number of web awards about four years ago - I remember it used to be quite a significant source for TV Pres stuff, i.e. Charlie Brooker and other people used it as a source. However, I think since YouTube came along, it's been somewhat superseeded, not helped by their one year hiatus and their persistence with an annoying and antiquated file format. I also note in its history that the page has been kept at a particular version, which sortof implies it is maintained by the site's owners. It needs some coverage from third party sources, really. Bob talk 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian ref establishes verifiability, and though brief, shows the importance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. Further to my comments above, I think it probably is justified in staying due to the now-present third party references. However, it probably needs cleaning up, and perhaps some info adding about their year-long hiatus. Bob talk 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stankervision. This discussion has been open long enough. The redirect is an editorial decision. Consider this a "keep" close (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DAMN! Show[edit]

Delete this was deleted as an expired prod in March but is now contested, so I bring it here. Seems to be a non-notable local variety show failing WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it fails WP:GNG and its abot a TV show, with a reliable resource and external links.Also it has been broadcasted on MTV2.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe merge Seems notable for having been broadcast. Could perhaps be merged to stankervision? Also the clown should be merged in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we currently have any notability criteria for TV shows or are we left with just the GNG? Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stankervision. It was only aired on national television as a part of that series. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sakib Ahmed a.k.a S.A.Q[edit]

I really don't think this article passes WP:MUSIC or especially WP:BIO. There are no sources, and when I tried to Google for some myself, all I could find for a person by this individual's same name is an unrelated football player (that, and a Facebook profile that might be the same guy). I also wonder if the article's creator, Sakmac, is the subject of the article. (And no disrespect intended, but I also find it hard to believe that an admin looked at this article but didn't suspect anything. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant hoax. Someone who's collaborated with Eminem would surely turn up more than Facebook hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC) A7 My bad, I misread. Anyway, nowhere in the article does it assert notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy. "One upcoming album", "one upcoming single". This is nowhere close to passing WP:MUSIC. If this deletion process had not been started I would have speedily deleted it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax as it doesn't say that the artist has collaborated with Eminem, and is about an up an coming artist, and a future release, as has been clearly labelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.56.204 (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Star Trek (text game). Cirt (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trek73[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject. ~~It might benefit from merging into a general list of Star Trek games~~. Alastairward (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other text based Trek games. Star Trek (text game), Begin (computer game), Begin 2, Super Star Trek and Netrek are also up for deletion. Also consider Apple Trek and Star Trek (script game). Can merge with Star Trek games or into a revised Star Trek (text game) to parallel Star Trek (role-playing game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep - This is a classic and notable Star Trek game. Even the nom does not want to delete the article. The nom has nominated this article for a merge. Why is this an AfD? Let's bring this AfD to a speedy end (keep), and move the merge discussion to the talk page.Varbas (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, no merge, just delete then. Alastairward (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Trek (text game) Bumm13 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star Trek (text game). Minor variation thereof. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:50, 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 Keep (per consensus, NAC). American Eagle (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Records discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Horribly incomplete list, will become insanely long. I see no purpose in trying to maintain a list of this sort, and obviously nobody gives a rip about maintaining it because it's still been unchanged since November. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Good god.... this would be long if completed. And the longer it gets, the more it becomes simply a list and not an interesting entry. Hairhorn (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an encyclopedic topic and there's no time limit on fixing it.--Michig (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atlantic is surely one of the ten most significant labels in U.S. music history; there are many lesser labels with pages like this. What has changed about the article's premise since the first AfD was floated?Nostrildamus (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of articles just like this that just as notable, so there's no reason to delete. The fact that the article is poorly managed is a completely different matter. — Σ xplicit 20:48, 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 merge to Begin (computer game). Exact target not binding, as this is an editorial decision, but a merge should take place and I will check in 4 weeks to ensure it has been done. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begin 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Begin 2

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject nor indeed much explanation of what it exactly is. ~~Merge to a general list of Star Trek games.~~ Alastairward (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begin (computer game)) If you're for a merge into a list of Star Trek games, what is the point of this AfD? Are you actually proposing that anything be deleted? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, as I said in other AFDs, my bad, delete, no merge. Scrub this article as lacking in notability. Alastairward (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised Star Trek (text game) to parallel Star Trek (role-playing game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs)

No! Star Trek (text game) is its own, distinct game that is not related to Begin 2. --Kiz o r 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Sorry to be unclear (and forgetting to sign). I meant merge all of the text articles (Trek73, Star Trek (text game), Begin (computer game), Begin 2, Super Star Trek, Netrek, Apple Trek, Star Trek (script game)) into Star Trek (text game) and that article becomes a general article and not just an article about that particular text game. They could also be merged into a new article. In short, I prefer merge over delete. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of real-world context and therefore no notability; no need to merge what's not notable, either. Notability isn't inherited. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Begin (computer game). Home of the Underdogs and Abandonia thought the game worthy of an article. [14] [15] Begin 2 had much greater circulation than Begin 1 but as game development has resumed [16] it makes sense to have the page under the general series name. --Robin Moshe (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a classic and notable Star Trek game. Even the nom does not want to delete the article. The nom has nominated this article for a merge. Why is this an AfD? Let's bring this AfD to a speedy end (keep), and move the merge discussion to the talk page.Varbas (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~, as I said before, I'll be specific and say delete, no merge. If needs be I can resubmit it. Alastairward (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom should not be casting vote in AfD Varbas (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is a separate process. I'm assuming you're not referring to that? Anyway, regardless of what the nominator says, it doesn't qualify for speedy keep now because other editors have expressed opinions for deleting the article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Begin. Refs there seem fine, and this is a version thereof. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcity Metro[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about a toy train without any idea why it's significant or notable in any way. People articles are speedy A7 candidates, toy trains aren't, so here it is... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely no sources that I could find; either WP:MADEUP or WP:HOAX. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 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. Google hits do not confer notability, and the arguments of those indicating a lack of notability are not well-countered by any specific reference to our inclusion policies and guidelines as they stand today. Multiple independent sources are required to satisfy WP:BK and features like readership size, prress conferences and the like cannot be used to establish the required level of notability. Happy to entertain comments on my talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagatachō Strawberry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nagatachou Strawberry

Unnotable book that fails WP:BK. Previous AfD closed as "keep" but had almost no participation, one of the two keeps was based on a invalid (and since removed and rejected) notability standard and the other came from an editor who says keeps to all AfDs. As this was over four months ago, DRV is not an appropriate venue for a new discussion. After that AfD, a discussion began on redirecting/merging to Mayu Sakai, during which no reliable sources could be found to establish the book's notabiltiy beyond one semi-reliable review. Extensive searching was done in multiple languages. Discussion seemed to clearly indicate redirect was appropriate due to this lack of significant coverage as the title was not notable, but others disagree. This title fails WP:BK and WP:N. It has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single review does not make a book or a manga notable. WP:BK requires multiple non-trivial sources, which this article simply doesn't have. WP:N requires that coverage by third-party sources must be significant, which a single review is not. --Farix (Talk) 18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, I do not say Keep to all AFD. The previous AFD closed as KEEP. The merge discussion showed that the German magazine review of it, did count as notable, and that the article should be kept. Dream Focus 18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Nagatachō Strawberry 5 vols complere series by Mayu Sakai. No licensor in France and Italy. Licensed in Germany & Spain Spanish Ed. Without any review i'm inclined to delete but i will give some time for people to find RS reviews and change my vote. Be happy, i'm made the effort to seek for evidences notability and spend around 10 mins toying with keys words on Google. --KrebMarkt 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit refined my opinion into Delete & redirect to Mayu Sakai --KrebMarkt 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After searching again, I am still only able to find the single German review I located before. WP:BK requires multiple reviews, which in this case we have not got. That said, delete is inappropriate -- it's a valid search term that at the very least should redirect to the author's article. If said article was more than a stub/start article, there'd be a place to selectively merge material from the work's article, but as there is, alas, none, that makes me say ~~redirect~~. If we ever uncover other reviews (from, say, additional licenses) the contents of the article will be available in the history, for restoration. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep in light of additional reviews linked to below, which are in my opinion enough make the work pass WP:BK. I strongly encourage everyone who has participated in this discussion to review their position. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I don't support redirecting is because of one particular editor's longstanding history of disrupting mergers and redirects. I think its better to simply burn the bridge. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning if I noticed the AFD ended in KEEP, and someone then goes and eliminates the article awhile later placing a redirect there instead, I object. Is that it? The manga was notable enough to be translated into different languages, the author is well known, and if there was someone who spoke Japanese to search, I'm sure coverage in Japanese media sources would be easily found. Dream Focus 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This reasoning suggests you treat AfD results as an end-all, preempting any further discussion (and many of your actions support this view). However, the results of AfD discussions are only applicable within the context of the discussions - that is, they only determine what happens to the article as of the time the discussion is closed, and often, further discussion is encouraged or necessary (most obviously in cases of no consensus, but also for merge/redirect and even for keep sometimes). It probably isn't going to do much good explaining this to you, but at least I can say I've tried. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If consensus is KEEP, that means KEEP. If the nominate fails to get something deleted, she does not have the right to just replace the article with a redirect later on. A proper merge discussion would be appropriate if done before any edit warring to stop a redirect, and there was something that was actually going to be merged, you not just calling it that and deleting everything(but keeping the history of course, as though that matters) and putting a redirect where the article was. You form a consensus, and you follow that consensus. Dream Focus 14:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - an AfD ending in "keep" means "resume normal editing", not "this article is fine as it is". pablo_hablo. 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Normal editing does not mean eliminate everything, and replace it with a redirect. Dream Focus 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it does, if the article cannot establish independent notability and a proper merge/redirect target exists. And a discussion is not required for merges or redirects, although it is certainly encouraged. This is one point you seem to seriously refuse to get. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus was KEEP. It was determined notable in the last AFD, and hopefully will be deemed notable this time around as well. You can't ignore the consensus of an AFD, simply because you don't get your way. Dream Focus 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus defaulted to keep simply because no one bothered to argue for deletion - that doesn't make the keep !votes valid or good. It wasn't determined notable, and indeed, notability is not determined by an AfD; it can only be shown to be notable in the course of the AfD. As for "hopefully being deemed notable this time around", my magic 8-ball says "Prospects not good" with only one review. And this isn't about me "getting my way" - I haven't actually !voted in this debate at all, and basically ignored the first one. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Simply put, AfD is not a crucible for inclusion. All it does is determine if an article and all of it's history should be deleted. --Farix (Talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Farix: I can't say I'm amenable to arguments to the effect that we need to burn the house to save the village. Especially when we need something on the lot. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural~~ KEEP per the previous AfD of this article by this nom less than 4 months ago which DID end in a keep per the closure of admin MBisanz, who looked at the discussion and made his decision. Not agreeing with the admin's decision is no reason to repeatedly return it again to AfD in order to reach the decision thenom disagreed with the previous times. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement, so redirecting it or bringing it back to AfD conflicts with WP:PRESERVE and WP:POTENTIAL. Yes, consensus can change... but in 4 months? With respects to the nom's good faith, it would best serve the project to give this one time to flower. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering one of the only two keeps was based a false notability guideline that was rejected for addition to WP:BK, it is perfectly valid to revisit the discussion. And considering the series is not on-going, unless it is licensed by another company, it is unlikely to ever flower beyond people adding more plot.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the "false notabilty guideline" made false before the previous keep AfD?... or ws it during the previous Keep AfD?...or was it sometime after the previous Keep Afd? I have faith in admin MBisanz's ability to interpret existing guideline when reviewing discussionsbefore forming his opinion to keep or delete. And in your stating that it must be licensed by another company in order to show notability, and that it is unlikely to happen, is that indicative of it at one time having notability that it has somehow lost? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD closed January 22, 2009. The notability standard was removed from WP:MOS-AM on January 19, 2009 per consensus that no project has the ability to set new notability standards, and then it was taken to WP:BK for discussion as possible inclusion there on January 21st. That discussion ran until January 29, 2009, and consensus there upheld that number of translations is not indicative of notability and should not be added as an option in WP:BK. The discussions started before the AfD ended, but did not end until it was over. So before you ask it, its doubtful MBisanz was aware of the change or the discussion as that particular AfD got so little attention, it was never noted. However, that is something you can ask him yourself. I'm saying it never had notability, not that another license would give it notability. I was referring to the general idea that another license might result in new reviews/discussion in the new country. Thus far, it seems unlikely this series will ever have notability or that it ever will be licensed, but in either case it isn't Wikipedia's job to give it false notability or presume it has it on the basis of someone else's hopes. The series was released from 2002-2004. Unless its relicensed in another country, it is unlikely to receive significant coverage now as it is "old". How often are any book reviewed or discussed years after the fact unless they have large, sustained notability. No one found any notability 4 months ago, no one found any 2 months ago, presuming some will appear eventually just because it was licensed and released in Germany (also done there), is acting on the idea of future notability, and giving notability where it doesn't exist. In the end, it is on the shoulders of those claiming this topic has notability to prove it with reliable, third-party sources, rather than try to claim there "must" be some because it exists.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, procedural keep is a totally bogus thing to claim, especially for something from four months ago. This is not a relisting of something from yesterday that had a strong consensus. Please vote on merits and not WP:POINTy tangents that have nothing to do with whether somethign should stay or go. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus? Fine, I'll strike the "procedural" but not my opinion of the process. So... if this is "somehow" "kept" again, and you again disagree with the closer, will you continue to re-nominate every 4 months until you get it finally removed? Or might repeated nominations be themselves considered a bit of a WP:POINTy "tangent"?Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the original AfD was closed, I was tempted to take it to WP:DRV because there clearly wasn't a keep consensus. However, because there was no consensus to either keep or delete and the end result wouldn't have changed, overturning the closing would simply be process-wonkery. --Farix (Talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Better resolve here and now than a long protracted edit warfare. Procedural keep will just displace the conflict elsewhere. This article (or so) doesn't have the required sources & references to verify its contents other than number of volumes, release date and isbn. The rest is bound to be removed because it will fail WP:V that means plot elements, setting and characters. It will be a de-facto vicious but legal burial of the article. --KrebMarkt 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plot setting and character, as far as it goes for basic description, can be taken from the work itself. Interpretation, of course, must be sourced. DGG (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently only the existence of the Manga can be proven [17]. The plot summary uses as source a well know non-legal free to read Manga website and won't pass for a reliable source. There is nothing to oppose the article to be trimmed to near-nothing. All come some people being ill informed enough to think they can write an article using blog, fan sites, and scanlation sites as sources --KrebMarkt 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep for what it is worth there are 5,150 google hits on this subject. I can't find few if very many sources in English. Ikip (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use G-hits as a check and occasionally mention them but if that is your sole reason for keeping, the closing editor should ignore your opinion as it is expressly NOT a measure of notability and for good reason. Drawn Some (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sound a lot like another editor.

If this is obvious to closing nominator, why point this out to me, allowing me to change my reasoning for keep? The only logical reason for you to say this is that this is closing admins regularly don't dimiss this reason to keep, and you are saying this in the hopes the closing nomiator will be influenced by your words, and dismiss my comments. Ikip (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability, and the sources that exist show only that it is exists but not that it's notable enough for a full article. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is supposed to be addressed through WP:CLEANUP, not AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you deal with non existence of source ? --KrebMarkt 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has to be some indication of importance. It needs someone who can work with the Japanese references. Not being able to, I accept the judgment of the Japanese WP that an article is justified. I think thisis a reasonable approach till we find a better. DGG (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What other Wiki's do does not effect this Wikipedia. Others do not have the same notability standards, and the Japanese wiki pretty much constantly lacks references at all; many of our articles on Japanese manga/anime series are far better than those there. Unless, of course, you always want to "accept the judgement of the Japanese WP" that characters/episodes/chapters should never have their own lists and should instead all be covered in one article with no other information included?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's suggestion of a keep per its current inclusion in the Japanese Wiki is reasonable and prudent, since we are not here to judge the work of others. His suggestion that Japanese reading wikipedians be sought is quite amenable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Also, since we are looking at the Japanese Wiki, the article was deleted there before,[18] but because the Japanese wiki allows even IPs to create articles, it was recreated after a year. In either case, AGF has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor is this an issue for the systematic bias essay. Nor does it make commonsense to mirror other wikis only when its convenient for backing a keep argument or shall we use the lack of JA articles to delete tons and tons and tons of stuff here?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge BEFORE seems to be have followed before the nomination: if there seriously aren't any sources besides a semi-reliable German review, I doubt that an article is warranted Sceptre ^(talk) 07:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell with my somewhat rusty German, that review site counts as a reliable source -- it certainly has markers that, in an English comics review site, would make me presume reliability. However, the reliability has not yet been confirmed by WP:RS/N (or at least, I haven't taken it there yet, for lack of time). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paid reviewer even not much and with all markers of RS (Editorial policy, clear visibility on who they are, etc..). I personally count that one as RS but one review alone won't do to pass WP:BK criteria #1 --KrebMarkt 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Quasirandom WP:RS/N will redirect you to the Wikipedia:GERMANY to evaluate if it is a RS. So if you ask do it there --KrebMarkt 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to know; I'll start with other there, then -- when I manage to get it together. And yes, exactly, that one even reliable review isn't enough -- thus my !vote above. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out it was published in a very popular magazine, which has been around since 1955, released monthly. A lot of people have read the series. I know the nominator doesn't believe number of readers make something notable, but a lot of us do as evident in previous AFDs, and I'm hoping most people will consider that. The series wouldn't have been around for almost two years, if it wasn't being read by a significant number of people. A magazine doesn't last that long, without knowing its audience. It ran its course, as series like this are meant to have an ending, then the writer moved on to her next series, which I believe the same magazine carried. Since [Ribon] has its target audience as young girls roughly 9–13 years old, you can't expect to find a lot of third party media reviews for it. Thus that notability guideline, a suggestion on how to do things not an absolute law, shouldn't be your only means of making a decision. Based on its number of readers alone, and the popularity of the writer(she having a long career with several notable series), should indicate it is notable. Dream Focus 15:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of readers was rejected as a notability criteria, period. One book AfD does not change that, compared to dozens and dozens of others for this genre. You claim it was read by a significant number of people, however you can not prove this. Wikipedia is not for your personal opinions, guesses, or presumptions. It is for verifiable information. You can't prove anyone read it without sources. Nor is claiming the writer is popular a valid argument, when you can't prove that either using reliable sources. The only sources on her article verify the publication of some of her works. Japanese manga magazines do not operate on the principles being claimed here when it comes to what series are rune.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of readers rejected, by the small number of people who go to the guideline page, and argue nonstop until everyone else gives up in frustration, and they get their way. All guideline pages have constant edits and reverts, and people arguing the same things without end. You have to just ignore all rules, and use common sense. The guidelines are just suggestions on how things should be done, not actual rules. Is there any reasonable doubt that a lot of people have read this series? Dream Focus 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people also read yesterday's edition of the Wall Street Journal, but that doesn't mean that issue is getting its own article. Just because this series was serialized in a popular magazine doesn't mean it was read by a lot of people; it's incredibly easy to skip 15 pages. Do you have any actual readership statistics for this series that are backed up by reliable sources? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the notability guidelines are just guidelines, they do establish an objective test to determine what topics to include. That is far better then the subjective tests you always apply. Besides, you are misrepresenting the Dragons of Summer Flame AFD. It was kept because it was listed as a bestseller on a widely recognized list bestseller list. Editors presume that a work that archives this feat will likely be covered by book reviewers. It wasn't kept on arguments that it was popular. --Farix (Talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Read the arguments. We agreed that being a bestseller made you notable, not needing anything else. There were no expectations that there would be reviews found elsewhere, since certain types of media just don't get reviews, and thus that not a reasonable requirement for something at all. A considerable number of books on the bestsellers list these days, never get any reviews at all. And my point was, you can ignore the guidelines, they suggestions, not policy. I don't think this manga would have been released in different languages, and have been in such a long running and successful magazine that long, if it wasn't also highly read, and had high sales. How often do they bother to translate something, if it didn't sell very well in Japan first? Dream Focus</spn> 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombiepowder., Tite Kubo's first work, was canceled after four volumes in Japan because of mediocre sales; it's been picked up by a number of licensors (though arguably this has more to do with the popularity of Bleach than anything else). Notability is not inherited between the magazine a series was serialized in and the series itself, regardless of how long-running, successful, or popular the magazine is. And a bestseller spot is not an automatic ticket to inclusion; it merely means it's more likely that the book has notability. The burden is still on those editors who want the article kept to demonstrate notability via multiple nontrivial reviews; if this cannot be done, the article can still be merged or deleted. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no reliable sources have been found by anyone that would help this approach, let along surpass, the notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. One reliable source review has been found. I agree this isn't enough, but I do wish people would get these things right. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - insufficient coverage in reliable sources has been provided to demonstrate notability. If the article is redirected, it can always be recreated if sufficient sources are later found. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per short but useful book review at Excite Japan. Also per these two at Guangdong News. I cannot read Chinese, but 草莓星愿 is the Chinese title of this manga. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote notable. Thanks for the find. It mentions the author visiting Taiwan, and how famous she is there. Then it talks about the Nagatacho Strawberry manga. Google translator I guess that'll prove notability for those not already convinced. Dream Focus 00:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an other in Chinese, but I cannot be sure about the reliability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wrong link to the Excite review, which should be this. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone confirm that it's a short review rather than a new release line-up blurb as translation tool seems to imply [19] Thanks --KrebMarkt 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the link Quasirandom. It is about various manga related to the world of politics. It summarizes the story of Nagatachō Strawberry and says that the main character's father (the prime minister) is beautifully drawn; however there is not much about politics, rather just about the protagonist being popular. The image caption tell the author, publisher and magazine name. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not sound like a full review, or really even a short one, but more like a publication announcement. Can anyone confirm that the any of those Chinese sources are reliable (and that the book was legitimately licensed there?) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a major news source announce the author arriving to visit Taiwan, if her stuff wasn't legitimately licensed there? Would she go down there to discuss her work, if her stuff wasn't being legally sold? They could've mentioned any of her stuff, but did this one. I don't think you could have anything longer written about the series, it not that complicated. There was enough detail to be more than just a passing mention. I believe that establishes notability quite well. Dream Focus 15:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone agree that having a press confidence in Taiwan[20], to talk about the end of this manga series, and it listed as "very popular", indicates it is a notable series? Dream Focus 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put the wrong link? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Fixed it now. Dream Focus 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Anyone can hold a press conference, that doesn't make them notable, nor is the author discussing herself a third-party source. And that's presuming (big presumption) the translator is getting it even half way correct. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And would they cover a press conference for anyone, about the end of a series, if the series wasn't notable? I find it unlikely reporters would go down there and speak to her, if the series wasn't notable. Dream Focus 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably would (need to remember, other countries media outlets do not work the same as Americas), and you, again, presuming that the translator is getting its grammar correct (which I doubt). She is a notable author, so she holds a press conference, people likely will come. Curiously, did most than one reporter actually report on the conference? Seems odd if it was such a big deal that only one made even a brief mention of it (and note, the mention isn't even a full interview, but mostly a press release style summary of the work). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had it checked. It says that she held a press conference in Taipei, and she was exited to see the poster for Nagatachō Strawberry. She then had a book signing session in Kaohsiung, and that Nagatachō Strawberry is popular in Taiwan, not just among young girls, but also boys. The fourth paragraph is a plot summary of Nagatachō Strawberry. There is more, but not related to this article. There might be other articles about her visit to Taiwan that Google News didn't find. This appears to be a mainland news site, so there should be some Taiwanese news too. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your description, the coverage is about Sakai's trip with coverage of Nagatachō Strawberry as mostly background (ie trivial) information. --Farix (Talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so. There is a whole paragraph about the plot of Nagatachō Strawberry. The visit appears to have been to promote this manga. Trivial would be if it was an interview with some minor celebrity that just mention it as favorite manga or something. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call including a summary of the story as non-trivial coverage. But whether this should be considered towards notability depends on what the article's focus is about. Is it about Sakai's trip or is it about the manga? --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have to be entirely or primarily about the book to establish notability. Trivial is a much lower threshold. Mentioning a book without saying anything about it is trivial. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request to WP:ANIME for more input about this particular source. We do need more people to weigh in. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press conferences are specifically listed as not the types for showing notability "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc

