The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with consensus view. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Metcalfe[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. I just can't see why he needs a page, the links are pretty obscure and don't seem to be especially about him, and the first half seems unsourced. It would help if it had wikilinks, categories or was linked to. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. The subject's claim to notability appears to be as a professional surfer. I have only found two Google News Archive hits about him, but I can't rule out the possibility that he may be notable in the surfing community. The supporters of this article should revise it to focus on his surfing career to clarify his claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see him listed here [1], although one of the links in the article does show that he's competed in ASP events [2]. It don't know if he'd qualify as inherently notable under WP:ATHLETE; it would depend on whether he'd competed at the highest level of professional surfing competition, and I think its analogous to how we deal with articles about professional golfers. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to the ASP FAQ, there are thousands of surfers who are in the World Qualifying Series of ASP, the only requirement being the $200 fee. Since there's no mention of him currently or ever being one of the 46 who qualify each year for the higher ASP World Tour, I think he fails WP:ATHLETE. As a model, he doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER either. No references indicating significant roles, no significant or cult following. I could be persuaded to change my mind if there can be found references showing him as a named spokes-model for one of the companies mentioned, but merely appearing in an add doesn't fit the criteria. – jaksmata 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First source is a picture (doesn't help). 2nd is a press release (not neutral or really valid) The third says it is a "one-star event" (hardly a "highest level" as per WP:ATHLETE and a press release), the next reference has him coming in last in his heat, etc. I don't think he meets WP:ATHLETE, and he certainly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The biggest achievement I can find is that he made the round of 64 (3rd round- there were at least 4) in a tournament called the "Association of Surfing Professionals (ASP) World Qualifying Series (WQS) 3-Star Quiksilver Pro Puerto Escondido". World Qualifying Series? It seems to me this is similr to a golfer whose biggest achievement was playing in and losing in Q-School. Delete in line with WP:ATHLETE. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Merging/redirecting should be discussed on the article's talk page; protection from vandalism should be requested at WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Merrygold[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:N and WP:Bio. Member of notable band JLS. Should be redirected to the band's article, not given an individual article as they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases RM-Taylor (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding, this page is a constant target for vandalism amongst minors who vandalise the page at least once a day. If deletion discussion if succesful, I suggest that the article is also locked so that it can not be re-established unless within time the article will pass WP:Bio or WP:N RM-Taylor (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RM-Taylor (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely doesn't fail WP:N. Anyone who hasn't heard of Aston Merrygold has been living down a hole for a year. If it's a constant vandalism target, lock it, don't delete it.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. I notice that the nominator doesn't even ask for deletion. You don't need to bring something up on AfD for that, just do it yourself. — Gwalla | Talk 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Subject passes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO as he holds notability outside of JLS; he acted in the TV series Fun Song Factory and appears in a duet on Cheryl Cole's album 3 Words. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite some invalid and emotion-based arguments ("should be deleted just out of spite", "their disrespect for Wikipedia " etc.) in favor of deletion, there are also valid, policy-based arguments in favor of deletion and no such arguments in favor of keeping the article, since notability claims like "many google hits" and "getting popular" are only valid if they can be verified using reliable, third-party sources. Oren99 does provide some sources to that effect but they are all blog sources and as such cannot be used to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 10:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cincopa[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, borderline WP:SPAM, clear WP:Conflict of interest by creator, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant spam and buzzword bingo: a Cloud Computing, Platform as a Service (PaaS) company, allowing developers to build rich multimedia applications that are hosted on their servers and provided as a service (Software as a service SaaS). Established in 2007... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A link to google search results is not a valid reference. The actual number of sites is only a fraction of what is claimed. I agree that this is spam from a non-notable company. – jaksmata 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A link to google search is a valid reference as it shows the wide use of the system. google doesn't lie and so wordpress with 90,00 downloads. there are many articles about the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren99 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Oren99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Cincopa is a tool for site builders so searching the term "powered by cincopa" does give somekind of idea about the amount of users using it. Also here are some reviews talking about the importance of this product to the wordpress bloggers community 123456. comment added by Oren99 —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC). — Oren99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep the plugin of cincopa is one of the best and most downloaded on in wordpress, and it's a big player in the wordpress blog world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shohamgi (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Shohamgi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Keep the platform is getting extremely popular .Reference is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossinson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Mossinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Speedy delete the presence of all these SPA who suddenly show up make it obvious this is spam. This should be deleted just out of spite. Miami33139 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It could be the best and the most downloaded on Wordpress, but that does not make it notable let alone warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. "A big player in the wordpress blog world" yet I fail to find significant, independant notable coverage. The discussions created by the WP:SPA accounts just shows their disrespect for Wikipedia as they blatantly try to use their fan/user base to justify keeping this article. I vote delete. LoudHowie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google hits as a reference is rather frightening. Additionally, all of these single purpose accounts make this rather curious. It was also clearly created in a conflict of interest, as the creator's edit summary is "new page for my company, cincopa". These concerns aside, the article is written from a rather non-neutral POV, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. I wouldn't totally be against doing something along the lines of information in related topics, but that would be likely prone to linkspam or other abuses. Popularity is not a substitute for notability, and I don't think significant, reliable, third-parties have made enough reference to it to confer notability. Lots of issues. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt This article will likely be recreated via a paid editing job from elance dot com with the job entry consisting of I"ve submitted an article about my company to Wikipedia and got many rejects. I'm looking for someone with a track record in wiki (not SPA) to review and fix (non-neutral POV, WP:ORG) the issues and fight an "Articles for deletion" status. the article is not long and most writing is already done. If you understand what I'm asking and believe that you can write compelling cross arguments to the deletion status do reply and we can discuss the article/company name. Enough said. ThemFromSpace 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge is an option as well. Deletion is not an issue so I am closing the debate. Tone 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario[edit]

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School paper on a non-notable topic; appears to have been graded at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, presumably by the teacher or prof who assigned it. Not encyclopedic content for anything but a Dryden wiki. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-encyclopedic -Drdisque (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is well-referenced and the topic has attracted national attention in Canada. This is not a purely local topic. – Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. _{– Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{– Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
• Merge to Dryden, Ontario. The topic may not be notable enough for a stand alone article, but it is referenced. It is worthy of a section in the main article. Tavix |  Talk  00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps the name of the article is awkward and has an obscure sound to it, and perhaps this is covered in another article, but what I see is about a location that sustained significant industrial pollution damage from the source of its jobs. In the United States, this would probably be a Superfund site. The content is encyclopedic enough, and the article may seem bland because of efforts to avoid POV problems, but I think that a new title wouldn't hurt. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dryden, Ontario, as indicated by Tavix. Pdcook (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article could use some cleanup, but there is enough well-referenced material here for a standalone article. LadyofShalott 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Tavix, but I'd be ok with a keep, as well. The historical importance of the industry in Dryden and its environmental aftermath would greatly add to the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Agreed with Merge reasons indicated above. LoudHowie (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Eastmain and Mandsford.This already has more than enough content for a standalone article, and it would be outsized for the Dryden Ontariio page if incorporated whole (I've copyedited and added a bit, and the articles are nearly the same size).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dryden, Ontario. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dryden, Ontario. --Kevinharte (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While this might have started out as a school project, what we have now is a well-sourced article on a notable topic. The environmental damage caused by this industry is long-lasting, and significant enough to justify its own article. Dryden, Ontario should link here (which it does), not include this level of discussion. The name is unwieldy, but any problems here can be fixed by a much less severe remedy than deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable topic, and the article contains a sufficient amount of referenced content to stand as its own page. Would accept a merge as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Image Comparison[edit]