SNGs like WP:BK are descendant of the GNG, therefore the press conference still can't be used and it's unlikely she meets the criteria of a world reknown author for BK.じんない 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The press conference itself does not establish notability. The news coverage of the conference and the book does. The news article is independent of the subject. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misinterpret what defines notability. The press release itself as the author is not of such historically significant stature that any statement by her as such could be seen as notable as anyone can hold a press conference and in most cases, at least someone from the press will show up.じんない 23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here the links to Taiwanese publisher release [21][22][23][24][25]. The series was released in Taiwan between 2004-2005. That confirm an official licensor there. --KrebMarkt 09:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources need to be found and added to the article. There do seem to some available and yet more likely exist in non-English languages. Obviously these will take time to find, translate and apply. I'm not seeing any harm to a well-written stub but I do caution those who want to see this survive that the sources do have to be found and added or those wanting to delete it will be back. -- Banjeboi 07:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have looked into the mentioned German review website. Splashcomics is the first site (founded in 1996) of the Splashpages network. Splashcomics claims to be cooperating with several trade fairs and publishers, most notably Carlsen Comics, Tokyopop Germany, and the Frankfurt Book Fair. Splashpages also claims to be cooperating with Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures Switzerland, and Warner Home Video Schweiz. - Is the website reliable for the statement of their authors' opinions? Are their opinions worth mentioning? I don't know. Decide yourselves. - If there are specific questions about the website, I hereby offer to try and answer them. Goodraise 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where on that site does it say that? What exactly does it say? Cooperating, as in, advertising or selling products of them, or cooperating with them on anti-pirate? Be specific. Another editor who reads German already vouched for them as legitimate. And I believe most of us who said Keep, are convinced by the Taiwan coverage already. Dream Focus 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says so at the very bottom of their site, specifically it says "Unsere Kooperationspartner: Buchmesse Frankfurt - Comic Action - Comickeeper - Batman Fansite - Comixene - Inkplosion - Carlsen Comics - Ehapa - Reprodukt - Tokyopop - Edition 52 - Blitz Verlag - Lustige Taschenbücher - Comicinsel". "Unsere Kooperationspartner" translates to "our cooperation partners". That's all. They also have an impressum and a staff page, but there's not much information I'd consider useful. For example the sub-page of the publisher and editor-in-chief contains a lot of information, a history of the site, his martial status, even his ICQ number, but no credentials. What I don't understand is what you mean with "legitimate". Goodraise 01:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that Apoc found suggest that there may be other non-English sources lurking out there that would serve to solidly establish notability. However, there are enough concerns with the sources Apoc presented to keep me from !voting a straight keep. Therefore, I have to say userfy for now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 02:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources presented thus far (except the german-langauge review) do not appear to constitute significant coverage of the topic. It is doubtful that these brief mentions could be sufficient even for a substantial stub article. No prejudice against re-creation should more sources turn up, and I highly recommend userfying the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with those who have pointed to the lack of significant coverage and insufficient evidence of notability per our inclusion standards. Good nom btw; well put. Eusebeus (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begin (computer game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject, providing as a cite a link to the games own wiki. ~~Merge into a general list of minor Star Trek games.~~ Alastairward (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're for a merge into a list of Star Trek games, what is the point of this AfD? Are you actually proposing that anything be deleted? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised Star Trek (text game) to parallel Star Trek (role-playing game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs)
Reject AfD per procedure. AfD is not the place for merger proposals, the talk page of a given article is. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my contention then is delete no merge. Alastairward (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forms valuable notable example of early era of computer games in DOS mainframes. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability via reliable sources; all that is presently cited are a wiki and a few fansites, neither of which are verifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another retrocomputing example that falls into the critical 1975-1995 era of pre-internet products that are difficult to document. Also merge in content from Begin2, which appears to me a minor rev. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "difficult to document" a reason to keep an article? No matter how "difficult" the subject is to document, the necessary reliable sources must be provided regardless. This is entirely what verifiability is about; if the appropriate sources cannot be found, they are useless. We do not keep things based on the speculative idea that sources might exist. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure whether this game is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not but I am familiar with it, and if someone can describe what evidence of notability for such a game might look like, I will go look for it. Begin was originally shareware distributed through Bulletin Board Systems, and I cannot imagine what record of its progress through them might still exist. Most material on the game available on the internet today will either be procedurally generated or be related to the recent revival of the game's development by one of its original programmers. However, Home of the Underdogs and Abandonia did see fit to write articles on the game before that revival occurred: [26] [27] Begin has never been played by that many people at any one time but it has continued to attract new players for over two decades, so chronologically at least it has a significant player base. To clarify for Maury, the game is often referred to as "Begin 2" rather than just "Begin", because Begin 2 was the only graphical version until a few months ago, and has naturally attracted the largest number of players. However, Begin 1 uses most of the same underlying code, and is one of very few strategic computer games which can be played by the blind. Restoring that functionality is a goal for Begin 3. Begin reportedly appeared in Audyssey Magazine [28] at one point, but being a publication for the blind it's not a high priority for most libraries. Robin Moshe (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a classic and notable Star Trek game. Even the nom does not want to delete the article. The nom has nominated this article for a merge. Why is this an AfD? Let's bring this AfD to a speedy end (keep), and move the merge discussion to the talk page.Varbas (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my mistake, from merge to outright delete. Alastairward (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, regardless of what the nominator says, it doesn't qualify for speedy keep now because other editors have expressed opinions for deleting the article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:45, 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive VCR Board Game - A Klingon Challenge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject. ~~It might benefit from trimming the long explanation of the mechanics of the game and merging into a general list of Star Trek games.~~ Alastairward (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a classic and notable Star Trek game. Even the nom does not want to delete the article. The nom has nominated this article for a merge. Why is this an AfD? Let's bring this AfD to a speedy end (keep), and move the merge discussion to the talk page. Varbas (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it scrubbed, I'll nominate it again if that technicality is a problem. If it's notable, why not cite that? Alastairward (talk) 07:50, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion besides the nominator. The issue of merging can be bought up on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (text game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject. It might benefit from trimming the long explanation of the mechanics of the game and merging into a general list of Star Trek games. Alastairward (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while reliable sources covering the subject appear somewhat sparse, it seems to have been covered by Gamespot and Kotaku. (Also, I would like to point out that since this is Articles for Deletion, only articles you want deleted should be brought here - for articles you feel would benefit from a merger, this template should be used instead.--Unscented (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, looking back, I should have just said delete no merge. Hope that's noted for the record. Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you read the Super Star Trek AfD, where I detailed the sources I had found for this article and my intention to improve it? --Kiz o r 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that sources are needed to cite specific facts about the game, but deleting the article simply because of a lack of citations is extreme. Star Trek (or "Trek") is an important early computer game that was ported to countless different computer platforms during the 1970s (and afterward). Bumm13 (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This game shipped with every early IBM PC, many home computers, was the key draw in the best selling BASIC Computer Games by Ahl, ported to many modern platforms, and was played by millions of people in "the old days". The article clearly passes both the notability test, and especially the google test - it returns over 1 million hits, about 25% of the first several pages are proper hits on this topic. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "google test" and why aren't you trying to cite anything you're saying above? Alastairward (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the note on my talk page brought my attention to the fact that you seem to be using your own fan site to cite the article, not terribly impressive. Alastairward (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[No, he hasn't]. Left a message on your talk page. --Kiz o r 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity and transparency, I added Maury's page as an external link back on Oct. 6, 2004. Bumm13 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep video games : early generation of video games, clearly had influence on game creators and the genre itself. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important program in the early history of computer games, as shown by the Gamespot and Gamespy articles linked in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Shown where? The only two reliable sources for the game show that it existed and not much else. Alastairward (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here, for starters. Then again, you'd know that if you'd looked carefully at the references in the article before nominating. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I read them before I made that comment and it still stands. The articles mention that the game exists, nothing more. I'm getting tired of emotive and untrue arguments being thrown about by the keep camp here. Alastairward (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Untrue"? The articles do mention more than just the fact that the game exists - most of them go into some detail about the gameplay and its status as the first game based on Star Trek. As I said, reliable sources do seem a bit scarce, but they are out there, as has been demonstrated, and their coverage can probably be considered more than trivial.--Unscented (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover:

passing mention in Proceedings of the IEEE, part of a book review

passing mention in PC tech journal, ditto

mention in Kilobaud, which calls it one of two "all time favorites"

more in-depth discussion of the game in The Information Age

Byte Magazine calls it "a classic"

IBM PC public domain software has a source listing (so it's not just Ahl's book)

Also worth mentioning that the book that popularized the game, and sold largely on its basis, was the first million-selling computer book in history. Additionally, David Gerrold was contacted by Ahl to see if they could use the name, and not only did he grant it (note in Games), but went on to be quoted in subsequent advertising.

I believe we have covered any possible definition of "significant". As I noted elsewhere, this game falls into that critical "black hole" of PC history where very little about the industry was being written down at all. The fact that there are so many mentions at the time, as well as detailed ones written decades later, is ample evidence of NOT by either Wikipedia or common sense definitions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Trek games or something similar—while some of the references cited by the article seem dubious, the sources cited above show some real-world coverage; however, I doubt what currently exists can constitute much of an article, especially with the current version's game guide content and unverified list of ports. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Things don't seem quite that bad. As far as I can tell, "gameguide" is explicitly about instructions, hints and tips, not descriptive statements of the gameplay mechanics. Otherwise, we'd be hard pressed to do the latter at all. One of the more peripheral ones of the sources I mentioned is a 1970s Creative Computing page that advertises nine different ports of Star Trek, one of which is on punch cards, and there are archives of the ports floating around the Internet as primary sources. --Kiz o r 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be cut down a bit, at least; it probably doesn't need all those headings. The list below is the big problem, though. Do we really need that? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:19, 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. Sandstein 06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netrek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Netrek

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject. ~~It might benefit from trimming the long explanation of the mechanics of the game and merging into a general list of Star Trek games.~~ Alastairward (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify and migrate to List of text-based Star Trek games. Makes a dubious claim of notability that might be subsantiable. --EEMIV (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - If there isn't the manpower/interest to create a List of text-based Star Trek games -- or if such a list wouldn't be an appropriate target for this article to be stubbified and merged into -- I'd be happy with its deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given GameSpot and Wired articles below, merge-to X or retention seems appropriate. Either way, needs to stubbified to get rid of gameguide dreckcruft. --EEMIV (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Netrek and Star Trek are very different games. Putting them in the same article would confuse matters. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Star Trek (text game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs)
Comment reading the article shows that it has provided claims of notability. Netrek was the probably the third Internet game, the first Internet team game, and is the oldest Internet game still actively played (as of 2008). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I said notability had not been established, which is entirely different to claiming it. Any cites? Alastairward (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, widely played by thousands of users at universities all over the world, widely distributed in Unix libraries to this day, widely referenced both in print and on the 'net. Notability can be trivially established in Google Books, for instance. Alastairward's apparent lack of even the tiniest amount of effort in checking his AfDs gives me cause for concern. Just as silence cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, bad referencing cannot be used as a statement on notability. Please stop wasting all of our time with these frivolous AfDs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the burden is on those who edited wikipedia to add material to this article, not me. Alastairward (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is the burden on you to not waste people's time - I'm here to add content, not argue about it. This AfD, and the series of related ones you filed, are a waste of time. In the interest of avoiding this in the future, let me explain why that is the case.

On the wiki, "notability" is generally synonymous with "does really exist". We didn't create the guidelines to eliminate every article that isn't properly referenced, we made it to help remove articles on self-published BS topics. It is similar in concept to SPS or other tools - these aren't systems that lead to an AfD for everything that doesn't match one of the thousands of rules on the wiki (or there would be nothing left), they are systems that you can use as a tool when trying to delete articles that are clearly bogus. If someone writes an article about his neighbor's kid's garage band, that's when you might want to pull NOT out of your holster. That would be an example of "clearly bogus", an article that does not add to the sum of human knowledge.

The "does really exist" can be demonstrated in any number of ways, and that's why the google test can be used to establish notability. Since this topic clearly passes the google test, notability is established. That's pretty much end-of-story for this case. But I encourage you to be sure you truly understand the spirit of the notability guidelines, not just the letter, before spamming the AfD with every article that isn't reffed. Use your common sense, that's why we have it.Maury Markowitz (talk)

"waste people's time"? There's no obligation to edit, you know. If you don't want to participate in an AfD, don't. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "google test"? Are we meant to award notability on the basis of number of hits? Alastairward (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MM, the notion that "notability" is generally synonymous with "does really exist" is a specious conflation of WP:GNG with WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the policies and guidelines very much do define the exclusion of unreferenced content, hence WP:NOR, which states "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Articles have to show siginificant real-world context via independent sources; mere search results of any kind are neither "directly related" to the subject nor verifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

netrek.org clearly matches both of those criterion. But why are you talking about NOR now? Are you really sure you understand the wikilawyering you're quoting at me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

netrek.org is the official site and therefore a primary source, which means it doesn't establish notability; this is entirely what WP:IS is about. The fundamental issue is, this article needs reliable sources, and I'm failing to see where a single one is. Without sources, articles get deleted; this is why we have policies on inclusion, not exclusion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So first it was NOT, then it was NOR, and now it's IR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all of those things apparently! It's the primary source, of course it will tout it's own notability. We need an independent, verifiable source. Why not provide some? Alastairward (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will several hundred do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; merely being a book or a search result does not make something useful as a reliable source. We cannot cite a Google results page due to verifiability, and therefore we cannot use them to verify notability, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflicting the form of the results with the results themselves. This game is mentioned in hundreds of different real-world sources. All of them meet NOT, V and RS. I have said my bit, repeatedly, and I am leaving it to the seven-day limit to close this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have been verified; merely saying "I think all these books can be used as reliable sources" does nothing to show how they are reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'll let my co-admins pass judgement on the veracity of that statement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like that make me question why the hell you're an admin. "haha, your argument is obviously untrue" isn't a very mature way to respond to things, last time I checked. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at some of the Google Books results. While they verify the existence of the game, none that I saw present (or could be used to substantiate) a claim of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability", and "Substantial coverage... constitutes... evidence of notability". It is very existence of mentions in secondary sources is what defines NOT. GNG states that if you meet V more than once, then there is a presumption of NOT. You appear to be stating your agreement that these sources do indeed meet V more than once, so that would imply meeting NOT. Perhaps I misunderstand your concern? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the disconnect is in my notion of verifiability -- for me, it simply means, there's evidence this isn't a hoax; it exists. The second sentence of WP:NRVE calls for substantial coverage, and the significant coverage called for in the preceding section makes clear the cited reliable sources discuss the topic in detail. The point of my previous post is that none of the Google Books sources I looked at go into the topic in detail; they merely verify that, "Yes, this game exists". --EEMIV (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should have added this Wired article and this Gamespot one seem to cover that definition as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should be fixed with proper references added as necessary. If anyone finds this link useful, they're a bunch of old bookmarks I had on the subject when I ran a netrek server and was working on client enhancements. Includes a link to a project at MIT involving Netrek as well: http://mmondor.pulsar-zone.net/netrek_bookmarks.html. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some cleaning up on the article, removed all the gameplay-related trash. --Collinp6 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And restored. I was in the midst of major edits. May I assume from the thread you are the former 66.11.179.30? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no Wikipedia account and have not modified the article yet. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I think I'm done with it for now, so go nuts. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al Shoaibi[edit]

The player may exist, but There is no reliable source as reference. Matthew_hk t c 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player does exist - as seen by a number of Google hits - but they all talk about his supposed 'death,' and few if any are reliable. Either way, I don't think he played at a notable level, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, seems to fail WP:V as well, since we don't even know for sure whether this guy is alive or has passed on! John Sloan @ 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:ONEEVENT, All coverage seems to be about his theatrics in this one case, and most coverage is blog-space or forum posts discussing the video, or wikiscrapes. fails WP:ATHLETE never played notably or professionally. WP:RS--ClubOranje^T 12:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Weaver[edit]

Unnotable voice actress in the English dubs of a small handful of anime series, primarily minor parts. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Failed PROD with prod removed with reason of "source added" however source was only IMDB which is not a reliable source nor does it establish actual notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable voice actor. One of the external links was to a musician by the same name, I think the two are being confused. The musician also does not seem to be notable. Fences and windows (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't say IMDB is completely unreliable, but her entry there doesn't even establish notability, so it's moot anyhow. Hairhorn (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing any of the various applicable notability requirements. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as we already kept articles for other voice actors, my reasoning is forever the same. This singer and voice actor has worked on five notable(see the blue links) series. Dream Focus 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is by no means a guideline, inclusion is not an indicator of notability; as Wikipedia is always work in progress each role needs to be examined individually. By WP:ENTERTAINER she not only needs to be credited in notable works, but to have played a significant role in those works. I'm holding off on an opinion until Varbas has been given enough time to back up his argument. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not met, sorry. Tavix | Talk 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- these are all insignificant per WP:ENTERTAINER. DreamGuy (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saved this from speedy on the grounds that there was some indication that she may be notable (which is enough to save it from speedy) but having looked closer it would appear she doesn't meet notabality guidelines so delete. Dpmuk (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:CREATIVE. She is a significant voice actor, most notably for her voice acting contribution for the well-known character Renée Roberts. Varbas (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So she voiced a character in the English version of an anime series. Any sources to show notability? Fences and windows (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known"? source please. The Mew Mew Power English adaptation of Tokyo Mew Mew didn't even finish airing. Only half the series was dubbed and released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt pass WP:CREATIVE bar in any sense. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Armstrong[edit]