Satellite Image Comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopedic. Just a page with 2 images on it. Atmoz (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Didn't we have this debate somewhere before? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-encyclopedic. They took anything back in 2003. Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure what to make of this article - it doesn't seem to have a subject except "hey look at this, cool huh?" Maybe the author is trying to make some point, but it's probably some kind of original research. Nice references, though. – jaksmata 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the article does explain what the 2 images represent, I see no significance in this topic. LoudHowie (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unencyclopedic. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not significant and this obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia. ThaLux (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Hof[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just pure spam written by an agent of the vineyard - see Wikipedia:Help_desk#I_was_adding_changes_to_the_website_for_a_Client_and_now_my_page_has_been_deleted. It has been deleted twice before and yet again it has been recreated. It should be deleted and protected to stop its repeated spamming. Biker Biker (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G11 and salt. So tagged. This is unambiguous spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G11 spam, again, and salt. ukexpat (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus below, no arguments for retention. Hiding T 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsonka ball[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unreferenced neologism with a sketchy and unhelpful definition. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Blatantly obvious "thing made up one day", bordering on WP:CSD#G1 (WP:Patent nonsense). -Verdatum (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Just nonsense. And made up one day. DarkAudit (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up at/after school one day. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess it was supposed to be funny. Probably a practical joke directed at someone whose last name is Tsonka. Not cool. Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like it fits deletion criteria per WP:NOT#OR and WP:MADEUP. – jaksmata 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasoning in my PROD. Fingerz 02:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific American Volunteer Association[edit]

Pacific American Volunteer Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little references listed on article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem to genuinely exist [3] and has even gotten a little press from other organizations [4] [5] [6]. I agree that this is not enough to hang an article on, but the fraud issue doesn't seem to apply here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a borderline case: It's a stub, and needs references, but the real question is whether the sources show significant coverage or trivial coverage (per WP:ORG). I'm inclined to keep it because of the numerous awards and the large number of people they have at their events. I also think it's possible that significant secondary sources exist, I just haven't found them (they might be in Korean). – jaksmata 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pacific American Volunteer Association produces one of the largest Kodak Theater Shows after the Academy Awards, certainly notable. PAVA regularly turns out 5,000 volunteers in a single day, such as at its Los Angeles River Clean Up and Restoration project, and its president is a Los Angeles River Commissioner. PAVA regularly receivs headline coverage in the Korean Press in Los Angeles, which has a polulation of 1 million Korean Americans. PAVA is the largest Korean Organization in Los Angeles, after Korean Veterans. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HkFnsNGA. Crafty (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why was User:Pickbothmanlol indefinitely blocked? User:Pickbothmanlol is the one nominating this article for deletion. How can he change his vote if he is blocked, if his concerns have now been addressed?HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, rename, and delete redirect.. NW (Talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television news of the civil rights era 1950-1660[edit]

Television news of the civil rights era 1950-1660 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This history project appears to be quite unremarkable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and obvious rename to "1950 - 1970" in order to make sense. It ought to be expanded in line with other sources, but the topic itself is clearly notable on its face. Collect (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have not-very-boldly moved the page to the correct title. There appears to be enough coverage under GNews, GScholar and GBooks to support notability, although the coverage is fairly narrow. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As DGG points out (and consensus agrees with him), lists can, and most times will, duplicate information of prose-articles in order to allow easier overview and access to information. As such, the nominator has not made a policy-based argument in favor of deletion (problems with sources and references can and should be adressed through editing). Regards SoWhy 10:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hunnic rulers[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page consists mostly of highly contentious and inadequately-referenced comments; anything of value is already on related pages Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Which related pages? Should this be redirected to one instead, or cleaned up and kept? It seems like an obvious search term. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source properly from modern secondary sources. The related pages are the two overlapping articles: Huns and Hunnic Empire--but it is appropriate to provide a chronological listing in a clear format as well as the descriptions there. List articles for the sucessive rulers of a people or nation are always very valuable navigational devices. Incidentally, I see that the frWP and deWP articles on this subject area are probably a little better than the enWP, and might be used to improve them. They both have the advantage of being free from the pervasive influence of the old Brittanica. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming that those are the articles Richard referred to then definitely keep per DGG's arguments. This list seems to easily fall under WP:LISTPURP which specifically mentions chronological lists among other things. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm stunned that this seems to be the only list that we have of rulers of the Huns, and that it is so poorly sourced. Sadly, anything of value is not already on related pages. For a people who, at their peak, controlled most of Eastern Europe, the topic hasn't gotten very scholarly coverage. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Again suggest delete. I may have been a little too polite earlier, but the only undisputed ruler of all the Huns was Attila, and even he ruled with his brother for some years. I have removed the unsupportable comments that claim members of other later groups as Huns, and a couple of names whose attribution and even existence is dubious. That leaves very little, about tribal rulers of uncertain dates (so somewhat resistant to conventional list format) and, I repeat, the valuable stuff is already in the articles Huns and Hunnic Empire. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mix (Pink album)[edit]

In the Mix (Pink album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I started doing some maintenance to this article then realized it is a bootleg. Article states that the cover art is fan made and the the album "was not announced or released officially, so doesn't deserve to be mentioned amongst P!nk's official album lists". I don't even know what that is supposed to mean or how it makes this the slightest bit notable. The article's original location was Pink: In The Mix (I moved it before realizing what this is), so that would also need to be deleted. - eo (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We're at the point where anyone can take a collection of anything, throw it together and call it an "album". They don't deserve articles, though. DarkAudit (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I can not find such coverage, so this bootleg does not appear to warrant an article.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, for the WP:NALBUMS note above, and second, the note that, per the article, it doesn't deserve listing in P1nk's official album listing. By its own admission, it doesn't belong here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per WP:NALBUMS, this is not notable even as remixes and bootlegs go. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the article itself: This is just a fan-created album consisting of previously released material. – jaksmata 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not because it is a bootleg, but because it is a bootleg with no coverage by and any WP:RS. J04n(talk page) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Complete Overview of the Slider[edit]

A Complete Overview of the Slider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this has references and is doubtless of interest, it is an essay and an opinion piece, and thus has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Slider. The article seems adequately sourced (although in need of re-formatting), but the main article is the place for this information. Tevildo (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason to merge or redirect, as the slider article has enough information. This seems to be an essay that was posted on WP. Let's get rid of it. Angryapathy (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above reasons, although some of the information may be of some use in the slider article.Petepetepetepete (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have copied the text here to Talk:Slider/Overview for preservation's sake. There may be valid information here that would be useful in the main article. Feel free to delete that and move this there if history preservation is a concern. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG Fbifriday (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability conclusively proven in the 2nd afd, see the links there for details. And as I pointed out in the last afd, that they haven't been added to the article is not cause for deletion. FYI- I removed the notaballot infobox for now. Given that nobody has commented in the afd before me, its probably best to assume the good faith of anybody who wishes to comment. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There are tons of references available for Smosh, they just don't appear in the article. Perhaps I'll add a few, though Smosh is not my cup of tea.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a number of references now, as it seems the repeated AfD nominations are simply a good-faith result of the article not having references in it.--Milowent (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This have a number of reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Angryapathy (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep. Many and sundry references, including one in Time Magazine, where the subject at hand is not only the primary focus, but the focus of the article. This article has no chance of being deleted given the sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per reliable 3rd party coverage for notability. CTJF83 chat 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With the extra references that were added, it meets the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Mysdaao ^talk 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I nominated this once before for having a lack of references but when I saw the amount that people had found i withdrew my nomination. Kyle1278 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Keep and close - This is really not a WP:WEB violation. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 02:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep same boat as Kyle... I nominated this for deletion and withdrew the nom... after three AfD's one should really look at the AfD history before making a fourth nom. It might be one thing if the AFD's were close or questionable, but each were decisive. I considered closing this myself, but decided that even though there are a ton of keeps already, that my doing so might be perceived as a COI, so voting keep with recommendation for closure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well hey now, the sources actually look good on this one, I don't see a need to keep nominating it any longer. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Naris[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP that appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Prod expired, but article had previously been deleted via Prod. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE; it also fails WP:GNG. Note: this is not an unsourced BLP; it has was actually created with two sources back in July 2009. GiantSnowman 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played a significant number of games in a European top-level league. Eldumpo (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's true that the Meistriliiga is the highest level in Estonia, but it's not a fully professional league since some of the teams are amateur. Thus he he fails WP:ATHLETE. There is nothing in his individual record indicating that he otherwise is notable. He's scored only 7 goals since joining his team in 2005 and a goal a year is not very many for a striker. Papaursa (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim D. Keanini[edit]