Two sources - both campus newspapers. Google shows blogs, YouTube, and more campus newspapers. Doesn't meet notability standards. Rklawton (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Associated Press is not a "campus newspaper," but [their article about Armstrong said he "holds a near mythic status on college campuses across the eastern United States." This controversial preacher has had widespread coverage in newspapers from many states over a period of several years. Campus newspapers report events on college campuses, and are in no way inherently unreliable.They generally have independent editorial boards which control the published content, and are in no way less reliable as sources than newspapers in small towns of comparable size. Here is a story about Armstrong from one such paper at a Georgia college: [29]. Here is one from a Florida college, which was carried by a news wire service: [30]. See Google News archive, [31] which has coverage from November 2006, January, March and October 2007, September 2008, and February 2009, in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina. Satisfies notability by substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Covers several years in several states, so not subject to WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is known by universities all around the US. Just because no one's made a dedicated effort to improve the article does not mean it isn't notable. -Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Stratford[edit]

Article is about a physical training instructor that does not meet guidelines for notability. Citations in the article do not establish it. My own search for referencing information turned up nothing to support notability either. Whpq (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little evidence for any notability. The brief mention in Men's Fitness is the only coverage. Working with an Arctic expedition and with the Ultimate Boot Camp is not enough to sway me. Fences and windows (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wasn't able to find any secondary coverage of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 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 redirect to Songs from the Sparkle Lounge. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Lives (Def Leppard song)[edit]

Song didn't chart, and I can't find any third party sources that give any specific information on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Songs from the Sparkle Lounge. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering doing that, but almost every time I redirect a song it gets undone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, that happens to me all the time as well. Tavix | Talk 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Article can only cite release dates and where the song is available, and is unlikely to rise much higher than stub-hood.Nostrildamus (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure about notability yet but the title is plasusible search term and perfectly appropriate per WP:DAB so no reason to delete on that basis. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 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 redirect to Ogg. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogg Media[edit]

This article describes a non-notable file format. "OGM" was initially developed to fill the gap left by the lack of a formal specification for video in the Ogg transport. Video was later formally specified, but in different and incompatible ways from OGM. The OGM format never saw widespread adoption, never achieved a formal specification, and is not longer developed or supported. The more widely used encapsulation modes for Ogg are simply described in the article about Ogg and in the articles about the relevant codecs. Some people confuse these formally specified mechanisms (i.e. files with ogg and ogv extensions) with OGM, but they are distinct and incompatible[32]. This article fails to assert notability for the OGM format much less provide verifiable evidence of it. There is no citation to reliable sources, nor would I expect to find one. Accordingly, this page should be deleted. Gmaxwell (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think merge would be better, as a footnote to the story of notable file types. Hairhorn (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now suitably 'footnoted', but there really wasn't anything to merge that wouldn't have resulted in far too much text for a balanced treatment. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, by merge I think I meant cut out the fat, then merge. If the essence of it is already there, I'm happy to say delete. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep becuse WP:NOTPAPER. I found the page via a search for "OGM". In any case, there should be a merge+redirect if this is deleted. --85.77.198.128 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anecdotally, I've seen a whole lotta files using ".ogm", so I don't think describing it as non-notable is reasonable. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Ogg - The notability guideline requires that this subject have significant coverage from reliable sources. Turning to Google News shows plenty of reliable sources that mention this file format, but little in the way of significant coverage. Nearest I can see is How to play OGM files at afterdawn.com. There's enough source material here to write about it in a broader article. I'd suggest writing the material from scratch. Marasmusine (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge into Ogg. While it is an extremely popular media container [33], Ogg Media is only an unofficial modification of the original OGG format. It didn't pass through a single standards organization and doesn't have any formal specifications that can be used as a reliable reference. Considering the origins of the format, I suggest we move all relevant information into a subsection of Ogg, with an explicit mention of the lack of recognition from the Xiph.Org Foundation.

Relevant search results and possible references:

http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/ogm.cfm

http://filext.com/file-extension/OGM

http://standards.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/OGG.phtml

http://www.xiph.org/container/ogm.html — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johno Wells[edit]

Non-Notable individual. Fails WP:BIO. No GNews hits for individual. A few Ghits, but nothing to support Notability. Films noted have very limited web entries. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's dabbled in a few things, and has just shot his first feature film. No coverage, barely any Google hits. Fences and windows (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling bio with trivia. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see how he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:45, 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... 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Orchestra[edit]

This was PRODed, but I felt it was borderline and deserved discussion. The group does seem to have attracted some interest (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Video+Game+Orchestra%22&cf=all), in particular a full article in the Boston Herald & a blurb in the Boston Globe, as full as full write-ups in several lesser known sources. Some additional coverage can be found in a regular google search: (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Video+Game+Orchestra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Is this enough? I'm not quite sure & so I am sending it here. I'm neutral for now. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't nominate something if you don't believe it should be deleted. Use the talk page if you just want to talk about it. And the news sources you mention existing have convinced me it should be kept. Dream Focus 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well it was already nominated for deletion via WP:PROD I just "downgraded" it to AfD as it was an unclear case, not an obvious delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are some reports that it exists, lots of trivial mentions simply stating that they are playing somewhere, which are basically reprints of press releases (not independent). The Boston Globe article is about the only clear demonstration of notability, but to get a full Wikipedia article instead of merely being mentioned in some other more appropriate article briefly you need MULTIPLE, nontrivial, reliable sources demonstrating notability strong enough for an article. This doesn't make it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. A single article just isn't enough to meat the requirements for significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (as in more than one), and that one article is still from a local media outlet. I imagine they would be fun to listen to, but that just doesn't make this student group notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For sake of clarity, there isn't only 1 full article about the group, if there was I would have considered it having any chance to be notable. There is one well-known source - the Boston Globe - but also several lesser sources that could be considered reliable which gave full write-ups: Interview by Bostonist, Sampan, a bilingual newspaper, Square Enix, The Tech (MIT paper), The Crimson (Hardvard paper), and a write-up in a Malaysian paper about two group members, but in the context of the groups activity. None of these by themselves adds much, but together I think they come pretty close - which is why I'm on the fence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Harvard Crimson and The Tech (newspaper) are campus newspapers but they appear to be notable and reliable. The Star (Malaysia) is a national newspaper, apparently the largest English language one in Malaysia. Together with the Boston Herald article I can't access, I reckon there's enough multiple, non-trivial coverage from independent, reliable sources. So keep. --Bardin (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bizarre that you should nominate on the same day this article appears in Voice of America. VoA looks like a reliable source to me, sitting on the other side of the pond. I think that the two sources from this Past Month Gnews search (B.Globe & VoA), along with the Malaysian one, create sufficient notability, and the others should allow sufficient expansion of the article. Also interesting is that the VoA article only appears in the Past Month Gnews search and not All Dates. Bigger digger (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read the VoA article, not as brilliant as I've suggested above, but with the others I believe there is sufficient notability. Bigger digger (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, articles in the last month never appear under all dates as far as I've seen. I am definitely leaning keep with this new article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, rushed this !vote a bit. I believe WP:BAND applies (it states orchestra) and the sources gathered pass it through criteria 1. Also, I believe this does pass WP:ORG through a combination of local, regional, national and international coverage. Bigger digger (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. It's news wherever this group goes. Powers ^T 13:05, 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 redirect to Loa (disambiguation). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loas[edit]

There are no active articles to link to on this disambiguation page, hence no need for the page to exist. The two entries that currently exist are spammy and have no directly related articles to link to for additional pertinent information. The second portion of the page is a list of links that already exist on the Loa disambiguation page. ponyo (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loa (disambiguation) for convenience. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Explodcicle, not a needed dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Explodcicle and the ottertastic TPH. I expected a list of scary Caribbean deities. This is a DAB page, and should be named as such. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, and add Laos to the "See also" section of the Loa dab, for readers who misspelled that in their search. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Stop Feeling[edit]

Unreleased single, fails WP:NSONGS. ((prod)) contested. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Recreate if necessary once released. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, song hasn't charted. And you really don't need to do a "delete as nominator", that's already implied by your completion of the nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - heh! It's really pour encourager les autres - it really irks me when I see the haphazard ways people !vote. I figure if I start it off it provides a template for later !voters. But point taken! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you pouring on my otters? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Encourager. It's like a soft, French, version of a clue-bat ;-) Approved by PETA as safe for use on otters. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - L'enfer c'est les autres. Oh, also, delete, non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I should have taken French at skool. Oh, and delete too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zut alors!...er, delete ca plane por moi...Eddie.willers (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Oregon Files. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon (fictional ship)[edit]

Fictional topic lacking reliable real-world sources to establish notability. Per WP:FICT, WP:NB#Derivative_articles. tedder (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even CSD for lack of context. --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined (see page history), and prod was removed. That's why it's in AFD now. tedder (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of content. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pause debate, or keep/merge the page was started 2 days ago; the primary editor working on it has stated their intent to add more & improve the material. it's not very good right now, but it won't kill us to give him more than 2 days to create the article. the editor is literally brand new on wikipedia, & their first 3 interactions with more experienced editors have been: CSD (failed to pass csd), PROD, & now AFD. i'd like to cite the relevant WP about don't bite the new users. what about making a userpage for them to keep it on, while they work? Lx 121 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userifying would be a great idea. tedder (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel for the editor too, but even if the article was perfectly written it should be deleted and a new article written about the book series the fictional ship appears in. In that article the ship can be described as much as needed. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ship had many notable characteristics and is a crucial part of the novels. These books are successful enough so that a significant fictional element found in multiple books in the series, is notable. Dream Focus 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the information on the ship has to be in the article on the novel series. No need for it to have its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Notability is not inherited, it must be independently established per topic, and this one fails on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please give me a chane to fix up this page and i hope i won't disappoint you (Gloryify (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Even if this article is deleted you are still welcome to edit the other articles on the series.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information can easily fit in the main article. I suggest the author do this instead of trying to keep it as a separate article, it will be more likely to be productive. DGG (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NB#Derivative_articles ... The information would fit better at The Oregon Files#The Oregon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per Barek above. Seems like a textbook case of what not to do, per WP:NB#Derivative_articles - Special-T (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Oregon Files. Actually, it pretty much is already merged with that article, so I'm not sure why this exists in the first place... Zivlok (talk) 19:48, 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 delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadavrul[edit]

No independent, non-blog, non-Myspace sources appear to establish any sort of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, and no potential for further improvement. Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An initial Google search makes the band appear to be notable, but all the supposed independent sources are really just links to the band's MySpace profile. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adding Păpuşel to the nomination, as the lead singer of the band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I hadn't noticed that one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's not notable. Also Forensic Nightmares, their demo EP. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone read Romanian? Dlohcierekim 13:09, 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 snowball keep (non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Harvard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:NOT#NEWS; notable only for a single event Boywithearmalformationsniffinghand (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont see why the article should be closed. The girl is a former internet celebrity, a runner up on a major television show, (as well as seemingly being one of the most popular contestants) and a model who has already recieved offers of a contract within days of the programme ending. Furthermore, the article is well written, and has sources for essentially everything in it. I think there are thousands of articles that should be deleted before this one.
Keep - her "internet celeb status" is somewhat debatable, but she's definitely received MAJOR national attention via ANTM, and people are looking for a reliable information source about her (which this page is) --Jamiew (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above, she was a previous internet "celebrity" of sorts before she even appeared on America's Next Top Model as a contestant. ExRat (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the runner up on ANTM. All runner ups have a wiki page. The internet celeb part can maybe be merged into early life or Pre-ANTM. I DONT think it should be deleted.

LuvLei (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should we be linking to her personal social networking sites, and relying on sources like these:[34][35][36][37]? No. Her "internet fame" was because kids on 4chan found her photos; that's not notable, and it's not sourced. I'm removing all the cruft. Once that is done, all that is left is her appearing on America's Next Top Model, and that's BLP1E. Fences and windows (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst you might find it irrelevant, its still importany to mention to some degree. It may not be as important as her stint on Top Model, but ultimately it is still worth mentioning, especially considering it was a few years before Top Model. If the pictures had emereged now, then fair enough, but people knew of her before she was on a major show.
Keep. Please see the recently resolved AFD for contestant Celia Ammerman, which ended in a keep result, for relevant arguments and, in particular, why this article does not fit the WP:NOT#NEWS criteria. In fact, if anything, Alison Harvard seems to be more relevant than Ammerman, it's just a matter of her article needing improvement, and to be reinforced with more reliable sources. Since there is no deadline, the article should not be deleted for this reason; the article should be allowed to be improved at its own pace. (In fact, I was approached before this AFD to help improve the article and I agreed to do so. Given that there's already an active plan to improve the article in place, that's just another reason this article should not be deleted.) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 20:30, 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 a rather unanimous delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Football Diasporas By Country[edit]

Fails notability, poorly sourced and also a repeat of many other pages created by this user Spiderone (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; completely non-notable and indiscriminate list. Giant Snowman 12:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, indiscriminate, unsourced, unverifiable. --Angelo (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unuseful, and what "diaspora" means here is anyone's guess. Under "Algeria" Matteo Ferrari is listed under Guinea and Italy--what does that even mean? He has an Italian father and a Guinean mother (by birth? nationality)--so, every soccer player born of parents (one or both?) of different nationalities than the player's, or every soccer player who grows up in a different country from where they were born, or every soccer player whose parents have emigrated should be on this list? It's worse than trivia, because trivia often at least explains what is being stated. This list does not even do that. And if it did, it would probably be listcruft. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awful list that fails WP:V and WP:N. John Sloan @ 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the scope of the article is nowhere defined, and not a encyclopedic content. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually don't touch sports AfDs because I can't judge notability at all. But this article just seems pointless. Hairhorn (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with "pointless" comments. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not just original research, but badly done original research. Tony Meola is a castoff from Italy? He's a native of New Jersey! Overlooking the odd use of the word "diaspora" to describe a person, it looks like the intent was to show where the players from each nation "went to". The problem is the assumption that everyone with a German ancestor is someone who went to somewhere else "from Germany", or, as in Meola's case, that if you've got an Italian name, you're a citizen of Italia. This is even worse than the "multiracial teams" list that was nominated yesterday. One might as well say "this guy's a kraut, this guy's a wop, this guy's a Yank". Mandsford (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot figure out the criteria by which the entries on this list were determined. To take one example, the diaspora for Hawaii has two entries under it: for China, Brian Ching, and for the USA, Brian Ching again. This suggests to me that it is being claimed that Ching left the country of Hawaii to go and play for the Chinese and American soccer teams. However, Hawaii has not been an independent country since 80 years before Ching was born; Ching was born there as a U.S. citizen. He has played his entire soccer career for U.S. clubs and the U.S. national team -- the team of the country where he was born. He has never played for a Chinese club or a Chinese national team. Maybe the writer of this article knows what he meant by this, but he hasn't told the rest of us. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. What Angelo said. BTW, under the (I guess) determination of this list, you could add half of Category:New Zealand international footballers to England and Scotland sections--ClubOranje^T 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not well done. Punkmorten (talk) 17:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Turnage[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a non-notable bio, person is only known for one event. TN X Man 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's 5, he's a drummer, local news networks have air-time to fill. My niece's friend is 6, plays the guitar, but the news networks have more news than they can handle. If he makes national news recreate. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we can't have a Wikipedia page for everyone who features in local news stories, we would have every Mrs Richards knitting for charity and every Mr Jones whose house flooded etc.--Holkingers (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, used to fill a bit of airtime on a quiet news day, no doubt. If he forms a famous rock band when he gets older, then we can recreate, of course. Until then, he's just an "awww, cute!" curiosity. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mordor (band)[edit]

Discussion was never finished for some reason. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Formed in 1990, yet very few ghits and I can't find any indication of chart success. To be fair, it sounds like "funeral doom metal" is a genre largely confined to Switzerland. And I can't help thinking I'm !voting purely because I regard "Mordor" as unimaginative name (even if they did beat Exmortem to it). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspace band, no coverage, no albums released at all (let alone on notable labels). The name makes them tricky to search for, not just because of the Tolkien problem but because there are loads of other metal bands called Mordor, some of which may be notable. This lot however are not. Incidentally though, funeral doom is not solely, or even predominently, confined to Switzerland. There are plenty of Finnish bands out there, after all :) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see how they meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Oertel[edit]

Nom-professional athlete that won a college high jump championship. No further trace of him on google, except for social networking sites. Looking at the username of the creator I'm assuming this is self-promotion/vanity Passportguy (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Nothing beyond some minor activity in the high jump (an event I admire, respect, and enjoy watching). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This search yields only the Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Un-referenced success in non-notable (red-linked) athletics events. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wooden Staircase. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vidas Rasinskas[edit]

Non-notable. No hits in Google News. Article written by the subject and reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic bio. لenna vecia 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn promo bio. Also delete to his movie Wooden Staircase. Renata (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per "what Renata3 said". My first thought was "hey! This guy's produced a notable movie!" My second though was "hey! This guy has created two articles about non-notable subjects". One of which is himself. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wooden Staircase. There is a valid claim of notability for the film, but not for this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 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 List of Star Wars characters#S. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cade Skywalker[edit]

No assertion of notability or references to third-party sources. Wikiproject consensus is for characters like this to redirect to List of..., but tendentious editor continues to revert. --EEMIV (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge as per whatever the establish practice is on wikipedia for star wars character bios. hi; i'm the tendentious editor EMMIV is talking about in the above comment. we are having a problem with each other because EEMIV is in the habit of unilaterally blanking & redirecting minor articles. he posts a "justification" for this action on the articles talk pags at the same time that he blanks & redirects. my understanding of relevant WP is that it's considered bad form to make such major changes to an article without seeking concensus first. i've been undoing a few of his drastic edits & that makes me "tendentious". he has been re-doing them, & in the case of this article, he has used up his 3 reverts, so now he's prodding it. i really don't care whether the article is kept as is or merged. i work mainly on non-fiction; but i got into this stuff because: a) as an encyclopedia, the way we cover fictional subjects is a mess; inconsistent standards, often poorly written material, & poor organization. we desperately need to establish more consistent practices for how to treat this kind of material. if we can manage to do that, then how to deal with articles like this would be far more clear-cut; either we do bio articles on minor star wars characters, or we don't, or we lump them together in groups, or whatever. b) i disagree quite strongly with EEMIV's practice of unilaterally blanking & redirecting article pages. posting a comment on the talk page after you've done so is not adequate notice, nor does it reflect consensus. Lx 121 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...so, if Lx 121 is fine restoring the redirect, which is what the Star Wars wikiproject consensus is for minor characters like this one, I'm happy to withdraw the nom. and restore the redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars characters#S. No wider notability for this character. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Merella[edit]

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition; his sole appearance for a professional team (in the FA Cup) came against non-league opponents. Contested PROD; PROD removed with no rationale given. Giant Snowman 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays a professional game. If he does. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. John Sloan @ 20:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought making an FA Cup appearance for a team in a fully-professional league against a team that isn't, still qualified as a professional appearance and makes him notable? I'm certain I've seen articles pass AfD because of this. --Jimbo^[online] 08:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the basis of Jimbos comment above as I also thought the same as Jimbo? Merella played in the third round of the FA Cup, surely that is the deciding factor about notability and not the quality of opposition, which after all is simply down to the draw being made, which is pot luck. It was a professional game, both clubs are after all, full time.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tangerines. He played in a competitive first-team match for a club which plays in a fully professional league only one level below the Premier League, this seems OK to me. The fact that Blackpool came out of the hat to play a non-league team rather than Man United isn't his fault -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment omg, we're talking about a subject who played a handful of minutes in a FA Cup game against a Conference team only to be released days later that same month, and then entering into the great huge world of non-league amateur football. Which are the achievements that make him a notable subject? WP:ATHLETE mentions about fully professional level of a sport, and there is no full professionalism in a domestic cup game against a semi-pro club. A bit of common sense, come on... --Angelo (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Torquay United are far from semi-pro, although the league they played in this season wasn't fully-pro. --Jimbo^[online] 11:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the issue doesn't really change, since we're talking about a subject who played a handful of minutes in a match against a Conference National team before disappearing completely from professional football. And, according to what the article says, it seems like he is struggling even at such level (3 recorded non-league appearances in the infobox). --Angelo (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:ATHLETE with FA Cup appearance for team in second level of English football. Nfitz (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the team you're playing for matters, not the team you're playing against. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard J. Russell[edit]

This is an article for an obscure mayor of a town. It is only a few sentences long. It does not even have the mayor's date of birth. Unless it can be expanded, (which I doubt it can for someone so obscure), it should probably either merged, redirected, or deleted entirely. Bibbly Bob (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting properly, no opinion implied by me. Drawn Some (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he was mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts, albeit for only two years maximum (1984-85). I'm not convinced that this article can't be rescued, as Cambridge is a large town with two notable universities, so its mayor should be fairly notable? I'll hold off !voting for now, but I'm inclined towards keep and expand. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cambridge is not a town, but a city, with 100,000 population, the 5th largest in Mass. This is large enough to make the mayor a significant figure. There are sure to be newspaper sources, so its sourceable. DGG (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mayor of Cambridge is more like the President of Germany; the real executive powers (at least in 1980s) belong to City Manager and School Commissioner. Besides, two-year term and election by a narrow ring of city councilors mean that most mayors don't leave a truly lasting legacy. NVO (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. BTW, Harvard University grants Leonard J. Russell Scholarships to Cambridge, Mass. municipal employees. The man is not forgotten. NVO (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Boston Globe [38] appears to have basic coverage of his elections and tenure, but it's paid subscription. NVO (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC) - Never mind, found a free Harvard news site, FWIW. NVO (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, mayor of a notable city, and it seems likely, given the time period he served in, that there are additional sources not located on the Internet that deal with this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkin'[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable dance movement. This article existed previously—without independent sources—and was speedy deleted as "no evidence of notability, incomprehensible. seemingly a vandalism magnet." The article is back and cites no sources whatsoever. Unless independent coverage of the movement exists—and artists' Facebook and MySpace pages is not sufficient sourcing—it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "soon to be a national hype" - wake me up when it is. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was initially suspicious that this was a hoax/vandal article, but what I see from a Google search on some of the people "jerkin'" suggests that this is a legitimate neologism. Still, I can't find any reliable sources talking about the word or the phenomenon, so WP:NEO. eaolson (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, this is real; no, this is not a Wikipedia article. JuJube (talk) 15:27, 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 merge to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Grayson[edit]

Non-notable tertiary character. Recent "rewrite" of the article includes such winners as original research speculation that the character descending from Arthur Conan Doyle, trivia about Vulcan-human hybrids in Enterprise, unsubstantiated claims about the character's popularity. Don't be fooled by the list of "references" -- they verify casting information and plot, but also include a fan site and a wiki. There's no reason whatsoever for this article to exist, or for this topic to be covered beyond the confines of List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. (Editor undoing redirect has failed to address talk-page concerns, or even remove ((inuse)) for that matter -- generally seems ~~clueless about~~ unaware of WP:GNG, and I'm taking him up on suggestion to reach broader consensus through AfD.). --EEMIV (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually i left the "in-use" up because i was still working on the article. i've completed a first draft reworking of it & would welcome feedback on ways that it could be improved. Lx 121 (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge. Amanda Grayson deserves to be a bluelink; however, it should be a redirect to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. There isn't enough depth of coverage for the article to exist outside the list. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. As Fred notes, the effect would be that one would type in "Amanda Grayson" and be directed to the section of the characters article that applies to her, and add a link to the Star Trek wiki (Memory Alpha). That wiki is the place for an epic size article about a character who can be described in one sentence ("She was Spock's mother"). Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care, but since the established practice is to do bio articles about major trek characters, she qualifies, so keep EEMIV & i have been having a battle of wills over this one, which he fails to mention.