Tim D. Keanini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Andrew Storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles were previously deleted via G11 but that deletion was overturned at DRV following discussion; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 16. This is a procedural nomination and I am not making any statement as to the content of these articles but will reiterate concerns voiced previously that these articles are primarily promotional in nature and do not satisfy inclusion guidelines for biographies. Shereth 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, whoever wrote these appears to know nothing about WP:RS, and I think it's clear they both fail WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these pages as yet another bad-faith attempt by nCircle to abuse Wikipedia for their own promotional purposes. The user (RPelton) who created these has already been identified and banned from Wikipedia editing for being an nCircle shill. RPelton's previous article on nCircle itself has already been deleted for failing to achieve WP:N. These two new articles on Ncircle employees are even worse in that respect. Sfba (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of people who work in technology get quoted in trade rags. that doesn't mean they're notable; it means they have a PR firm or reporter friends. WP:N says the reliable sources in an article need to cover the person significantly and directly, and a magazine isn't covering a guy directly just because they quoted him and 4 other people. KateSelik (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as de-puffed. Collect (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the new lack of nCircle material in them, removal of blogs as sources, etc. Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per KateSelik. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as although the sources can be verified and the article content is no longer openly promotional, it still lacks of any signficant coverage or claim to notability for these individuals, just mentions in passing. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex n violence[edit]

Sex n violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased band, whose notability by merit of being composed of members of other notable bands is questionable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good faith Google search yielded only the WP article, Myspace, Facebook, etc. Perhaps once they actually release an album that charts they will achieve notability. Pdcook (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can not find reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage for this band. As suggested above, the article can certainly be recreated if and when such coverage exists.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – The band does not appear to be independently notable, but it can be redirected to the article of lead vocalist Gene Louis. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelist O. O. Anumati[edit]

Evangelist O. O. Anumati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable...does not even have his own search term in google (when you type his name in, it suggests another name). All references are not really references. Also needs to be moved to O.O Anumati (Evangalist) if decision is keep. Tim1357 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Article is an autobiography, (creator's name is User:Odubenu and subjects name is O. O. Anumati (Odubenu Okeoghene) Its full of non-NPOV stuff like this Tim1357 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BLP without any sources, and none can be found. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The added sources have move this from non-notable territory. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megarex[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The claims of notability just aren't really notable ("participated in" festivals without in-depth review of the performance, and non-winner in a competition). Bundle with it the group's album:

Megarex (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...which also has no claim of notability (no charted hits; I am not finding any in-depth critical reviews, but I can't check native-language sources easily). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Switch to keep for the band based on sources now listed. Thanks Power.corrupts! If the article is kept, merge and redirect album into it. Cited refs are only brief mention of the release or noting (according to google-translation) how the album is a good example of their style, no independent notability of the album itself. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can not find reliable sources providing coverage for this band. Appears to fail WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the sources provided below by Power.corrupts, which WP:NONENG permits (though they're not preferable), I will stay Neutral, as I am not convinced that the band is non-notable.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As the creator of this article, I'm against the deletion of this page and I'll try to justify its survival. I know a few people heard about the band outside Brazil. However, it's considered one of the best bands of São Paulo, Brazil, in the last years. I added to the article some references talking about the notability of the band, the most relevant texts I found in the web. So, I think these (the content of the texts) are suficient reasons to give this band articles in Wikipedia. It's important to note that this article contributes to expand knowledgement about Brazilian music and culture.Victor Silveira (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added another source I found. After this, I think the article meets many of the criteria for musicians and ensembles. It surely meets the 1st. According to Megacity sounds source (reference 6 of the article), it meets the 7th. At last, once it was the third place in a internacional festival, confirmed by the site of the festival (added as reference), I think it meets the 9th. Despite almost all of the references are in portuguese, I guarantee it confirms everything that is in the article.Victor Silveira (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perhaps I can be of some assistance to those who cannot find sources. I use Google, in advanced search I mark only Portuguese language [7] - that returns 36,5k hits.