1. EEMIV blanked & redirected the page, which has been around for years, without discussing it first

2. after i restored it, he again blanked & redirected it

3. he cited "lack of references" as a reason for his actions

4. after i added references, he is now proding the article

User EEMIV has a track record on unilaterally blanking & redirecting pages on minor subjects, that's borderline vandalism.

getting back to subject; i'm not really that interested in trek, but as an encyclopedia, the practice on here is to allow bio articles for notable trek characters. amanda grayson meets the test of notability, & her notability in the context of the "trek universe" is increasing, therefore the character should have a bio-page.

granted the article is crap & needs to be re-written, most of the trek bios are crap, but they do meet the acid test of notability.

here are some stats that might be worth considering

views of the amanda grayson article in april 2009

13068

article views in may (as of may 19)

36889

http://stats.grok.se/

the surge is presumably due to the film, but more than 10000 people are looking for this information, in a given month. that means the article is serving a useful purpose. it also means the subject is notable enough for people to be reseaching it on wikipedia.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of that particularly matters -- including viewer stats, or whether it's useful. The character's appearance in the movie is...one more appearance; assertions that her is increasing are unsubstantiated. While Grayson may be significant within Star Trek as the source of Spock's human heritage, this does not equate to notability. There is no indication anyone has cared enough about the character to offer a real-world treatment beyond identifying the actors who've played her. Furthermore, it doesn't even translate to the assertion that it is a "major character" -- with four? five? appearances (depending on whether you count five-second birth scenes, I guess), and at most a few dozen lines of dialogue, Amanda really doesn't play a big role. As with Red matter (Star Trek), this seems to be a case of enthusiasm for something recently on folks' radar -- but that's insufficient grounds for inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. you didn't check the imdb references. 2. i've done a first draft reworking of the article, to make it more encyclopedic, it's still very much a work in progress & i could use help, as i'm not really that "into" star trek. anyone who wants to contribute would be welcome to do so. 3. i do admire your endless ability to churn out WP! i've lost count of how many WP's you have cited in our extended exchanhe onthis subject. personally, my favourite Wp is Break The Rules! Lx 121 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The character is important, not only because of the movies and episodes she appears in, but because she and her husband have quite a following in ST fanbase (lots of fanfiction, etc.) The information about her needs to be kept anyway, the question is whether it needs a separate article or has to be merged in a Star Trek characters article. In my experience in Wikipedia whether something qualifies for its own article doesn't depend on the subject's significance in its given subculture, it has to do mainly with the volume of text -- if more than a few paragraphs can be written about it, it deserves its own article. (As for recentism, please note that the article is over five years old.) – Alensha ^talk 14:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite in progress, could use help/opinions/people who know more about trek than i do Lx 121 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A re-write is certainly necessary, but with the recent movie, and with Winona Ryder playing the part, notability and verifiability standards have been met. Like I said, needs re-written from an out of universe perspective, but that requires work, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. No significant notability established beyond the character's inclusion in the Star Trek franchise. Many paragraphs could be written about minor or occasionally recurring character in the franchise, but we'll leave that to the denizens of Memory Alpha. If a write up could be done on the character as has been performed on the articles for the major character from the franchise (Kirk, Spock and McCoy spring to mind, then I might change my mind. Alastairward (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There appears to be enough notability to keep material related to the character, especially since there is a new movie in which the character is portrayed by a very famous actor; but it looks like the consistent pattern with other Star Trek characters is to merge them into lists, unless they are absolutely the most major notable high-profile characters of all the series/ movies/ stories. Grayson does not appear "big enough" to warrant her own article, but is obviously notable enough to need inclusion in a list. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~₄₁₁~ 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the appropriate amount of material. No reason to delete; no reason to nominate for deletion because we'd always have at least a redirect. DGG (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - ~~If Sarek stays separate, then this page should too. Otherwise, merge them both into List of Star Trek characters.~~ ~~She appears in two TV series (TOS and TAS) and in three films (TVH, TFF, and ST 2009). Certainly seems notable to me.~~ On second (third) though, there's really not much to the character except for "She's Spock's mom." -- Aatrek / _^TALK 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly opposed to also merging Sarek -- although, WP:OTHERSTUFF is kind of weak. Furthermore, Sarek had an entire episode of The Next Generation revolve around him. --EEMIV (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with EEMIV on both points: this debate is only about Amanda's article, not Sarek's, and there is enough additional material to cover with Sarek to warrant a separate article for him. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right; I've updated my rationale.-- Aatrek / _^TALK 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. I have flagged the article with the ((Merge)) template and invited interest editors of the article to comment on the merger here, in the aim of centralizing discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding a merge: All the appropriate, cited and non-trivial/speculative content in the Grayson article has been merged to that list. --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which case the appropriate action upon closing this AfD would seem to be changing the article into a redirect to the list. Preserving the history for attibution purposes and any value someone might find in the content. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - um, no you have an interesting idea of what constitutes "All the appropriate, cited and non-trivial/speculative content in the Grayson article", here is the complete text of the entry you wrote in that list:

Amanda Grayson (Memory Alpha article)

Jane Wyatt

Majel Barrett

Cynthia Blaise

Winona Ryder

Journey to Babel (TOS)

Yesteryear (TAS)

TVH

TFF

Star Trek (XI)

Spock's human mother, married to Sarek.[1] In one timeline, she dies at some point between the events in The Voyage Home and the Next Generation episode "Sarek".[1] As depicted in the 2009 Star Trek movie, she dies when Vulcan is destroyed. Grayson was first portrayed by Jane Wyatt, who appears in both "Journey to Babel" and The Voyage Home. Majel Barrett provided the voice of Amanda in the Star Trek animated series. Cynthia Blaise played her in The Final Frontier'. In the 2009 Star Trek, the role of Amanda Grayson was played by Winona Ryder.

you kind of left a WEE bit out; the article is 6.9k, with references which you didn't really bother to check, at least according to the conversations we've had elsewhere. you fail to mention that she turns up in the novels, repeatedly, didn't mention anything about any of the fanfiction. wikipedia doesn't just do "canon" you know. you also didn't do a very good job of differentiating & explaining the different timelines, nothing about her origins, didn't include links for spock or sarek, didnt really define the family relationships as clearly as you should have in a fiction piece, dropped the honourific from her name, neglected to explain what "the journey to babel" is, or provide a link. actually, in general you're assuming (too much!) that read reader knows quite a bit about trek; you neither explain the references you make, nor provide links for them.

i could picture your redaction of the article on "the bible" to an entry in a list of religious books: the bible, it's this book about god & various related subjects...

btw the amanada grayson article page on wikipedia is holding steady at an average of around 2000 views per day: http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Amanda%20Grayson

clearly there is nobody out there who's interested in finding this information on wikipedia...

Lx 121 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that we have different ideas of what constitutes trivia and what constitutes a citation. Most of the content in the "biography" section is uncited and trivial (and some of it is simple fan-drooling speculation). Ditto the pronouncability of her Vulcan name, or the fascinating history of where her surname comes from. Immaterial, irrelevant, and most importantly inconsequential when it comes to understanding the character's role. Beyond that: simply appearing in novels doesn't particularly matter; fan fiction is mere vanity that rarely warrants reference anywhere at Wikipedia. Spock and Sarek are, in fact, linked. The family relationship is succinct, but clear (without devolving into trivia about orders of monogamous spousal relationships). "Journey to Babel" remains linked in the appearances column, but I'll go link it (and all the other things that might be too confusing) in the blurb itself to make you happy. etc. etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; considering Amanda Grayson is such a minor character, her coverage at the List of characters is entirely appropriate, in keeping with her prominence within the franchise and the Wikiproject's general consensus about how much arcane trivia and plot summary is appropriate to maintain. For details beyond that, the List of... offers a handy link to the fanboy-friendly in-universe character write-up at Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G, as listed above. Perhaps an important character within the series, but not major enough in my mind to justify having a standalone article for. After all, that's what Memory Alpha is for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:00, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alchimie Forever[edit]

Contested prod - Beauty product line. Article has no explanation why this product is in anyway particular notable, i.e. more so than any of the other beauty products. The last sentence suggests that this is thinly veiled advertisement Passportguy (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional spam with no less than three different links included and use of first-person plural as it degenerates near the end. Drawn Some (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional tone is gone; article expansion with third party references to follow later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs considerable cleanup (which I plan to provide), but that is not a valid reason for deletion. This product line has received significant coverage in 3rd party sources (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Alchimie+Forever%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a). It has also appeared in virtually every major fashion magazine, often times with trivial coverage, often times with significant coverage. Additional, the product is quite popular as evidenced by 102K Google hits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. As cited above, Google News shows some significant third party coverage. Some of it seems press release material, or is trade-paper discussion of their business model with limited circulation and interest; but there is some genuinely neutral and objective mention, mostly in the context of a public-healthist scare about parabens. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Looks OK, kinda weak on the keep, and still feels spammy. Good job fixing it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even after cleanup the two references are the company's website. The subject of the article needs sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources and that hasn't been demonstrated. Press releases reprinted don't count. Nice job on the de-spamification though.Drawn Some (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just means we need to add the resources to the article. I checked the Goo link above, there's some good stuff there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: preliminary expansion is complete. I plan to do more more, in particular adding info + reviews about key products, but the current article should be good enough to meet Wikipedia standards anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this gets cleaned up to be less spammy, it still fails WP:CORP by a country mile. A mere 500,00 annual revenue and no significant third party coverage - such RS as have been adduced are incidental. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the article do you feel is still spammy?
CORP makes no mention of a revenue requirement. Even so, the figure is very out of date & I'm sure the company's revenue is much higher by now.
Which coverage do you think is trivial? Several sources used so far are entirely about the company and/or its products and there are several more that haven't even been used yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq–Latvia relations[edit]

Non-notable intersection of countries, with less than nothing to say about it. No non-trivial news mentions. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "with less than nothing to say about it". So I suppose Latvia's involvement with the Iraqi war (126 soldiers) is irrelevant. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly irrelevant to the topic of diplomatic relations between two countries that soldiers from one country happened to fight against non-government terrorists or subversives in another. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can the operational presence of one nation's troops in another nation possibly be irrelevant to their diplomatic relations? Let's use a bit of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move and/ or merge. The information on the Iraq war is good but it doesn't really say anything about diplomatic relations so either change the name or merge it into an article on the war or something. HJMitchell You rang? 12:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care for the "less than nothing" either; however, this probably could be mentioned in a Foreign relations of Latvia article, which would include the participation (and casualty information) from Latvia's participation in the occupation of Iraq. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third party coverage. [39]. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for scant content that is there, no coverage of actual article topic; Fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fighting a war, even in a minor role, is a very notable sort of foreign relations DGG (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON, to say "expand" is not a reason for how it addresses WP:N. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand how? Please do so; otherwise, it's not an argument, it's a declaration of faith. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As two members of a military alliance, and past combatants (Saddam regime) it seems notable. Some sources to strengthen this argument: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. A war is definitely notable enough. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added these sources as external links. They certainly show some involvement. Links do not make an article, but these suggest the content could easily be expanded. Then there would be no question of notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More empty boiler-plate. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the common sense that says that the operational presence of one country's troops in another demonstrates notability of the relationship between them. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They participated in a war against that nation. That is a notable relationship. Dream Focus 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one country having operational troops in another certainly indicates notability in my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Then that needs to be noted inside the existing articles.Knobbly (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources adress these "relations" in the requisite detail for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that Latvia had troops in Iraq is documented right over here; why duplicate content needlessly? Other than that, no relations to speak of. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content of article is already available at Foreign relations of Latvia and, as Biruitorul points out, at Multinational force in Iraq, so this article adds nothing new. On top of that, the topic itself--bilateral relations between Iraq and Latvia--does appear to qualify for a stand-alone article under the general notability guidelines. There are no reliable, independent sources cited in the article, and a few minutes searching didn't turn up on the google. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the presence of 150 latvian soldiers in the green zone was about US-Latvian relations, believe me. As you will see if you look, no reliable sources discuss this bilateral relationship in any dept at all. Coverage of a topic (in this case, the bilateral relationship between these two states) by reliable sources in a non-trivial fashion should be a minimum requirement for inclusion here. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates existing content and the bilateralism itself is trivial. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletionists vs. inclusionists battle aside, there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable intersection of countries. Neither country has a mission in the other. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's some substance here "greece+and+kyrgyzstan"&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&scoring=a (2008) Greece, Kyrgyzstan sign bilateral accords in air transports, tourism and diplomacy during Kyrgyz president Askayev's visit, although there is zero mention under the news search under "Greece and Kyrgyzstan" "kyrgyzstan+and+greece"&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&scoring=a. Although, normally, I don't count a visit between two Presidents as significant by itself, the variety of the agreements, and discussion of Kyrgyz troops training at Greek bases, indicates to me that the nations are working on a relationship, one of the factors that I think supports an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event and a handfull of agreements don't make for significance here. WP:NOTNEWS. No coverage of the topic as a whole is available. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS prohibits the creation of an article entitled "Bilateral agreements signed by Greece-Kyrgyzstan", it has nothing to do with incorporating verifiable information in an existing article. If you are going to quote policy, try and cite the actual text in the policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten us as to the functional difference between your hypothetical article title and this one at present? Either way, it's cruft, and there is no third-party coverage of the article title to be found here. As it is, you have a long habit of twisting any policy to suit your own meaning. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is just a subjective term, meaning "I don't like it". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet, through what appears to be magic, the information in the media that Google leads you to is a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Magic' appears to be the wrong word; the appropriate term would 'illusion', as in 'Google searchs give the illusion of references'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal bias, not mine. A reference, is a reference, is a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Norton, you need to read WP:RS so that you understand what a reliable source is. A Google search is not a reference by any stretch of the imagination. (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yet, through what appears to be magic, the information in the media that Google leads you to is a reference. (cut and pasted from above) For instance Google led me to the BBC that reported on the meeting. Google isn't the reference, the BBC is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete some coverage (mainly about the 2004 presidential visit) and quite minor agreements. I would consider changing vote if more evidence (than what Mandsford found) is discovered. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are 700 people of greek descent living in kyrgyzstan? What does that say about bilateral relations? Political figures from each country once met? What does that say about bilateral relations? There are no reliable sources yet found that could help establish this is a notable relationship in the encyclopedic sense, because none (all in the article are primary, but whatever) treat this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete lack of secondary sources that discuss the relationship as their subject, fails notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More random boiler-plate about a relationship that even the subjects themselves don't seem to care about, given their lack of missions. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks secondary sources to establish the notability of the topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bilateral relations articles have a strong presumption of notability, and the sources provided in the article and the additional ones available establish notability here. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no: many of them violate WP:GNG, and the ones that don't are trivia we'd never bother to mention outside this series of nonsense articles. State visits happen literally every week of every year, as do cooperation agreements, yet somehow we manage not to include this here or this here, but feel compelled, for some odd reason, to dump in trivia of a similar calibre here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well with 38,025 permutations of state visits, and one occurring "every week of the year" (52) it would require 731 years to complete a cycle. 52 visits a year doesn't seem like so big number that Wikipedia cannot handle it when part of an article on international relations. What goes on on Kyrgyzstan, may not be of interest to you, but Wikipedia isn't written only for you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreements between the two nations on air transports, tourism and diplomacy, as the article reads, is enough to warrant an article. Their leader flew over to another country, just to discuss and sign treaties for this. If the nations had no relationship, would he have bothered to visit? How many small nations have their ruler flying around visiting a lot of other nations, other than those somehow important to the relationship of their two countries? Dream Focus 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and since we have no secondary sources discussing this topic, neither do you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely - see WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS & WP:NOR - we can't ascribe importance to something not covered in secondary sources. And by the way, could we elevate our language here a little? "Their leader" is vague and childish; "the Kyrgyz President" or "Akayev" is precise and to the point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And every year there are heads of state that fly to places they want to visit independent of official duties. What's in Athens that any tourist might like to see? Well, quite a lot in relation to, say, Ulanbatar or Harare. But a head of state needs something to do after they've taken the private tour bus around, like sign a simple air traffic agreement to justify the expense to the state's budget. (Taivo (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your using Wikipedia:Original research as your rationale. That isn't a valid reason in Wikipedia. If the meeting and agreements were reported by the BBC, they thought it was important, even if it doesn't seem important to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are we going to endorse an article on every combination of X and Y in country relations? What is the lower limit on notability? Greece-X relations, where X is a neighbor (Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, etc.) or major country (US, UK, Russia, etc.) is a reasonable topic. What comes next? Greece-Fiji? Vanuatu-Gabon? Transnistria-Nauru? One meeting, one air traffic agreement, one photo op at a conference, adjoining seats at the U.N--these do not make noteworthy foreign relations. (Taivo (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources that discuss this relationship. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reaffirming my vote after the alleged "Substantial coverage of this bilateral relationship." I don't see it. One air travel agreement and one presidential visit does not substantial relationship make. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires "'significant coverage' which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." What details in the article do you believe are original research? The requirement for "substantial coverage" is your own requirement, not Wikipedia's. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your using the fallacy of the slippery slope as your rationale. That isn't a valid reason in Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references in the article right now; no general support for non-notable articles of this format, but this one article meets minimum inclusion thresholds as spelled out at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage of this bilateral relationship. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has undergone a massive improvement since nomination and since most of the deletes above. As Jayron32 correctly identifies, due to the substantial coverage of this bilateral relationship, any legitimate concerns have now been objectively met. Good job! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, clearly notable. There was not much there when nominated, but after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) did this expansion, but there certainly is now. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NOTAVOTE applies; the arguments in favor of retaining the article are stronger than those for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Uruguay relations[edit]