  • "Parque de SP prepara dois dias de atrações musicais". FolhaOnline. February 5, 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- puts them in good company with other notable artists, and mentions their earlier participation in significant and notable events
  • "Comer de madrugada, por Marco Camarano, das bandas Megarex e Mother Funkers". FolhaOnline - Revista. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- additional mention, but article is not accessible without subscription, not an uncommon occurrence in non-English speaking countries
  • "Com o aval de O Teatro Mágico, MegaRex se apresenta no CCSP no sábado, 26.01, São Paulo, SP · 26/1". Overmundo. January 12, 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- a presentation before their performance at Centro Cultural São Paulo, they seem to have won a competitions of sort, I dont understand it well, the source seems to be a blog with editorial oversight, i.e. [WP:RS]]
  • "Projeto Musical Villa-Lobos leva MegaRex e outros artistas para parque, São Paulo, SP · 09/2 a 10/2". Overmundo. February 9, 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- quite obvious that Overmundo is a RS - independent coverage and editorial oversight
  • "Megarex mistura sons e disponibiliza MP3". Território da Música. December 2, 2003. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- they won a semifinals of sorts in 2003, the source seems to be a blog with editorial oversight, i.e. WP:RS
  • "iG Papo: Megarex - Melhores Momentos". TV IG. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- an interview in a TV show
  • "JustTV: Talk Show - Entrevista com a Banda MegaRex e com a Dançarina Nete Salmah - 15/09/09". JustTV (?). September 19, 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- and oh, another interview on TV

While I have only checked the first 50 Google hits, and followed a lead on one the the newpapers, it would sort of seem safe to assume that the band could reasonable satisfy WP:MUSIC #1, even taking WP:BIAS issues for foreign language sources into account Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Glad someone who speaks the language of the nation they are in, and would thus get coverage in, took the time to search for news sources. Dream Focus 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Power.corrupt, thank you for helping me. I'll add these references you found to the article soon, maybe some hours later. Dream Focus, I'm a little busy at this week, but I'm always looking for any news. Surely, I'll add new sources soon. Thank you for helping me too.Victor Silveira (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article and added the sources Power.corrupt found. Soon, I'll search for some more news sources and I hope I (or someone else) can improve this article.Victor Silveira (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Power.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After the rewrite by HkFnsNGA (talk · contribs), consensus is clear that the subject satisfies both WP:N and WP:V. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Lesser[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I smell a hoax. Article makes some grandiose claims that this guy was, among other things, a "mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian [sic]", and that he worked with U.S. President John F. Kennedy in developing "the largest HUD urban renewal project in the history of the western United States." As such, one would expect a simple Google search to yield all kinds of results, but it yields a bunch of hits to sources of questionable verifiability. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Redacted; see below. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted the entire article and rewrote it. Sources for mid century news articles are difficult on the internet, since most newspapers are stored in library microfische, but I sourced all sentences in the new article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax. The casino stuff, in particular, is easy to disprove, and none of it has reliable sources, of which of course there would be plenty if any of this were true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Las Vegas is very well documented, both online and off. You claim this person both owned and operated several major casinos during Las Vegas' golden era. Why, then does this person not appear in the indexes of either Las Vegas: A Centennial History or Las Vegas: An Unconventional History? Why is this person not even mentioned in the Las Vegas Online Encyclopedia? Why is this person neither among the Las Vegas Review Journal's First 100 nor even among the hundreds of others nominated for it? Why does the LVRJ's site search show no results for this person? Why does a Google News Archive search for this person's name and the word "Casino" produce nothing related at all? I don't doubt that a person named Louis Lesser exists or did exist, and that there is/was a Louis Lesser Enterprises at some point, but the grand claims stated in the article appear completely unsupported by any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Starblind is correct that this stuff SHOULD show up, and does not. And Lesser's operations appear to have owned most of the Howard Hughes properties in general, not just those in Las Vegas, and there are unsavory elements of teamster funding in the news stories I have been reading. I will not add any Las Vegas stuff without citations from reliable news sources. I apologize for my initial sloppy article, and hope the newly written one is more according to Wikipdia standards. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G3 (hoax). Clearly the name exists per the secinfo website, but there is no evidence to the accomplishments. I'll tag it momentarily. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modifying !vote to delete and standing down on the speedy. With the facts backing this up, we now know he was a property builder/manager/owner/whatever, and that he is indeed alive. So any statements in the article where truthfulness is anywhere ranging from questionable to simply nonexistant is gone. However, I maintain the delete because the fact that he built some buildings, unto itself, does not make Mr. Lesser any more notable than the average realtor. If some sort of notability can be verifiably demonstrated, I will change my mind. My other commentary still stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are primary sources ergo unusable for the purpose - they're abstracts for company business, and that's not independent of the source. The two news articles - LA Times and NY Times - are a maybe, and might give us a winner for a stub. I'll see if I can research them. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - I did not call Mr. Lesser a realtor. I used it as a comparative. If I should give advice, it's this: read carefully what people are saying. When you read too fast, you misread things, and it changes everything. Case in point: "ghit" is not a name, rather an abbrev for "Google hits". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr andstuff) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - author had blanked the page, says he's a new guy in another AFD for Cal Trans Pet Cemetery. See history. -(Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF only seems to mention his name, from what I could see. So clearly, again, there is a Louis Lesser, but you still have not provided any concrete documentation per the claims made in the article. You need to find this - there is no argument contraindicating this imperative. -- (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Dennis The Tiger, I hope I have addressed your concerns in my rewrite, where I added LA Times and NY TImes sources, and removed material that I have not yet found proper sources for. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Modifying !vote to keep for the purpose. The article's author has exercised diligence in improving this article and has demonstrated to me that he is willing to improve his work. Also working off of WP:OUTCOMES - if I remember right, this notes that people of extraordinary wealth tend to survive AFD as notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• JFK was killed two years before HUD was established. And I doubt greatly that the largest urban renewal project in the history of west Los Angeles (to say nothing of the entire western USA) involved only 712 housing units, as the article claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a mistake, I said "HUD". I should have said "F.H.A." My apologies to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for wasting editor time from my own error. But I did not intend any "hoax". Please check the rewritten article to see if I have addressed your concern. Thank You. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (hoax). There is no evidence of these fantastic accomplishments. I concede that I have not examined the reference pdfs provided by the creator as I can not physically read them. Hazir (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hazir, I hope the New York Times and Los Angeles Times sources I added in my rewrite have addressed your concerns. 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• The document attributed to the SEC was not written by the SEC. Rather, it was written by Tri National Development Corp., a corporation for which Lesser was serving on the advisory board, and filed with the SEC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your concerns, User:Metropolitan90, I removed the SEC sources and only included information that is directly from newspaper articles, not SEC sources. 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. That document plus this and this show that a company called "Louis Lesser Enterprises" existed circa the 1960s, and said company had to do with the development of Barrington Plaza. It's still a long shot to verify that Mr. Lesser was a mentor to Buffett or Kerkorian. If he was indeed a mentor to them, where is even the most trivial mention about him in books written by or about either of them, or in interviews, public speaking appearances, etc. I also highly dispute this claim that he gave the Granada Hills area of Los Angeles its name. That name had been ascribed to the area since at least 1927 [8], while the article claims Lesser has been active since 1935. I also echo Starblind's comment above that the history and development of Las Vegas casinos is well documented; where is even the most trivial mention of Lesser there? KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note on the claim that Mr. Lesser named/developed Granada Hills, California ([9]): I just noticed the article shows Mr. Lesser was born in 1916. As I mentioned before, the name "Granada" had been ascribed to the area since 1927, according to area historians [10]. So best case scenario is that Mr. Lesser named and developed the area at the age of 11, and drove a car up the Spanish coast at presumably an earlier age. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kuyabribri, you have convinced me that I got the Granada Hills story wrong. I removed all mention from the artilce. But the story I heard was very vivid in detail, and included photos. I will not put anything in the article without reliable sources again, even with a request for a citation needed. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny... ha ha ha. Now can someone please close this AfD and put an end to this nonsense. I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes on this. SIGH. Hazir (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not put the Trump stuff in the article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ::Even setting aside the obvious silliness of that story, you contradict yourself once again: if he was supposedly born in 1916 as the article claims, he would have been 83 around 1999, by which time the Trump Taj Mahal had been (rather famously) operating for nearly a decade. And Donald Trump's dad, Fred Trump never lived to age 94, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's father died at age 94 per the Wiki article. At that time Lesser was 83. Those are the exact ages in the story I heard. So if the verbal story I heard is true, there should be a sale of two properties from one or two of Lesser's operations to one or two of Trumps in about 1999-2000, but I dont know how to check.