WP:NOTDIR, article has nothing more to say than X's embassy is in Y. Also no references whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I saw that combination, the first thing that came to mind was the Graf Spee, which is still being excavated from the harbor outside Montevideo. Clearly, Groubani had never heard of it; not sure whether the nominator is acquainted with it either. See also Battle of the River Plate. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to this but a directory listing of missions. A downed ship is hardly a basis for international relations. No coverage of the topic available. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always like to assume good faith, but did you click any of the external links in the article to see the wealth of information listed there. AFD requires some due diligence before nomination. You are are not nominating the article as is. You are are nominating this topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links are all government websites. Fails WP:RS. And I am endorsing the deletion of an article which fails to satisfactorily assert the notability, if any, of its stated topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of telling me it is in the Bible, cite me a chapter and verse. What specific policy prevents government websites from being used in Wikipedia as reliable sources? Every township article started as a dump of the census data from, shockingly, the US government website. It should also come as no surprise that the articles on National Parks all use the National Park Service as the source for the data in the infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS says, "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Hard facts like those found in article infoboxes are one thing, anything more open to subjective interpretation is quite another. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it talk about government websites being unreliable? It talks about caution in using "primary sources" which would be the signed trade accords themselves, or say, video of two dignitaries shaking hands without any commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much like your "almanac" argument, I suspect you will twist interpretations any way you see fit. You wanted policy, I quoted it. Don't like it? Get concensus to change it. Good luck. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess citing something not relevant is better than citing nothing at all. But, where does your citation talk about government websites being unreliable? Your citation talks about caution in using "primary sources", it doesn't ban the use of government websites as unreliable. If it did we would have to retract all census data as unreliable, and all the economic data generated by the CIA, the World Bank, and IMF, which is used in every article. In economics these big three are the most reliable sources. We would also have to delete every photo taken by a government employee used in Wikipedia. I can see where using primary documents may lead to original research if an editor used the meeting of two ministers mentioned in a government website to declare "relations are good" or "relations are bad" between two countries, and that is what the text you cite explicitly refers to. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to re-read that last sentence you wrote, many, many times because that's exactly what using a government website as a reference amounts to - a summary of the topic based on primary sources. Although, there's still nothing on the topic here to begin with. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard I agree with you that data from official sources are indeed reliable. as a side question, just wanted to know if you have ever voted delete for any of these bilateral AfDs? LibStar (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a strange question to ask someone. Many people don't vote delete unless they had time to do some research, and are absolutely certain there is a reason to. When it doubt, let it be. That's what I do. I don't think he goes to every single one of these things and just posts Keep without a reason either. Dream Focus 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you haven't been paying attention. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's an irrelevant question. Everyone is a volunteer, so chooses where to put in their effort. Some choose to put that effort into finding sources for articles that they think should be kept, and some concentrate on providing arguments why the unnotable ones should be deleted. For myself, I don't think I've given a "delete" opinion for any of these articles because the ones that I think should be deleted, such as the Comoros-Kosovo article that's up for deletion now, will get deleted quite happily without my input. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, in agreement with Mandsford's comments. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the old saw that notability never expires, I'd add that there's more to the story than "a downed ship". During the 1930s, Uruguay was probably Hitler's best friend in South America. Granted, there's a difference between what the article is and what the article could be, but this has more potential than most of that Groubani crap. Mandsford (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the historical relationship--see the first cited ref. DGG (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move info into an inline citation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there was a lot of media coverage around the time of Battle of the River Plate. [50]. recent relations are less significant now but in the context of the battle enough for an article. Also found that trade is significant from Uruguay's perspective Germany is the country’s principal trading partner in the EU. Germany ranks fifth overall among export countries LibStar (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. The article is underdeveloped, but there is a nontrivial history between the countries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article. Battle of La Plata has article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pages 331-337 of ISBN 9780836929935 are about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covering what period? The book is copyright 1942. How extensive were relations before that to warrant keeping with information added from that source? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you the link. Just follow it through to Google Books and you can check for yourself. Encyclopedias don't only cover events from the last few years. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee and Battle of the River Plate have their own articles; why duplicate content in inferior form here, just to satisfy some claim of an "Uruguay-Germany relationship"? (And in any case, these were far more a function of UK-Germany relations than of Uruguay-Germany relations.) Of course, the German government source can't be used because it breaches WP:PSTS. And Richard, have you ever read WP:LAYOUT? Note: "Very short [or very long] sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow... The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."
Now, I fully agree Uruguay in World War II is a notable topic. So how about, instead of covering it in this dreadful "bilateral relations" venue, we do so at History of Uruguay (which as of now skips over from 1930 to 1950) or eventually at Uruguay in World War II? Because, you know, instead of forking what Uruguay and Germany were doing and what Uruguay and the US were doing (two inextricably linked topics), this format forces us to split up the content and lose any contextual relevance it might have had. But of course that'd be asking too much: thinking about structure and how articles fit in with one another is always less important than "rescuing" this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, lets delete first, then add the information to an imaginary article. It doesn't seem like a smart strategy to me personally. No rule says info can appear in only one article in Wikipedia. We have hundreds of articles that duplicate information on whoever the current president of the US is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that entirely misses the point. The key is this: structuring the relevant information (about Uruguay in the pre-war and wartime period, let's say 1935-45) is far better done in one article that incorporates its positions vis-à-vis Germany and the United States (and the UK, and France, and Japan, if relevant). Splitting that up robs the topic of its contextual relevance and forces the information into a venue where it loses most of its meaning. And please, enough of these silly straw men. This article is not imaginary because some guy decided to mass-produce it, and Uruguay in World War II takes about two clicks to start. But it's far easier to "rescue" irrelevant stuff with more irrelevancies, than actually thinking about how to fit this material more properly into our existing structures. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is so much information in the article now, how can anyone doubt its notability? Dream Focus 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite the point - the point is about structure and presentation; as I argued, it would serve us far better to structure this information so that it has contextual relevance, something glaringly lacking at present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one have to be deleted to create another? I don't see the connection. It has to be the oddest rationale I have seen for deletion, and I have seen a lot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because again, it makes far more sense to talk about Uruguay in World War II (the salient feature of relations with Germany) in that context, not in this one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has expanded since nomination 1 and sources have been added. Uruguay's history is a neglected topic in this encyclopedia and expansion is welcome. --J^mundo 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claims of "systemic bias!" ought not override concerns about structuring information in logical fashion. Uruguay in World War II is indeed a notable and neglected topic. But how about, instead of covering it in this dreadful "bilateral relations" venue, we do so at History of Uruguay (which as of now skips over from 1930 to 1950) or eventually at Uruguay in World War II? Instead of forking into isolation what Uruguay and Germany were doing and what Uruguay and the US were doing (two inextricably linked topics), through this format that forces us to split up the content and lose any contextual relevance it might have had, why not cover the topic in unified, logical fashion? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This article has come a long way since it was nominated for AfD, but I still don't see any evidence that the topic of Germany-Uruguay relations meets threshold of WP:N, namely that it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". If no one is writing about this subject in detail, we shouldn't be either. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Which facts in the article are original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article. For example WWII naval battles should contain all the notable information required. Knobbly (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your argument is called "The slippery slope", and is not a valid argument. Wikipedia recognizes "notability" and "verifiability" as its pillars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to hear a new voice in the argument, whether its for a keep or a delete. Don't worry, no precedent will be set regardless of how this particular debate comes out. By way of background for Knobbly, and anyone else new to the discussion, there were some users (possibly just one user) who created literally hundreds of these articles about relations between random nation X and random nation Y over a period of about three months, before being halted. The consensus has been that the merits of these have to be judged individually. Needless to say, some are not nominated at all, such as in a case where the nations share a border. For the rest of these, such as "Germany and Uruguay", a nomination is made and folks have at least seven days to speak up about whether there is anything notable. In all, more of these get deleted than kept, simply because an obvious keep won't get nominated in the first place. On the other hand, we've had quite a few unlikely-looking combinations that turned out to have some merit. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - well-sourced and interesting. There is probably a lot more to add. Germany has historically had strong ties (political, economic, migration etc.) with Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although relations between two countries are not inherently notable in and of themselves, the arguments in favor of keeping the article (particularly the French presence in Tobago) outweigh the arguments in favor of deletion to enough of an extent that I'm comfortable with closing this debate as a "no consensus". One two three... 04:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France – Trinidad and Tobago relations[edit]

Non-notable intersection of countries, nothing more to say than where the embassies are, failing WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR, fails WP:RS, and fails WP:N by having no third-party indications of notability of this topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article, not even a colony. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with regards to Tobago, France occupied the colony from Aug 1666 - Mar 1667; on 6 Dec 1677, the French destroyed the Dutch colony and claimed the entire island before restoring it to the Dutch by Treaty of Nimeguen on 10 Aug 1678; in 1751, the French settled colonists on the island, but ceded it to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 10 Feb 1763; it was again a French colony from 2 Jun 1781 - 15 Apr 1793; nominally part of the Lucie département of France from 25 Oct 1797 - 19 Apr 1801; and once again a French colony from 30 Jun 1802 - 30 Jun 1803. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all relations are in a sport context. [51] non resident embassies (you would at least expect Trinidad to have one in Paris but no). Information about it being a colony should be in History of Trinidad and Tobago, appears to be little ongoing relations. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Considering that the French at one point had control over Tobago and fought multiple wars with the British for it seems like it deserves to be kept. So the notion this is entirely random seems a bit off, the french have a history of relations with this Island. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that sort of history been in the relevant articles about the period? Why does it need an article about the modern political relationship between the two countries?Knobbly (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. The sources found by User:Marcusmax are either not independent ([59],[60]), not secondary ([61]), or discuss the history of T&T, but are not pertinent to the topic of this article (though the material can, should, and hopefully is covered in History_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago) ([62],[63],[64],[65]). Yilloslime ^T_C 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doing just a quick search reveals that reliable sources discuss this specific relationship in depth. See for example Sahadeo Basdeo and Graeme Mount, "Relations with France," The Foreign Relations of Trinidad and Tobago (1962-2000): The Case of a Small State in the Global Arena (Lexicon, 2001), 69, 151, etc.: "The French presence in Trinidad and Tobago dates back two centuries. It is not surprising that French influence, particularly in the ... In this regard, France was as important as Britain. Hitherto, relations between Trinidad and Tobago and France had been very cordial though somewhat low in ..." There's actually a good deal of information that is specifically about this particular bilateral relationship. Remember to try different kinds of searches and search strings when checking out Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, J-Stor, and Academic Search Complete, etc. Look, we might not find such sources for every bilateral relation and that's why I won't comment in every one of these AfDs, but this one actually does happen to be "notable" due to being the specific subject of sections of published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a lot more added to it now. They seem to have a significant history towards one another, making them notable. Dream Focus 06:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvement and the keep arguments presented a nobody above Satu Suro 07:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt i have reviewed the changes to the article. While a photo gallery and a primary source showing that the two signed a free skies air service agreement in the 60s is nice, but not evidence of a bilateral relationship of any notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is covered in a whole section of a reliable secondary source is, not to mention their colonial relationship in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what form of nation state was Trinidad and Tobago during the 300 year period you reference? What was the extent of colonial french involvement?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - With regards to Tobago, France occupied the colony from Aug 1666 - Mar 1667; on 6 Dec 1677, the French destroyed the Dutch colony and claimed the entire island before restoring it to the Dutch by Treaty of Nimeguen on 10 Aug 1678; in 1751, the French settled colonists on the island, but ceded it to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 10 Feb 1763; it was again a French colony from 2 Jun 1781 - 15 Apr 1793; nominally part of the Lucie département of France from 25 Oct 1797 - 19 Apr 1801; and once again a French colony from 30 Jun 1802 - 30 Jun 1803. Later when Trinidad and Tobago became a nation-state, the countries signed multiple treaties, France maintains an embassy in the country, competed in atheletic events, etc. Thus, they have a cultural and historic connection and have had friendly relation since that are relevant to students of international diplomacy. I can't really effectively defend all these bilateral relations one, but to say this relationship is not notable is absurd. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage of these non-notable relations in any reliable secondary source. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is flat out not true as pointed out above. A whole section of a published book is devoted specifically to relations between Trinidad and Tobago with France. Moreover, a colonial relationship that occurred in three separate centuries is clearly notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except for the fact that no one has actually read the book you mention as opposed to pro-googling it. I suggest that the book deals only with the history of T&T, and has nothing whatsoever about the ongoing relationship (or lack thereof) between the two nations. Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you haven't read it, the you do not know what it contains and shouldn't make assumptions that are wrong. The book says, "The French presence in Trinidad and Tobago dates back two centuries. It is not surprising that French influence, particularly in the ... In this regard, France was as important as Britain. Hitherto, relations between Trinidad and Tobago and France had been very cordial though somewhat low in ..." among other things and it is but one of several reliable sources that discuss this relationship. The book specifically focuses on the post-colonial relationship and thus ongoing relationship. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you haven't read it, you shouldn't be quoting it based on a google books search. You appear to misrepresent what the book is about. The only discussion about France you have listed so far is historical. Perhaps if you went and got the book and improved the article I would reconsider my !vote, but right now it appears that the book supports only mention in a history article, not a political relations article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have looked over excerpts from some pages in it (hence how I am able to quote from it). The book is about as its titles suggest the foreign relations of Trindidad and Tobago since the 1960s and as such includes a section specifically on relatins with France. In addition to the coverage in this book, we have presented other sources that expand on this diplomatic relationship, which is clearly suitable for coverage in Wikipedia. Again, some of these bilateral relations are questionable, but this one is absolutely notable and any one familiar with political relations knows that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a shame you can't get the book as a whole and quote something more recent than something about a 200 year old colonial relationship and cut off the quote after "low in ..." then, because if the book says what you hope it says, it would make this relationship notable. However, since neither of us have a copy of the book, and I don't care to waste my time getting a copy of the book, and you aren't saying you're going to get the book, we seem stuck with nothing more than "low in ..." as the entirety of the comment of the book on current relationships. Ahh well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have added material on their modern, post-1960s relations from a variety of sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The only post 1960's content you have added is an air services agreement and an ambasadorial visit. By that standard, we could have an article on Delta Airlines - Port Authority of New York City relations. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have also added information on how "Trinidad and Tobago has bilateral investment agreements with France." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial discussion of bilateralism between these two countries has been adduced to justify retention. Eusebeus (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you objectively read the article and the above discussion, you will see that substantial discussion of bilateralism between these two countries has been added to justify retention. No one can honestly say otherwise given the historic colonial relationship, the modern interactions, and coverage of all of this in reliable secondary sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You are conflating history for bilateralism. I would say that is weak-minded, especially for someone purporting to study history, but I'll chalk it up instead to my dishonesty and your predisposition. Now, no more discussion please - our disagreement is noted. Eusebeus (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sahadeo Basdeo and Graeme Mount, "Relations with France," The Foreign Relations of Trinidad and Tobago (1962-2000): The Case of a Small State in the Global Arena (Lexicon, 2001), 69, 151, etc is indeed bilateral relations. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that cite is that the chapter on relations with France is all of two pages; the one about relations with France and Germany is three [66].--chaser (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually about as clear as it gets, and it is interesting to watch the intellectual contortions trying to say otherwise. If one country occupies another repeatedly, there are interesting and notable foreign relations between them. If a book has a section about the foreign relations between two countries, there are sources. France has had very noteworthy foreign relations with every country in the Caribbean: it was a major area of colonial contention for centuries. This topic deals not just with the present day but with historical ones also. True, the original production of the articles ignored that part, and that was among the very many mistakes in how the articles got made. But this is fixable. This is an aspect of history that is worth a separate article--in fact, it is worth several, for we could probably do one on each of the historical periods. But we can start more modestly with this single article. DGG (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article at this point meets Wikipedia requirements of notability and verifiability. Colonial relationships, no matter how short are significant in history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obviously notable. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted. I came here to close this, but couldn't (so good luck to whoever does). On the one hand, an article on the relationship between these two countries does not need to be restricted to the present day, but can track its historical revolution over time. Witness, for example, the bulk of France – United Kingdom relations. OTOH, this article doesn't read like a history of a relationship, but like a history of colonization with a few modern indicators of relationship thrown in. Most of this could probably be merged into History of Trinidad and Tobago, although given the lack of almost any French mention there now, I'd be cautious about giving undue weight to the French presence in any merger. On balance, I'd say weak delete, so that information about the French influence on the country can be properly added to that article based on a fuller review of the sources by someone who more often does work in this area. This article, despite a good rescue attempt, does not appear to have sufficiently cohesive sources on the subject to hold together.--chaser (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland – South Africa relations[edit]

Nothing more to say here than X embassy in Y; WP:NOTDIR applies. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other nominators of these articles have looked beyond the article (which I agree is crap) to see if the topic itself shows potential. Generally, this is done by looking at Google news and then, if one concludes that what's there isn't much, uses that as an argument in favor of deletion. In this case, I think there's enough here:
2008 "South Africa and Finland have signed a cooperation agreement to support biosciences projects in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)";
2009 Minister Väyrynen to visit South Africa and Zambia
2005 arms inspections - international observers from Finland and South Africa were allowed to check a number of IRA dumps in Northern Ireland.

Others might disagree as to whether this is enough to support the topic. This is just what's found in the last five years. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one isn't too bad, but the second one is just a visit abroad by a Finnish minister, and the third is two people who happen to be from those two countries inspecting something else in the UK. I think no article would be better than the article we have. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a directory listing and the sources cover individual events over five of the sixty years of relations. This does not satisfy coverage of the topic as a whole by a third-party. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The world is like an apartment building. Most of countries that live in it will bump into each other on occasion, while getting the mail, taking out the rubbish, or maybe have a brief conversation at someone else's party. But that doesn't make their relationship important or notable. If they are friends and have dinner at each others' houses and borrow the power drill or a muffin pan then there is a notable relationship. In this case Finland and South Africa don't even say "hi" when they pass in the hallway, they just smile and nod. Drawn Some (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a great SAT question wouldn't it? "Apartment building" is to "world" as "power drill" is to (a) humanitarian aid (b occupation force (c) nuclear weapon (d) football diaspora Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references found. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're trivial references. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial is a purely subjective term, cite Wikipedia policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thou sayest. Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random X-Y article. Thousands of agreements are signed each year and 99.9% of them do not establish encyclopedical notability. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to do at least some research on the subject before you vote. A Google search takes a few nanoseconds. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The second Google Books hit using the obvious search terms is to several pages of coverage starting "the key country in African-Finnish official relations has been South Africa". That only took a few seconds to find. Pages 175-177 of this book are about the subject, as is much of this book, including an 18-page chapter and a 5-page section. And look what I've found now. Are we going to delete an article on a subject about which a 121-page book has been published? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have confused Google searches with actual references. Is this what is meant by 'article rescue'? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to do at least some research yourself on the subject before you comment. A Google search takes a few nanoseconds. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment provided one search and four actual references. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article is right now, its fine, giving out some interesting information about the relationship between the two nations. The scientific treaty for biosciences, and the major trade exports between them, are quite notable. Dream Focus 16:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two countries have embassies in each others' capitals, and they exchange some trade goods. And...? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to do at least some research on the subject before you vote. A Google search takes a few nanoseconds. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and, as shown in my comment above, the topic has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the notability guideline, including a whole book about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mutual embassies and added info. Needs expansion. feydey (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources detail these relationships in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is it about the books that I linked above that makes you think that they are not reliable secondary sources detailing these relationships in the depth required for an article? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This reference: Politics on paper: Finland's South Africa policy, 1945-1991. Nordic Africa Institute. 1992. ISBN 9171063269. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), appears to be a reliable third party source that discusses the topic in a non-trivial way. It's currently being used solely to support the statement that Finland opposed apartheid, but I'm willing bet there's some good info in there that the article would benefit from. If more sources emerge I'd change from weak to regular keep. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:31, 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 16:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Ireland relations[edit]

Relations are effectively non-existent. Neither country has representation in the other. The main content of the article is about Irish people who happened to be transported to Barbados, which has nothing to do with diplomatic relations. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information to Irish diaspora, without a redirect. The article content is off-topic, I don't understand how it even ended up under this title. Drawn Some (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete support merge. Wasn't done with article but Barbados-Ireland may not be very notable under current guidelines. Prior, when many articles were 1-2 lines with solely the date of diplomatic relations this would have been just like anyother stub. But now there is some consensus for what to keep and what not to keep. I must admit this currently doesn't stack-up. I will note I had started this before there was an overall structure of what was being outlined in these x-y country relations articles. There was some talk about deepening ties with Ireland in Barbados, but significant ties aren't there now... Other than that I believe an Irish Airport has a financial stake of some type in the Government-owned airport in B'dos but I don't know exactly how that was structured. CaribDigita (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, the Dublin Airport Authority operates five stores there [67]. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that would be it. I vaguely remember the B'dos government making a statement about the Dublin Airports Authority entering into some form of partnership with them. [68] But this isn't to the level of technical cooperation or anything. CaribDigita (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information to Irish diaspora, without a redirect as per Drawn Some. The current article should be deleted on the basis of a lack of significant coverage of bilateral relations. This was the only article I found about actual bilateral relations [69]. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A problem some of this content might belong in the diaspora article. None of this content is about bi-lateral relations. What is the weight that should be given to barbados in the diaspora article? Ah, solution. I went ahead and did it: [70]. So let's delete this article on a non-notable, basically non-existent relationship between modern nation states and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addendum to my own comment. One of the things that troubles me about so many of the attempts to "save" these articles is that they often demonstrate little understanding about what a bilateral relationship is. There's some very nice info in this as stands about a scroll commemorating irishmen sent to indentured labor in barbados 360 years ago, the ways in which catholicism among irishmen were suppressed in both ireland and in barbados under english rule, etc... but none of those things are about this relationship. That is to say, there is an innacurate conflation about sources that might mention a connection between events, or phrases, or mentions of the two words with neccessarily saying something about the relationshp. I was just looking at another of these articles about a latam country and switzerland, and there's a little nugget from a 1951 article that notes that the latam country was once described as "the switzerland of the americas" because of its banking laws at the time. That too, does not say anything about the bilateral relationship, but if one were to seek to remove it the counter-argument would be "but you can't remove sourced content." Not sure what can be done about this, but it bothers me. Ok. Rant over.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article content is inappropriate, and irrelevant to the topic. No redirect. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding historical relationship. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What longstanding historical relationship, exactly? The countries don't even have embassies in each other. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies alone doesn't mean anything. Many countries do also have foreign accredidations. CaribDigita (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Brendan, I guess. Wikipedia making the history :) Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources cover this relation in the detail required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such history gives them quite a notable relationship. Dream Focus 19:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how the presence of indentured servants from ireland in barbados before the widespread adoption of out and out slavery in barbados, before barbados was even an independent state (and one can argue about ireland), says anything about an ongoing (and even a historial) bilateral relationship between nation states? No reliable sources address this question.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Irish diaspora. Like other X-Y relations articles, if this articles is going to exist, it should discuss the foreign relations between these two countries. As there are no sources on this topic, there's no way to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, so the article should be deleted. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world. (Then imagine if we started on every state inside every country, where does it end?) If there is a significant relationship include it in the relevant country's article.Knobbly (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Irish diaspora – there are no substantial international relations, while the information on the religious and migratory relationship is both interesting and well sourced. Skomorokh 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Uuspelto[edit]

No notability. 17 year old student, who recorded a few home-made CDs. There is no label or recording company behind it (also obvious when listening to the MySpace-Songs, because the recordings have a lack of quality), or any sign that there will be one in the near future. The two movies are a homemade musicvideo and a 20min-students-project (most likely from the school he is visiting). Cecil (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Apart from Wikipedia, the only ghits were for lyrics sites and YouTube. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:50, 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 speedy keep. I'm going to be BOLD and close this. The nominator is not taking a position, the original PRODDer is !voting "keep" and there are no "delete" !votes. This is the same as a withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Pride Day[edit]

Contested PROD. I have no vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Keep - I think this must have been nominated in error. Very important day which has had a lot of coverage in Europe (I live in the UK and am very aware of it; it's of course very newsworthy in Spain and will certainly be making the national newspapers and TV news again next Monday). Now it's crossed over to Canada it may even start getting exposure over there too. But of course it needs to be kept. Tris2000 (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Google News shows some independent coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, there's even more coverage if you look up Nerd Pride Day in Google News Tris2000 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would call the google news hits pretty good evidence of notability. Sorting through all the forums and blogs on the regular google search also shows some promise. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I nominated because of the sources only being forums and blogs (which do not meet the verifiability policy). Weak keep as I can now see the Google News hits. (as a note, I was the PROD nominator) ^blurred _peace ☮ 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G11 (spam). Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck sickness[edit]

Nominated for speedy, I declined it because they claim to have sold 50,000 albums. Probably should be deleted, but since it's borderline I am passing it on to centralized discussion. I have no vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, none available, and the cited web site doesn't even exist. Given that they're claiming to be "taking over the FM waves", this smells like a hoax - I'm hardly inclined to think that a band could receive significant airtime without having been mentioned somewhere. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1 as Hoax Most likely a hoax. A google search for "Duck Sickness" and another one for "Duck Sickness Oregon" do not come up with any results for a band, just a bunch of veterinary websites. Their claimed website does not exist. There are no references stating anything about the "band". This obviously make untrue "Their debut album "thenastyrulerz" has sold 50 thousand copies in the first year.", as a band with this much exposure would be covered in the press. "Their names may not be released due to contract details of competing labels". Would that ever happen in the music industry? I highly doubt it. Delete as G1 speedy per G1. Kn Cv² 10:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. It doesn't even make sense. Drawn Some (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a couple of clear assertions of notability, but no evidence to those claims. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Either a hoax or blatant vandalism. tedder (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete quack. blantant hoax = vandalism, tagged. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm willing to go A7 or just WP:SPAM because this is entirely a promotional article. Already tagged as a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is not that obvious a hoax, but it is still speedable as spam in its current state. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San Miguel, Bulacan. This appears from the discussion to be a potentially controversial close, so I shall explain the reasoning. Those requesting retention cite no policy or guideline to justify retention - instead the arguments rely on citing essays or asserting notability without justification or exposition of how exactly the general notability guideline is satisfied by the article. Finally, appeals to WP:BIAS, a Wikiproject are presumably to highlight the fact that if articles on the Western settlements exist, so should these. This is, unfortunately, a manifestation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so was not weighted heavily. In the interests of WP:PRESERVE, I have chosen to redirect the article, and this should be maintained until such time as notability can be established. I think that explains everything, but I am happy to entertain civil questions to my talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masalipit[edit]

Unremarkable place? Can't find any RS Chzz ► 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I want to keep this; there are other barangays, in the same province even, with articles. But I must confess that, while I can find sources attesting as to Masalipit's existence, I can find nothing notable about it. The most interesting source I found was one which discussed the interrogation of some would be Communist rebels (from 2005). But given the Philippines' status today, this is hardly notable. Somebody find something to save this with! Un school 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability and it's unlikely we can build up an article from this that isn't a mere gazeteer entry. --seav (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Miguel, Bulacan to prevent recreation until reliable sources are found to make a decent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep reliable sources are easily obtainable for the existence of this place. It may be unremarkable; but inhabited places are inherently notable. As for verification by reliable sources, by a quick google search I obtained one from the Philippines Census Department, and added it. Most of the article is unsourced, but it is a settlement with 2700 people, recognized as distinct by the national census department, like the various CDP's in the United States. Maybe Wikipedians don' think that a few thousand non-white people matter, but I think that they are better than that. A deletion would be WP:BIASed. (1) All settlements are inherently notable. (2) The existence of this one has been verified by WP:RS. This should be closed and the nominator slapped with a WP:TROUT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I and Lenticel, who voted for delete or redirect, are both Filipinos. Most Filipino Wikipedians (but not all) are of the opinion that almost all barangays (which Masalipit is) are not notable enough to have separate articles. We're actually quite perplexed with the "consensus" that any inhabited place is inherently notable. --seav (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be perplexed by it, but it is well established and beyond the scope of any one place. See WP:OUTCOMES and WP:INHERENT. It also seems odd that while every little village or hamlet in Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, or unincorporated place in the US, any many neighborhoods in both are considered notable, that the barangays, which are defined by the government in the Philippines and even broken down by the census department are not so considered. We have articles on many barangays, no reason to delete this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OUTCOMES is not set in stone and WP:INHERENT is just an essay. As long as there's a discussion on whether an item is notable of a separate article or not, then there can be reason to delete an article even if people say it has "inherent" notability. There have been plenty of barangay articles that have been deleted in the past so I would actually say that based on that precedent (just like WP:OUTCOMES also document precedents) there's no consensus that barangay articles don't deserve to be deleted. --seav (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crux of the statement immediately preceding this one relies on an actual establishment of notability for the said locality, and by extension, assumes that there is a geographic imbalance present. The problem with barangays is that unlike in the places that you cite, barangays are fifth-level geographic divisions, where notability becomes very hard to establish. Just because a barangay like Barangay San Pedro Cutud in the City of San Fernando has an article, it does not mean that notability extends to all articles. In a quick scan of the barangays category, a lot of those articles are unsourced and their notability not firmly established. Mere existence in this case (and in many other cases) is by no means a firm barometer of notability. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carlossuarez46. Government-defined administrative divisions that may include thousands of people are notable even though there may be millions of them in the world. Drawn Some (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the next larger administrative unit. I live in a Ward, with boundaries documented on city maps, and elect an alderman. But there are not articles on most such wards, or neighborhoods, if they are more encyclopedically represented by an article on the larger administrative unit. The fact that something is labelled does not automatically make it notable. The courtesy notability given to villages and hamlets, because of their being dots on some map, was because they are not part of a city. The entire article is unreferenced original research, except for the population and geographical coordinates.The "inherent notability of every inhabited (or formerly inhabited) place" is well satisfied by an article about the city or larger administrative unit of which it is a part. By Carlossuarez46's logic, I could demand an article about my Ward, the City block I live on, or the house or apartment building I live in, because all are "inhabited places," and are easily verified by reference to maps and publicly available property information in tax assessors' files. Someone in the country could demand an article on the square mile Section (United States land surveying) they live in, since it is inhabited and officially documented, but such an article would be redirected in general to the County (United States) article. We often delete or merge articles about small real estate developments, or "neighborhoods" lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, since the city they are in has an article. If this "barangay" has had substantial coverage in books,and magazines, then present the sourced information and write a great article. But do not simply fall back on "inherent notability." Edison (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argumentum ad absurdum - the federal government of a large country keeps track of these 40,000 or so defined places, much like France keeps track of its communes and Germany of its municipalities, and the US of its cities and census-designated places. No one keeps track of your ward or block or house, or apartment building at the federal level to tell us how many people it has. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A barangay (Filipino: baranggay, [baraŋ'gaj]), also known by its former Spanish adopted name, the barrio, is the smallest administrative division in the Philippines and is the native Filipino term for a village, district or ward. You just said: No one keeps track of your ward or block or house. May I remind you that a barangay is a ward. ax (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I remind you that I said no one keeps track of User:Edison's ward, but the federal government of the Philippines DOES KEEP TRACK of its barangays - which are further subdivided as can been seen from the article. Or do you contend that the Philippine government is not a reliable source for its population data? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who said that the "Philippine government is not a reliable source for its population data?" I read twice this page. No one said that the Philippine government is not a reliable source for its population data. May I remind you also that population of a barangay is not a criteria for notability. That is the argument. Do not mislead the argument. This has been on AFD since May 13. Have you searched for any reliable sources of notability of this barangay? ax (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you are overwhelmed by the population of this barangay, I wonder why the barangay of Pembo in Makati City does not have an article. The Barangay Pembo composed of 35,035 people while Masalipit only has 2,703 people. Both barangay does not assert notability. The Philippines Census Department is not a valid reference on this situation because the said department should have information to all barangays in the Philippines, and taking that into account, the said reference cannot be a basis of notability. ax (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. And the US census department has data on all manner of small places, like the 27 lucky souls who in 2000 called Pearsonville, California home - places that you'd no doubt love to see deleted, but good luck picking on the USA's places - rather let's turn our attention to faraway places with strange sounding names...right? Deletion of these faraway places with strange sounding names is purely a measure of WP:BIAS. If it's deleted it's off to WP:DRV where it'll be put to rights with the deleting admin getting a policy lesson. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just contradicted yourself with "other crap exist" with "other crap does not exist". Just because Pearsonville has an article, it does not mean the Masalipit should also have one. ax (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moreover, I didn't start the "population game." I must quote from the above statements you have said on May 18, 2009 "...it is a settlement with 2700 people, recognized as distinct by the national census department..." Additionally, I can't think of a place here in the Philippines that is not recognized by our national census department. And what do you mean by: All settlements are inherently notable. Would you mind elaborating that sentence? ax (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but both barangays I said came from the Philippines, and when you compared the Pearsonville from Masalipit, it just means that you are not familiar with the word "barangay." Are you really serious when you compared Pearsonville from Masalipit. ax (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pearsonville has been dubbed the "Hubcap Capital of the World" because of resident Lucy Pearson's collection of hubcaps, which are rumored to number over 80,000." Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Masalipit? I can't think of anything the Masalipit has to offer in this encyclopedia. ax (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barangays in the Philippines are generally not notable as a class to merit stand-alone articles. A barangay is basically a subdivision of a minor civil division and would roughly correspond to an electoral district or a neighborhood of a municipality. --Polaron | Talk 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:IHN "every geographic area used by the census bureau in the United States now had an article in Wikipedia whether or not they were the subject of "non-trivial coverage by multiple-sources", why this article about a government defined division should be treated differently? What bothers me is that the nominator could have open a dialogue or merge the article trying to preserve information: "If you are not familiar with a subject area, or it has meaning outside your experience base, discuss your concerns on the talk page or another appropriate forum before making an AfD nomination."(WP:BIAS) --J^mundo 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant WikiProject on Philippine topics has decided to fold barangay information into the containing municipality article as a general rule. I'm sure some WikiProject members must be familiar with this place and would have argued for keeping the article if it were indeed significant. --Polaron | Talk 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thread why MOST of the barangays should be deleted, Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive15#Barangay_notability. We were not being biased, it just happens that we know what a barangay is. We know the definition of a barangay. We actually live in different barangays. And every primary students, be it may private or public schools, here in the Philippines had, in any other way, discussed on their classrooms what a barangay is. ax (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12. Copyvio of http://www.mirthcorp.com/products/mirth-connect/faq Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirth connect[edit]

Non-notable software with no references. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Damn, I hate being so tough on open-source projects, and this is open-source healthcare software, too. However... google only returned results for the company (it changed its name), and nothing establishing that the software itself is notable. My instinct tells me that open-source healthcare software is fairly niche, and that this is possibly notable as a result, but without supporting refs I'm going to have to say "delete". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from here. What looks, smells and taste like spam often comes from a can. Drawn Some (talk) 20:10, 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 deleted as non-controversial cleanup (duplicate article, errored title). Jamie^☆S93 17:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In My Life (Cilla Black album),[edit]

Page is a direct copy of In My Life (Cilla Black album) PigFlu Oink (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, very sneaky. Just a comma at the end. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad title typo. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, probably created in error. Tris2000 (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poss a typo. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete duplicate article, obvious typo in article name. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G6. Almost certainly created in error. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was done in error and was a typo. Nothing sneaky or untoward meant by it I just didn't know how to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britboy1976 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rabbit show jumping. History will be retained behind the redirect, but there's no consensus to retain the article in its present form. Consider this a close to merge Fritzpoll (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Sporting Events for Rabbits[edit]

Basically promotion as indicated on the article's talk page by the creator: I sincerely request that you do not delete the article so serious new rabbit hoppers can find the information they need to get started. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any verifiability of this association. Also possibly madeup. MuZemike 07:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content into Rabbit show jumping and delete. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP:ILIKEIT Kwiki (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's *not* a reason to keep. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was an inside joke among people on IRC. I wrote the text on the talk page. Page has been deleted before: 22:17, 16 May 2009 Ged UK (talk | contribs) deleted "American Association of Sporting Events for Rabbits" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax) but it is not a hoax, just a non-notable organisation. Merge, Userfy, then Delete The reason for the userfication is in this case that the author claims the subject is not the same as Rabbit Show Jumping, and if it was rewritten to be about the "sport" and not about "the club" then it would be OK. Kwiki (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay no attention to my deletion, that was clearly in error as it isn't a hoax, or at least not a blatant one. --Ged UK 07:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Zero sources what-so-ever and smells like vanispamcruftisement. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, I counted five sources at the bottom. Yes, it does need some work but after a Wikify the article should be okay. I say keep it, at least for now. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not mention anything about an American Association, which is what this is supposed to be about. MuZemike 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, we have a well-sourced article Rabbit show jumping, but I can't find any evidence, that the American Association really exists. It's misleading. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group has members from Oregon, Wisconsin, California, Denmark, Finland and Sweden as evidenced by the Yahoo link. The US group is recognized by the president of the Danish Club and the Finnish Club. The Jockey Club is a valid article about a club or association. The Rabbit Show Jumping article was not written about the sport, it was written as a parody of horse show jumping. That is NOT what Rabbit Sports are about. Does the club need to purchase a website to provide evidence that it "really exists"? Do you need photos? Affidavits? Newspaper articles?Gyldwiz (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge relevant content to rabbit show jumping. If there's a wider variety of what the article describes as "competitive rabbit sports" , then write a separate article under that title and add a link to the AASER to that. I can forsee that someone could breed and train large rabbits for wrestling, similar to cockfighting, but that would be a hare-raising experience. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Write separate articles for each rabbit sport? That seems redundant. There are a lot of sports. I can add a description of half a dozen rabbit sports - agility, cross-country, speed jumping... Is that what is needed? Other "clubs" are articles (see reference to the Jockey Club above). Is this different because horse racing is serious and rabbit racing is not? I would rather you delete the article all together than merge any of it with Rabbit Show Jumping. The article is insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyldwiz (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not separate articles for each "rabbit sport". One separate article to describe what the article refers to as competitive rabbit sports as an alternative to merge. My feeling is that the article would have a better chance of survival if it was about the sport rather than the association. I wouldn't say that rabbit racing isn't serious. Clearly, there are people who take an interest in it and it's notable in that regard. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't doubt that the club exists, only that it is notable. None of the sources on the article now are what I would call reliable. And yes, Gyldwiz, what we need to evidence notability are articles, written and published in reliable sources. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gyldwiz, it is not important, if the article is funny, silly, sad or disgusting. We're working on encyclopedia, and encyclopedia should contain notable and verifiable topics. Here is the Google Search result for "American Association of Sporting Events for Rabbits". The Yahoo link is very vague. You can try to create properly sourced article "Rabbit sports" or "Sporting Events for Rabbits"- I believe that the topic is interesting. However, I can't vote "Keep" for this article, since I'm not sure, if it exists or not. Wikipedia is not the promotional website for firms or organisations (associations). --Vejvančický (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that "promotion" of INFORMATION is why people write articles. The association does not gain financially from this "promotion". Rules and plans for building jumps and training information are all offered for free. When I wanted to participate in this sport I could not find any information. When I finally found it, I thought it should be on Wikipedia so others could find it. I guess I was naive. I wouldn't expect the Danish and Finnish recognition of the AASER would appear on Google. So, I must wait for Google to say it exists? Gyldwiz (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the sport is verifiably notable in Sweden, Finland and Canada, the only mention of this AASER on the internet seems to be the Yahoo Groups forum. Even the article itself does not have any information about contact information, an address, AASER events, personnel, etc. A google search under the simple terms "rabbit" and "AASER" [71] turns up 192 mentions, mostly about a Dr. A.A. El-Aaser. If there's something in there about this organization, I've overlooked it. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the article on rabbit show jumping a bit less WP:OG and WP:POV because I think user Gyldwiz was right about that. That article was rather insulting for someone who likes this sport. I wrote a message on the usertalkpage. I hope this helps. Kwiki (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent job on the rewrite of what had been a joke article into something sourced. There's actually very little about an American organization within this article itself; most of it would be applicable to the improved version of rabbit show jumping. If there is an AASER and it sets up a website, a link can be posted within the show jumping article. Mandsford (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks a lot Mandsford! Kwiki (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to rabbit show jumping; develop that article. Chzz ► 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging is not a subject for AfD, so conclusion on that topic to be drawn from this close Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 17 (Elkhart County, Indiana)[edit]

Not notable per WP:USRD/NT. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually on the National Highway System, making it more major than some state highways. Merge with M-217 (Michigan highway), to which it connects, into Michiana Parkway. Sources to show notability per WP:N include [72] and [73], both already in the article. --NE2 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The road appears to have some notability, since it is part of the NHS, connects to many important highways, and has sufficient sourcing. It does need an infobox though. Dough4872 (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michiana Parkway, which should be rewritten into an actual article. M-217 should be merged in as well unless enough independent history exists for it to remain as a standalone article. – TMF 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — I'll echo the sentiments above a bit. I'm not partial to merging M-217 into Michiana Parkway. I'd be more likely to merge CR 17 into Michiana Parkway, enter in the M-217 info as a summary using ((main)) templates. If it weren't just classified as a county road, and were a state highway, we probably wouldn't have this debate at all. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It very likely would be a state highway if Indiana didn't have a legislative cap on state highway mileage. There's no reason to treat the two pieces of the same road differently; it was built as one project, and all the history is the same. --NE2 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources exist to establish notability (eg. [74]). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hammond (Australia)[edit]

I A7 CSDed this, but have been persuaded that I might have been incorrect. Thus I have restored it, and am instead tossing it up for a full AFD discussion to give it a chance at a fuller debate. In general, I am just not persuaded of the notability of the subject. In the listed references, Mr Hammond is not the subject of any of them, instead most of the article simply contain quotes from him about the article's subject. And some of them the quotes are fairly trivial at that. I could be wrong, and if this debate goes that direction, so be it, but I just do not see the notability here. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not going to support either keep or delete for this article but I must admit, the only lawyer I can think of that is notable of their own Wikipedia article is the fictional Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked. Atticus Finch. He does have his own article. I always knew he was notable. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be nothing but Mr Hammond's CV, and the references provided are about court cases, not him, so WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. This is a CV for a prospective ALP politician ("Tim is passionate about indigenous issues..."), who seems to be following the same path as Julia Gillard to politics, through an internship at Slater & Gordon. This can be resubmitted if and when he meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's really an advert; let's let this one run its course. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't speedy delete it myself, but not only is it an advert, it is as blatant as I have seen here since the Qld election! All written using the subject's first name, listing all the boards and associations the subject has been involved with, etc. Slap an ALP logo on it and it could be placed in letterboxes across Perth! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a local and 'adjacent' to the writers locality in a manner of speaking I have left a few bits of information at the eds talk page - clearly the editor has no handle on what constitutes an encyclopediac biography stub - the detail is embarrassingly local and unverifiable - if the ed was able to extract at least a couple of media reports that specifically tied in direct involvement in the larger asbestosis issue - I would run counter to this AFD and say keep - however I would caution against a rapid snow delete - there may well be a very small stub about 10 tenth the size that is eligible for notability - imho Satu Suro 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed in light of comments I wrote the summary and beleived it was important to note what Mr Hammond had acheived wihtin the Asbestosis domain but I think the points made are reasonable so am happy to accept that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelapp (talk • contribs) 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any real notability here, at least as far as WP:BIO goes. He's a lawyer, he does his lawyering in support of a very good cause, and he's been quoted a couple of times in regional press, but there doesn't appear to be any articles that concentrate on the actual person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough here to keep this person advertisement on wikipedia. Indeed I also tend towards Speedy Delete for this one.--VS ^talk 10:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JAKAZiD[edit]

Non-notability. The page also seems to be more of a self-plug. CillitBangBang (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC

Keep Multiple sources provided, seem to be more available. Nom seems a bit unusual, as the user shares a name with a song by the artist in question. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been here for over two years and in that time and if it were to be deleted, it should have been done a long time ago. This deletion request seems like a really bad joke from someone who didn't find his video funny. Crystalworld 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple records commercially available, has been covered in national press, is signed to multiple notable record labels. Nomination also feels highly suspicious. --PkerUNO (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. And the username "CillitBangBang" is awfully suspicious. >_> --69.152.200.85 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 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 merge to List of recurring characters from The X-Files. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby William[edit]

Not a notable character by himself. Should be merged into List of recurring characters from The X-Files. 2008Olympian^chitchat 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 2008Olympian. The article is unreferenced and is WP:OR, containing gems like this: "William did have noticeably wide-set nostrils, perhaps intended to resemble Mulder in this regard." Drawn Some (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of recurring characters from The X-Files. Not a major character with wide notability outside of the series. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News.admin.net-abuse.email[edit]

Non-notable newsgroup, no non-trivial sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree strongly on notability; for some years this newsgroup was one of the very few places on the net where system administrators could coordinate their efforts to combat spam. Agreed that the article needs more and better sources, however; I will see what I can do to improve them. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Tim Pierce. Article could perhaps use some trimming of silliness, but has genuine merit. DS (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'd like to keep it. However there are no reliable sources cited. We just have to take the article's word that what it says is true. Obviously critical views can not be included without a reliable source. So without secondary sources WP article really has no purpose. A person could go directly to the group and get the information first hand.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm sorry, but it is just not true that the article has no reliable sources. It certainly needs more citations, but it does have some. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change to Keep I see that the book has been changed from an additional reading item to a reference, the others seem to be personal websites. I guess that's enough, go ahead and keep it. I still stand by my general comments on the usefulness of WP articles on websites and newsgroups. They are not very useful unless they include some in-depth discussion from secondary sources. If a person knows about the site or group already what's the point of coming to WP to find out what he (or she) already knows? If the person doesn't know about the group how would he ever happen to stumble across the WP article? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is full of articles such as this one. A must-have but seriously change the article's name. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "Newsgroup". What other title could it have? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By its nature, sources for usenet are harder to find, but this is one of the most well-known and notable newsgroups. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Stifle that sources for newsgroups are hard to find. I think what we need is a separate guideline page for "newsgroup" notability as there are thousands of newsgroups but only a very few of them have articles or should have articles. If I were to !vote I would say "weak keep" because I was a regular participant back in the late 90s. I'm the "Ron Ritzman" mentioned in the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles on topics like this are a specialty of Wikipedia . I'd even say that to a certain extent we can relax the usual sourcing guidelines for them. It's a justified exception and a good place to use IAR. DGG (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also voted to keep. But let's be real and admit that the main purpose of this article is to satisfy the vanity and feelings of self-importance of the people active in the group. Very few people will come to WP who don't know about it and are seeking information. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Though I think the last time I posted there was 2003. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal Ron. I'm sure you are doing great work. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:55, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.binaries.slack[edit]

Non-notable newsgroup, no sources found, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newsgroup holds no major role in the Internet history books. There are thousands of newsgroups and this one isn't one of the notable few. Computerjoe 's talk 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Plenty of references are available but it appears the nom did not check before nominating the article at AfD. The article already contained a citation link to a Wired magazine article but I guess it too was overlooked? I've added it and two other references that were easily found via Google to the article but there are many more that could be worked in. The Wired reference is quite reliable and the writer of that column is well known.
- Frauenfelder, Mark (1997-03-25). "S.P.(U.T.U.)M. Shames Spammer into a Rage". Wired magazine. Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved 2009-05-22.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many thousands of sites where "stuff happens". The above-mentioned reference gives no hint as to why the subject is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how you could possibly come to that "conclusion" given the Wired magazine reference.

This is not an article about a "site".
The nominator stated: "no sources found, no notability asserted", neither of these were accurate or valid; the Wired magazine reference already being present in the article when he nominated it.
This acticle was originally created as a stub on 16 September 2002 and is one of the older articles on Wikipedia. If notability had ever been in question, it would have been deleted or dealt with long ago.
This is a clear case of I don't know anything about it, therefore it does not exist.

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is asserted. Refs are given. The Wiki is not paper so we have the ability to have more esoterica. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another Wired magazine reference (to go along with the other books and references now included in the article):
- Frauenfelder, Mark (1997-04-02). "Not in My Newsgroup!". Wired magazine. Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved 2009-05-23.

--Tothwolf (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decently sourced now, and mostly harmless. HiDrNick! 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wired magazine and other sources confirm it is notable. Dream Focus 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tothwolf has done an admirable job providing examples of the "notability" of this article, but I personally still think the strongest point in his favor is the way TenPoundHammer off-handedly decided to toss off an RfD for an article that's been uncontested at Wikipedia for seven years. Has the standard for "notablity" become that much more strict in the days since the article was written? --Modemac (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems many editors today were simply not around during Usenet's heyday since it predates the web by 10 years (Usenet came about in 1979 and the Web in 1989).
  Unfortunately over the last 7 years it has become incredibly easy to nominate articles for AfD (partly due to guideline changes and a number of JavaScript tools), and there are many "editors" who prefer spend the majority of their time nominating things for XfD instead of improving them since improving them takes much more time. A glance through Category:All articles proposed for deletion is quite telling.
  This particular AfD appears to have been part of a test batch of Usenet nominations, which also included News.admin.net-abuse.email and Alt.atheism. From what I've seen, this is a common technique to "test the waters" before mass nominating larger numbers of articles such as those in Category:Newsgroups.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the nice sourcing job. I wonder how many usenet groups are notable per our standards? Them From Space 14:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My guess, maybe 200-500 out the 100,000+ that exist. Tothwolf (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another TPH special. Nice work on the sourcing. Is it starting to WP:SNOW in here? Fences and windows (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is well-sourced, a highly revered website in the annals of the church, and oft mentioned along the radio show Hour of Slack by its most famous reverend Ivan Stang.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF are pretty solid arguments here. It will likely be produced, but until then, it's a crystal ball. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thor (2011 film)[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF, as filming will not commence for at least another six months. No prejudice against recreation when the film goes into production, but an article is premature at this point. PC78 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. Drawn Some (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received much greater-than-usual attention, as a gnews search on Kenneth Branagh Thor confirms. I keep reading about this film (and the spate of upcoming Marvel films) in the papers. This is a notable production. JJL (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF specifically states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. " If you want to change the guidelines feel free but that is beyond the scope of AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it also states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." There is no need to change the guidelines. That having been said, I do not believe that the rationale below is sufficient for an exception to WP:NFF. JJL (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a frequent occurence around here. I see no outstanding exception to be made for this page.TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Considering they just cast the lead: [75], i'd say that's enough for starters. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel has yet to confirm this, regardless it is not enough grant notablity for the creation of this page per WP:NFF TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's called development hell for a reason, and plenty of "major" films fall back into it after going into pre-production, even set design. If anything, it's more of a risk for large-budget big productions than smaller ones. NFF exists for a specific purpose, and this is a textbook case, not the exception. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Thus far, Marvel Studios have produced every film that they have announced a director and cast members for. It should be kept and improved upon, the article if deleted will only be recreated within a month's time. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Studios has only produced two films thus far, besides the film has already been pushed back no reason to believe it can not be pushed back any further. TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the objections was that "Marvel has yet to confirm this" but if this is the corporate website [76] rather than a fansite, I'm inclined to say keep. I think that when the studio that produced popular films about Spiderman, the X-Men, Iron Man, etc. is doing press releases, it's gone beyond the crystal ball phase. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was in regards to the casting of the lead. Also WP:NFF specifically states "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films, which states clearly that until filming is verified to have begun, a stand-alone article should not be created. Information about the planned film rests comfortably at Thor (Marvel Comics)#Film. JJL falsely claims that this is an exception to WP:NFF where a project of this type is one of the strongest reasons for the guideline. It is a big-budget film can linger in development because of constant re-scripting or constant issues with its budget. The film was first mentioned in December 2007, and now we see plans to begin filming in January 2010. That's just over two years of no real movement! Superhero films can get a bit of splash with casting announcements, but this does not equate the certainty of a film. CmdrClow also misleads us about the instantaneous creation of Marvel films. Iron Man (film)#Development shows that development began in April 1990. Spider-Man (film)#Development shows start of development around 1985. Hulk (film)#Development and X-Men (film)#Development shows starts of development in 1990 as well. Captain America in other media#The First Avenger: Captain America shows 1997 development, and it hasn't even come close to being made all the years since. So the claim that it will "only be recreated within a month's time" is dubious. There is no high certainty with projects in the film industry, so in presenting them as existing films, it is a violation of WP:NTEMP: "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future." This violation is evident here with the certainty of the article title and the knee-jerk layout with the infobox and the "Cast" section as if the film was all but made. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF for this. Until we get closer to the release date there's nothing for this article here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no harm in keeping it; if it get's canned it'll be big enough news to remind people to delete the article, until then there are plenty of people who find it useful. Particularly considering its tie-ins to The Avengers and other films. 152.91.9.9 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any news or information regarding this or any other incarnation of the film can be found at Thor (Marvel Comics)#film TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing no harm is not grounded in policies or guidelines. Just because the project development is verifiable does not mean a resultant film is verifiable; the notability guidelines for future films is clear. Additionally, this does not mean information is deprived from Wikipedia. This project got press because of its source material, correct? If it was a no-name story by a no-name director starring a no-name actor, then it would not have gotten press like this one. This planned film is making headlines because of the historical significance and popularity of the Marvel character Thor, which is why we have information at the anchor link that TripleThreat provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. The reasons are very good, practical ones, as many issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Many are announced that then fail to materialise, so directed use of the guideline is the best way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films that were never made and would therefore ultimately fail the general notability guideline; all that would remain is an article based on a short burst of news stories that appeared when it was announced. It should not be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls that can affect productions, especially in the current climate. Projects are put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln); others can be postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of strikes (e.g. Pinkville and Justice League). Erik has given some excellent examples of films of Thor's ilk that had protracted development periods. Other films still in development hell include Jurassic Park IV (many would consider this a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight; in fact, it was originally supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. The recent film State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. The development of this film has itself already been pushed back a full year. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, the best place for the Thor film adaptation information is in the parent article, where that wider context will best serve the general reader. Steve ^{T • C} 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as film that has not begun shooting. Шизомби (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep. If it isn't made, it will still pass NFF which says "Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." The Matthew Vaughan version that wasn't made already passes that, and I think it's reasonable to assume that two articles will be written on the failure of this movie if it isn't made. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the guideline does not apply here. This project has not entered production; it is in mere development, so it does not meet the "produced in the past" criteria. You are thinking of unfinished films in which filming began but was never completed. If filming did begin on a project like this, it could be an article on an unfinished film. At this point, though, there is no such thing. A similar example is Justice League#Live-action film, which was never produced because of the writers' strike and thus only remains part of the broader topic. Thor (Marvel Comics)#Film is the right place for development information. It would be misleading to present this developing project as a film article since there is yet to be a film to be started. Other examples of projects that never got beyond development: Shantaram (novel)#Film adaptation and Logan's Run#Remake. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - casting is being done so it will go in pre-production soon and its well written. I don't see any reason to delete and shooting will begin as soon as a few other casts have been picked within the next few month and deleting it would just be wasting time...--Warpath (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filming is not set begin as it stands today for another six months, besides the film has already been set back a year there is no reason why this can not happen again. Casting is no safeguard against production delays. The page will be easily recreated once the principle photography has begun per WP:NFF. TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rules are we don't have articles about films until at least filming begins. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.atheism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable newsgroup, no sources found. Tagged as unreferenced since July 08. First AFD was kept by means of "It's notable!" !votes, second was no consensus with most keepers again arguing for notability without any sources coming up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have joined in the discussion there but without sources it can not be WP:Notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve Dufour's findings of insufficient sources to establish notability and for verifiability. There are over 260,000 G-hits and so we cannot say with 100% certainty that sources do not exist but it is up to the authors to use them in creating an article in the first place. Drawn Some (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Steve Dufour changed his vote to a Keep below, and in an AfD it's about the subject moreso than the article. -- samj _in^out 17:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. To what extent has nominator actually looked for sources? Vanilla Google is hopeless, I'm sure, but Google news has 29 stories about it (at least one of them quite nontrivial, though it's in a student newspaper, the OSU Lantern) and Google scholar has 341 articles that mention it. Many of these, no doubt, are trivial mentions (including it in large numbers of other usenet groups) but I suspect some are not. Sproull and Faraj 1997, for instance (the second Google scholar hit) gives some detailed statistics for it as one of six sample groups in a table on page 44. There seems to be some nontrivial discussion in "Practicing religion in the age of the media: explorations in media, religion, and culture" by Stewart M. Hoover, Lynn Schofield Clark (2002, ISBN 9780231120890) somewhere around pages 282-283 but I can't tell for sure because they're outside the Google books free preview zone. Kinney, Futures, 1995, DOI:10.1016/0016-3287(95)80007-V lists it as "top five in terms of volume". So I suspect it may very well be possible to improve this to a properly sourced article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so I will change my vote to Keep. In my heart I know that alt.atheism is notable, I just can't prove it. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I want to believe, because the FAQ hints that the group is notable, but I think we need some less recursive references. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a famous newsgroup, and what David E has found is sufficient to justify keeping it. DGG (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back on the article hoping to be able to change my vote. It still has no sources whatsoever. Where is the stuff that David E found? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were in my comment above, not in the article itself, but I just added four of them to the article. The Kinney one is stronger than my comment above makes it appear: they surveyed 70 religion-related usenet groups and found that alt.atheism was the highest-volume among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (change from previous vote). Thanks David. It seems to be sourced well enough now. No problem to keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiably notable. If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again eh? -- samj _in^out 17:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 22:04, 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 redirected to voltage regulator. Jamie^☆S93 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Voltage Regulator[edit]

Little more than WP:DICDEF; don't see potential to expand into encyclopedia article ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voltage regulator. Drawn Some (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Voltage regulator 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dejavu: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Automatic_voltage_control. Suggesting the same, redirect to Voltage regulator. Automatic is superfluous as any voltage regulator is automatic. NVO (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Horning[edit]

Non-notable candidate for political office. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidate from a minor party that has never been elected. Attempted only state level positions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really not notable, but might be someday since he's making a lot of effort. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andrew Horning redirects to this article; I suppose it should receive the same fate as this article, whatever that might be? Qqqqqq (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be deleted once the article is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Horning is still active in politics, and a leader of a political party that regularly gets 10+ percent of the vote in Indiana. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regularly? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, for example United States Senate election in Indiana, 2006. In southern and central Indiana libtertarians hold many positions at the local level. By no means anywhere near a majority, and about every election period, at least some libertrarian will get 10+% in some statewide election, and occasionally in federal elections, like in the example. I read somewhere that Libertarian party in Indiana is strong than in any other state. They are acutally recognized by state laws as on the one of the state's three major parties, and have their own section in the state produced election handbooks. State laws were also modified to permit explicity to allow the Libertarian party to nominate candidates in convention, whereas previously law required them to hold a primary. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, the party is notable—although it has only done particularly well for federal or statewide offices when one of the major parties hasn't fielded a candidate—but I don't believe that this proves that the individual in question is also notable. What has he done other than pay filing fees and run unsuccessfully for multiple offices? There would be dozens of Indiana Libertarians who have done the same thing. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but personally I think anyone who runs for governor of Indiana as Libertarian party candidate is worthy of an article. Just my own opinion. If consensus is to delete, lets at least redirect the article to Indiana gubernatorial election, 2008. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I, for one, would favor that redirect. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't oppose a redirect/merge, but I do think Horning is notable. Although he recieved few votes, he did participate in the gubernatorial debates. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - He has been able to garner a substantial number of votes on many occasions; moreover, he nearly won an election. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nearly won? The best he did was 43% of the vote—hardly close. There are tens of thousands of failed political candidates in the United States alone. Achieving some certain percentage of the vote doesn't make them notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did some more research, and I'm now leaning weak delete. He fails the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN; for the second and third criteria, he has been covered in news sources, but not significantly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exergy consortium[edit]

Non-notable company: no sources and no references. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Google News turns up nothing relevant for "energy consortium" and "New Delhi". The phrase "energy consortium" is quite common but never seems to relate to this non-notable business. The concept of an "energy consortium" generally might support an article, so deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be precise: the company's name is Exergy, not Energy. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Well, Google News knoweth them not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another search under this shows nothing. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a Planet Called Harlem[edit]

Future albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sourced information. WP:CRYSTAL to my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia – Serbia relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. The Serbian Foreign Ministry only lists this which predates the establishment of independent Serbia. could not find any real coverage of actual bilateral relations. [77] LibStar (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of bilateral relations other than an occasional football game and certainly no significant in-depth coverage to establish notability and verifiablity. Essentially no content except to point out there are no relations and even that is original research because the lack of relationship is so non-notable it hasn't even been covered. A complete ZERO of an article in all respects other than it helps make a complete set of 20,000 or so plus a cute map with the countries marked in green. Note: this is NOT a pasted comment and I researched it myself. Drawn Some (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What can I say that Drawn Some didn't, except to reiterate that the article is crap and should never have been created simply for the sake of satisfying obsessive-compulsive disorder. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yueran[edit]

The award and magazine used to support notability are both redlinked, and don't seem particularly notable. She is mentioned only in passing in the New York Times essay. Her name has only 1760 ghits, and the magazine that she won an award in has 621. Prodego ^talk 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only minor passing ref - no evidence of notability per our standard for authors. Eusebeus (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the competition and magazine are red links reflects on our poor coverage of Chinese topics, not on the notability of this article subject. According to the second of the references already in the article the competition is "the Olympics of Chinese writing" and the magazine has a circulation of 400,000. A Google News search finds substantial coverage in independent reliable sources such as this 1,100-word article and this statement that the subject enjoys "a celebrity status usually reserved for pop stars". If we're going to get into counting Google hits then these also need to be considered: [78][79][80]. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the zh Wikipedia article isn't much better. It's just three sentences plus a bibliography. No vote 121.72.218.112 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copy-paste the Chinese name into the Google box and notice the Deutsche Welle, People's Daily, China Radio International, etc. hits in the very first page of results. This does not require any knowledge of Chinese ... cab (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lee (writer/humorist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability. Seems to have a single IP subnet doing 95% of editing (and vandalism). Running a website and having a YouTube video is not notable. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~A7 No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~~ G3 Blatant misinformation, clearly a joke of some sort. Not mentioned in the sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is an assertion in connection with the leader of North Korea, but this looks like a joke to me. Also less than 10 google hits, clearly non notable. Most of the text is non verifyable. references prove nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Probably a hoax ("North Korean Leader"), possibly just a kid playing games. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Only has a single, not too great 3rd party source, and as such fails to establish notability. Artw (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, zero evidence of any sort of notability whatsoever. Using Blogspot doesn't make one meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just tried to clean this up and by the time I was done, there wasn't anything left that claimed notability. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete per those above me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources is uncovered. Skomorokh 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient evidence of notability established within the discussion - interesting thoughts for a merge target, Morbidthoughts, but I think it should probably be bundled as part of the DRV you refer to. To be explicit, the participants in this discussion suggesting retention failed to evidence reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Campbell (blogger)[edit]

Not yet sufficiently notable teen. See also Nathan Adam. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Adam, his co-blogger. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a reopened Net News Daily because the AfD for that article was in April while this prominent article about the website and the boys have popped up. Recommend a deletion review of the website. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure how anyone can say he's not notable, unless there's some separate criteria for teenagers, which I've never heard of. The Press and Journal piece and the BBC profile seem to establish pretty unassailable notability, and for more than event. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under what category do you think he's notable? WP:GNG says

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

The Press & Journal article isn't about him (it's about new nominations for the award) and it doesn't cover him in detail. Neither article gives sufficient information to write an article (where/when was he born? what happened to the online bookshop? and so on).

And I definitely don't see how he would qualify as WP:CREATIVE. So, convince me: what category of notability applies to him, and how? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The P&J headline and lead may may technically be about the award, but the article gives Campbell significant coverage; more than half of it is about Campbell, in fact. The BBC piece gives him significant coverage. The Piper & Herald article gives him significant coverage. Again, I'm confused about how we can say that these don't constitute "significant" coverage. I'll concede that they don't include his birthdate, but not that we should delete the article because of it. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below about why I think the birthdate matters. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Apart from the BT Internet Ranger award in 2006 and the mention on the BBC website, the evidence of notability is far from compelling. Hardly significant coverage, but the BBC is a reliable source and BT probably doesn't hand out awards for nothing. Astronaut (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the article is written by the subject.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just do not see the notability here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Wikipedia Notability criterion, this article meets nearly all of the General Notability Guidelines. It has significant and reliable coverage from a number of secondary independent sources. The sources are also verifiable, and most of them are significant media outlets. If you could explain further why this fails to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines, I would be greatly appreciative. --Scottcampb (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)— Scottcampb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Scottcampb (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to request that if the AfD debate concludes to the result that the article should be deleted, that it should be put on hold for the next two weeks. A photographer for The Scotsman (confirmed), as well as a photographer for The Times (confirmed) will be coming to take our pictures. Furthermore, a BBC TV crew will be coming in the next few weeks (date for filming unconfirmed at the moment), as well as a Press Association videographer on June 11th (confirmed). Hopefully that should add even more articles to prove my notability. --Scottcampb (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious...if the subject is notable, why did he have to create an article about himself? Wouldn't someone else have done it eventually?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to create it myself, because I thought that I met the notability guidelines. I also think my article is written with a NPOV. --Scottcampb (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think about it this way: if you look at only published reliable sources (which is what we're supposed to be doing), how old is he? One article described him as 12 years old in 2006, while the other described him as 13 years old in 2009. How do we actually know that these articles are about the same person? That leaves us with one fluffy article (which one doesn't matter), which is far from significant coverage from multiple sources. So no, he does not meet WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Press and Journal article has clearly been very badly worded. I launched an online book shop in the summer of 2007 just after turning 12, meaning that I turned 13 in 2008. I think the 'not the same person' argument is quite ridiculous, as both the Deeside Piper, Press and Journal and BBC articles mention me living in either Scotland or the specific area I live in (I would prefer not to write it on here). No doubt that somebody will find a criticism of it, but I also have a TechCrunch source [here http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/01/05/if-a-13-year-old-can-launch-a-startup-you-have-no-excuse/]. It is not 'one fluffy article at all', and there is significant coverage from multiple sources, if your petty 'not the same person' argument is not taken into account. --Scottcampb (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please: you are not your article. I've said nothing negative about you at all. Describing my statements as "petty" and "ridiculous" shows a complete disregard for WP:AGF (not to mention this little ad hominem edit). No, Wikipedia cannot just take your word for it that the P&J got its facts completely wrong (e.g., the year the biz launched, age when the biz launched, etc). That's why WP:RS matters and what's written by a WP:RS will always overrule any given editor's say-so. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that; I didn't realise about the WP:AFG guideline. I have reverted my comment on your Editor Review page. However, you are stating that there is only one verifiable article, when I have provided a TechCrunch Article, A BBC Radio 5 Live blog post, and I am about to add a link to the podcast on which I am recorded as being on Radio 5 to the reference list. As well as this, there are references from being on Original 106 and Real Radio. --Scottcampb (talk) 07:23, 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 speedily deleted as re-creation of content already deleted through a deletion discussion. This new version of it is not substantially different from the one that was deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Adam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not yet sufficiently notable teen. See also Scott Campbell (blogger). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotshot (game)[edit]

Non-notable game that someone made up one day. The only references are from a free web hosting service (in other words, they're something that the article creator probably wrote and posted himself). This was almost borderline speedy, but it's better to bring it here instead. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree it appears to be made up and non-notable, no RS Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, not notable. Acebulf (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a game he made up. We play it in gym all the time. Having said that, I agree it doesn't deserve its own page and should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.4.9 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't matter who wrote the home page or who wrote the article. No reliable secondary source = article gets deleted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G7 per the IP, whom I'm presuming is the page's author just logged out (pretty evident given that they just nominated the article at DYK). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is actually a pretty old game with a lot of history. I know they won't turn up on Google, but Lexis has returned several hits, including one from the Christian Science Monitor, dated June 17, 1982, ("The object is to score as many points as possible in a minute, with shots taken from five designated Hotspots worth between 2 and 5 five points. Each player starts at midcourt and retrieves his own rebounds . . . ) the Washington Post, dated September 24, 1981, about a local Hotshot competition tied in with a national one sponsored by the NBA. I'm still looking for more, but it's hard to cull them from all the stories that just call any player a "hotshot." I would guess that if someone could get their hands on a magazine for phys-ed teachers, they could find some more back everything up. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have titles and other citation info for these LexisNexis hits? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Brother-sister basketball 'Hotshots'; New Jersey claims hockey team"; June 17, 1982, Thursday, Midwestern Edition; BYLINE: By Ross Atkin, Sports writer of The Christian Science Monitor; SECTION: Sports; Sports Notebook; Pg. 8; LENGTH: 453 words and "Hotshot Basketball Finals Saturday"; The Washington Post; September 24, 1981, Thursday, Final Edition; SECTION: The District Weekly; DC 6; LENGTH: 103 words

It's hard to prove to you that these articles exist, as I can't copy/paste them without running afould of copyright restrictions, but here are the links to their pages from ProQuest Archiver: CSM, and "During+the+competition,+participants+attempt+to+score+as+many+points+as+possible+in+one+minute" WP . LAT Courant — Bdb484 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny they exist, if it's any consolation, we have to be able to verify it though, and print-only data is difficult at best. What we need is something we can still verify this - online resources are a big help. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Bdb's defense, the articles are not print-only if you have access to LexisNexis. I have read them and, while initially skeptical, I have to admit they do seem to say what Bdb says they say. I'm not totally convinced as to whether or not they establish notability, though, so will need to think on it for a day or so. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles presented above have the word hotshot in them, but I can't verify these sources. Need something more verifiable and very reliable at that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have verified that they are almost certainly about the game. At first it seemed possible that they were simply about a regular basketball tournament that was simply called the "hotshots basketball tournament", but that does not seem to be the case; they really are about this game. i need to think, though, about whether or not they're a big enough deal to establish notability. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment (@Dennis the Tiger) I too can vouch that WP:V is met here. There may be other grounds for deletion, but not that one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update After some thinking, I have decided not to withdraw the nom or change my rationale, my !vote is still delete. While the articles Bdb found on LexisNexis are nice, I believe they are more about that one tournament than about Hotshots´ notability as a game in general. While they might help give us a little more verification for the rules of the game, I don´t think they offer any real opportunity for article expansion or strong proof of notability. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but it seems like you're making a differentiation where there really doesn't need to be one. Using the reasoning you're putting forward, it seems like you'd have to oppose deletion of Pepsi Hotshot Tournament and Coca Cola-Hartford Hellcats Hotshot Tournament, while hotshot itself would be a redlink inside those articles. There's no reason the article can't demonstrate the notability of both the game and the tournament. And again, if there have been national tournaments for this game going on for the last two decades, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't more out there that could be used to flesh out this article, if it's given time.

If we judge articles by what they are able to be, rather than what they look like five days after creation, I don't see how I can argue this should not be given the opportunity to be developed. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not something just made up one day. I played this in elementary school in the 80's, and markings for it were painted on the pavement. I'm sure reliable sources exist somewhere, because the current sources aren't valid for our purposes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per research by Bdb484. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too can view the sources, and while I do take Rjanag's point, I think that User:Bdb484 rebuttal is persuasive. The sources, perhaps tangentially, speak to the notability of the game as well as the tournament. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jalen James Acosta[edit]

Non-notable personality with insufficient references Sawesero (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be non-notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Googling brings me little more than MySpace and Amazon. Google News and Lexis return nothing. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be non-notable. --Pmsyyz (talk) 20:47, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-goth[edit]

Recreation of a formerly deleted article. Prods and CSD have been declined in the past for this article so I'm bringing it here. Sub-genre, of a sub-genre, of a sub-genre... Not sure this has enough coverage to be included in the project. Ridernyc (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [81] provides many references. Article does need expansion and citing. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, and none of of them are really references to the the sub-genre. I see the name a of a couple of albums, Allmusic, and someone mentioning "his own brand of R&B eltrogoth." Ridernyc (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also after looking closlely many of the hits are hits on the words electro and goth, totally separate from each other. Ridernyc (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides no sources, the article doesn't really say anything. Just that the word "electro-goth" can be used for various works of music if you want to. (In English you can put just about any two words together and use them however you like.) I wouldn't have expected Goths to feel the need to be validated by an encyclopedia article anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - surely 107,000 ghits is enough to satisfy some people. Admittedly, I normally write it in one word, without the hyphen. It most certainly isn't a neologism either: a Google News search reveals the first usage on Google News dating to 1989 and, as someone who likes electro and was out clubbing in the 80s, I can assure you that it was in use before then. Tris2000 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you add "-prince" to the search term you loose 20,000 hit's right off the bat, even without that I dug through 10 pages of hits and could not find a single good source. I found podcasts, electrogoth wallpapers, torrents, nothing that would satisfy WP:RS, nothing to justify this having it's own article. After all this reading I still have no clear picture of what is unique about electrogoth. Even last.fm which shows up as a hit says the following "We don't have a description for this tag yet." It also seems that every band listed as electrogothic, is also darkwave, gothic, industrial, gothic metal, gothic rock, and on and on... Seems all these terms have no real definition. Ridernyc (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about the word then it should be moved to Wiki-dictionary.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources providing in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a neologism for an undefined (nonexistent?) genre. Listen to Blutengel, listen to Collide and listen to Clan of Xymox. There's no stylistic similarity between the bands. --Chontamenti (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:03, 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 keep. Listed for 14 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine musical instrument[edit]

Unreferenced, non-NPOV ("rich" history), non-encyclopedic (use of "our", and "let us unite"), and very difficult to verify. These problems can be cleaned, but after that there is little left but an instrument list. None of the instruments mentioned have their own articles on English WP, and looking at the first one (for example) the only ghits appear to be 16 various mirrors of WikiPilipinas. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Filipino musical instruments and then, well, do exactly what the nominator describes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We'll probably find Category:Filipino musical instruments helpful while doing this. It contains alternative spellings of several of the listed musical instruments. The reason why there should be both a category and a list is because of WP:CLN.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 02:15, 16 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 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename List of Filipino musical instruments. Badagnani (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:05, 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 delete. A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the primary notability criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakesville (blog)[edit]

Delete doesn't seem to have achieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I guess its claim to fame is that one Carnegie-Mellon study assessed that it was the 37th most informative blog. Not enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be enough third-party coverage, and 37th isn't that impressive, really. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mosotho chakela[edit]

Singer whose album and record company cannot be found on Google. Very likely non-notable. Samuel Tan 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. In addition, I searched the two references given for his name and it is not on the websites. Drawn Some (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 271 Google hits for "Mosotho chakela". Remember, just because he hasn't released anything in english, doesn't make him non-notable.--Auric (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 19 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 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, non verifiable. Google returns 27 unique hits, mostly from forums and WP mirrors. Google News and Lexis return zero hits. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: verifiable, at minimum: This book describes him as a "star" and states that he won a South Africa Traditional Music Achievement Award (South Africa has many Sesotho speakers, so I'd imagine he has some cross-border popularity). cab (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (e/) with CAB) I'm sad enough to read some of those 27 hits. As a musician from Lesotho he is unlikely to have much coverage in Western media, but we must ensure that we counter systemic bias WP:CSB. This 2007 news summary suggests he was being searched for by police (not quite sure why, didn't read all of it, but it chimes with the political problems noted on the forums, smoe of his music is apparently banned in Lesotho) and states on pg 11 "‘Mosotho’ Chakela is particularly well known because of his skill as a famo (sic) musician." He had billing at what seems to be a major African music festival (140,000 attendees in Sep 2008) 1 and 2. It seems Famo is a type of music, he was nominated and won an award for it at the South African Traditional Music Awards in 2006. A Google search for "Chakele famo" reveals he's mentioned in two wp articles, All Basotho Convention & Morija Arts & Cultural Festival and a book. I therefore believe there he is of sufficient notability to remain, and I'll sort out the article at the weekend, along with everything else I've got on my list! Bigger digger (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Yurek[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:ONEEVENT: the subject appears to have testified before Congress once and is otherwise non-notable (Wikipedia is not a list of every person to ever appear before Congress). The article describes him as CEO of a company, and the user that created the article shares that name: IdWatchdog. The company that he runs does not have its own page, nor does it appear to warrant one. The article was previously proposed for deletion via prod and was saved by Varbas. FrumpyTheClown (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —FrumpyTheClown (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 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, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge: Lexis returns about 21 hits on the guy and about 36 on the organization. Still, it might be better to merge it all into ID Watchdog, as he doesn't appear to have any notability separately, and that would allow us to get rid of the Haley's comet-full moon nonsense. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we had the article on the company, and it appeared to meet WP:CORP, I would say merge. But, as it is, delete. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Testifying before Congress and acting like a lawyer-proclaimed "expert witness" in court i a fair cry from anything like real world notability of any sort. DreamGuy (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grande Loja Legal de Portugal/GLRP

Does not meet ORG or CLUB. No substantial coverage in secondary sources. Its activities cannot be verified, and it is not the only group of its type in Portugal. MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge or Week~~ Delete - This organization is recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, so it has a claim to notability. However, at last estimate it consisted of only about 900 members in 65 lodges (which is tiny by Masonic standards). I think the real issue here is the lack of reliable sources that discuss the org (and especially the lack of secondary sources that are independant of the subject). Without such sourcing, I don't think it is notable enough for a stand alone article. However, it may be notable enough for inclusion in a general article on Freemasonry in Portugal. I would also merge in the articles about other Masonic orgs in Portugal (the larger Grande Oriente Lusitano and the smaller Grande Loja Regular de Portugal) into that general article. None of these orgs, on their own, have the sourcing to establish notability.... but they might if put together under the broader discussion of Freemasonry in Portugal. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am shifting my opinion to Delete... After attempting to write an article on Freemasonry in Portugal, I am finding very little in the way of reliable sources on the topic. All we seem to have are the websites of the various bodies which exist. While this shows that the bodies exist, they do not indicate that any of them are notable. It seems that, unlike other nations, Freemasonry did not play a big roll in Portugese history or society. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 21 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, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deyell[edit]

Lots of name-dropping and details plans but the sources are not reliable or mention in passing and some are flat-out wrong. IMDb shows a much less impressive career than is indicated. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Gut or Rewrite. Articles are deleted on the basis of what they could be, rather than how they are, no? The IMDB page seems to establish notability. But the article as written is puffery. It brags, it's far longer than it needs to be, and even if the information is accurate, much of it is not noteworthy or interesting. He's an actor who's a member of the Screen Actors Guild? Wow! Much of the information seems far too detailed not to have been written by the article's subject. Could easily be sliced down to 2 paragraphs. Hairhorn (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think the IMDb page looks like enough, I guess we'll agree to disagree. SAG's requirements aren't really that much, but it doesn't look like it's salvageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... you may have missed the sarcasm in my "wow".... Hairhorn (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that. You never know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 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) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two sources listed give only fleeting mentions of Deyell, establishing him as a character on the periphery of other people's notability. 1 and 2. The external links provided were largely irrelevant and redundant. I stripped most of them out anyway. A pretty extensive search on Google and Lexis confirms that he exists, but not that he's notable. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor acting roles, no evidence of writing/producing/directing any notable works. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tassedethe (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Thomas Hamblin[edit]

references are largely self published sources, Not finding much via Google News to support notability and all hits in a Google Books search are to books written by him. RadioFan (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now included reference to a third party book which mentions Hamblin. Also a third party link (there are more if you google "Hamblin Trust") to show that the trust is widely recognised in the UK as a venue for events relating to complementary living and personal development. The lack of third party material may reflect the fact that the author has been dead over 50 years and non-US New Thought practitioners have tended to be ignored by commentators since "New Thought" has tended to be seen as an American phenomenon. The fact that Hamblin has left a legacy in the form of a working charitable trust (The Hamblin Trust - see website), 50 years after his death, suggests that his work and teaching has acheived a degree of recognition deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. And the fact that Hamblin was able to attract someone of the calibre of Joel S. Goldsmith to write for his magazine suggest that he had achieved a fair measure of recognition and respect at the time. Shadygrove2007 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I do not see how those could possibly meet WP:GNG, the only non-trivial is not independent of the subject. They could be used as references for the article but not to establish notability. There needs to be significant in-depth treatment of the subject by reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy died over 50 years ago, but some of his published works are in libraries in many places, and he has a library of congress collection number. Obscure authors usually have "personal ids" instead of lccns. The fact that several of his books are in multiple major university libraries implies that multiple university librarians thought that his works were worth adding to their collections. His earliest works were published in the 1920's. -Arch dude (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unverifiable hoo-hah. No reliable sources, and while the library argument above is an interesting one, it doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence or by WP policy. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please click on the worldcat link in the external links section of the article (or click here:[82].) Worldcat is a unified database of the catalogs of roughly 50,000 physical brick-and-mortar libraries. From that page, you can click on any of the author's cataloged books to see which libraries hold that book. In addition, the links to the Hanblin foundation are not "self-published:" Hamblin, who died in 1958, is unlikely to have created those web sites :-) As to policy, the meta-policy here is to establish notability, and to establish verifiability via reliable sources. For an author dead more than 50 years, I feel that the availability is multiple major university libraries meets both criteria, since the acquiring librarians are certainly independent, and addition to a library collection is at least as useful an indication of notability as a newspaper article. the problem here is that we simply do not have easy access to secondary sources from the fifty to seventy years ago, so we need to use what we do have in order to counter the systematic bias against old subjects. I will go make this argument at WP:N and at WP:RS. I personally have absolutely no interest in this particular wacko "new thought" guy, and I had never heard of him before his link turned blue on the Project Gutenberg missing arthors missing articles list. Can we please defer the deletion until we have a chance to discuss the policy? -Arch dude (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what you're referring to is WP:CREATIVE which with poor grammatical form tacks on "had works in many significant libraries". This allows in a lot of authors which is a good thing but then there is the "many" and "significant" to weigh. In this particular case I would honestly say it is only a few significant libraries that hold his works, not many. There are some major university and research libraries among those but few "popular" libraries and no library seems to hold a complete collection of his works. So it is mixed at best. I'll change my opinion from "delete" to neutral because if there is a near-consensus that the number of libraries holding his works is sufficient for notability then I don't want to stand in the way. Still doesn't meet WP:GNG though. Drawn Some (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a good example of where real-world notability and that which can be verified online can diverge. Good work, Arch dude.--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the number of libraries that have his books you can't make much of a claim for real-world notability. For most of his books the number of libraries is 3 if I remember correctly, one book had 15 libraries. Not exactly overwhelming popularity out of 50,000 libraries or so. Drawn Some (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purpose of considering the library holdings is to demonstrate the impact that the person has had on their field. You are correct that its especially useful when considering older subjects which aren't going to have much current coverage available online. Yes that WorldCat link does show that his book is held by some libraries but not especially expansive list. When looking over the list of libraries that hold his publications, I would expect to see some universities with strong theology programs and a couple with complete collection of his works (there are only 8 in the article), but there aren't. This doesn't make a very strong case for notability. Also this search shows books about this author, which there is only 1 and it's an autobiography, not a good sign for notability either.--RadioFan (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The existence of the books make his career verifiable, the holdings don't show importance one way or another considering the subject and the period. This is not the sort of thing academic or public libraries collect if they possibly help it, but the person may still be notable within the field--a very decidedly non academic field, that doe snot really count as theology. That the material is still being published shows in my opinion just sufficient notability. Survival this long considering the nature of the work is notable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chiaravallo[edit]

Contested Prod, prod tag deleted by anon IP without comment. There isn't really a claim of notability here. Fails WP:BIO. The claims of being "featured" in WSJ, USA Today, etc., are misleading - Chiaravallo is listed as the publisher of advertising flyers that appeared in those publications, which isn't the same as "being featured" in those publications. The 44 Google hits don't speak to notability, either - it's all facebook, linkedin, ancestry.com, nothing that approaches significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Nothing of note in Google news either. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems that if we keep this non-notable, then we will also need to create a dab page. Un school 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources, no claim to notability. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - No evidence of notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:00, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedomnomics[edit]

No citations other than the book itself. Google News returns no relevant results, and I was unable to find any reputable sources providing coverage that meets WP:NOTE. ff m 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I forgot to transclude this page. Fixed now. ff m 15:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google news actually includes a fair number of results: here. many are about the author, and only mention the book in passing, but there appear to be some useable sources there for the book as well. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are more than enough in-depth articles about this book in reliable sources for it to meet WP:NB. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ARticle needs work, but book is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Gbirley's argument is based on WP:CRYSTAL; however, if he would like to have it userfied to User:Gbirley/Reza Faezi, I will be glad to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Faezi[edit]

No sources to establish notability. Best I could find was this which lists him as an amateur fighter (thus not notable). --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The internet is not a reliable source due to the relatively small media attention that Finnish MMA creates. The sources that I have used in the creation of the wikipedia document are credible, the sources are; Reza Faezi himself, videos of the fights and Finnish MMA Magazine. This article should not be deleted on the grounds that Reza Faezi is an upcoming fighter and may make an appearance internationally in MMA (seeing as he one the nationals). --Gbirley (talk) 20:04, 26 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 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Gbirley, media attention is one way we judge notability. There are other means to notability but he doesn't appear to achieve it through any of those routes, either. It might be appropriate to userfy the article since you believe he may become notable in the future. Drawn Some (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've had a handful of matches in regional competition, no title fights or championships. There is nothing to suggestion that this person is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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