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Be that as it may, then, you need to fix the article, and accordingly, we can deliberate over the facts found. This is where you need to fix the article. The object is to change our minds, and pointing out these details in here doesn't help as much as fixing it, especially when we have mentions of this that seem to be nothing more than random encounters on the surface. If you can find what we need, we'll change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis The Tiger wrote, "pointing out these details in here doesn't help as much as fixing it". I should have listened to User:Dennis The Tiger, but I did not know an AFD discussion lasted more than a few hours, and thought the article would be gone. I hope I have fixed the article enough now that it will not be deleted. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: The article creator is now claiming that Louis Lesser has been "erased from history" and that he just recently had "$15 BILLION stolen from him and is now penniless". If true that would have made him roughly the world's 18th richest person, prior to the theft of the $15 billion of course. Odd that the newspapers haven't cared to report any of this... oh, that's right, it's a conspiracy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind, if you read the SEC quote above, Lesser was richer than the 18th richest person. Just his holdings in Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., were $1.5 Billion in 1982, when he left. Read the SEC citations are provided above. Please assume goof faith, especially if you are not going to read the citations provided. 67.101.114.227 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or stubify The article is a BLP that has some of the worst sources and information I have seen on WP. There are two "references" to authorsden.com, which links the reader to an about an author. The information needs to be sourced, as it looks now, most of the information looks made up with a couple blind refs attached to make it looked sourced. The article needs serious reworking, but deletion might be better. Angryapathy (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - retracting speedy to allow the creator to fix this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. The fact that the article invokes the names of real people aggravates the problem, it doesn't prevent the article from being a hoax. The article subject couldn't have worked with JFK on a HUD project, for example, because JFK was killed before HUD was established. The inventions in this article are so flagrant and so obviously false that the creator can't be credited with any good faith. When you start googling the details, things fall apart completely; this article is the only Ghit for things like the "Redwood Gulch Redwood Reserve" and the "Thomas Henry Huxley Center." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo is correct', and I made a mistake, but so did the newspaper articles I got it from, because they said "Rattlesnake Creek", when it should be Rattlesnake Gulch, which is the name on the US Geological Survey Map for the "Loma Prieta Quadrangle". I removed the section, until I pull verifiable Santa Cruz County records. I did not cite sources correctly, and will not add the info back in until I do so. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping on typos shows just how little good faith you have. Here's the search using the exact term used in the article, "Rattlesnake Gulch Redwood Reserve," with no results except the Wikiarticle. [11] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you input the Google search incorrectly. The newspaper article also used the wrong name. USGS Loma Prieta Quadrangle map says "Rattlesnake Gulch". There is no "Rattlesnake Creek". I removed the information until I get better sources. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you gave does not so much as mention Louis Lesser. In fact, the word Lesser does not even appear in the article. It mentions Mr. Diesel, and in fact points out a partnership between him and somebody that is not a Mr. Louis Lesser. This WP article, on the other hand, is not an article about Diesel or his ventures, it's about Louis Lesser - and accordingly, you need to turn up data about Louis Lesser. Not Mr. Diesel orh is partner in this affair, but Louis Lesser. I'm struggling to assume good faith here at this point in time because you've turned up nothing we can use and have given us resources that are entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Now stop wasting time here and turn up something that foots the bill. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as BLP hoax. I don't know if the real Louis Lesser is still alive, but best to speedy delete this for the BLP issues all the same.--Atlan (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC) See below for my changed vote.--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser just formed Lesser Diesel in Nevada, as cited in the article and above. He was also just honored at the Hollywood Woken's Club at the annual Rose Breast Cancer Society fundraiser, FOR EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE ARTICLE, on record as a corporation in the State of Nevada, as cited. I supplied news sources above for every claim. Why are you saying "hoax"? That is not assuming good faith. That is not bothering to read the sources cited above. 67.101.114.227 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "assume good faith", which I count 7 times in this discussion alone, but you appear to be confused as to what that term means on wikipedia. Our assume good faith guideline does not force us to accept blatantly false or extremely unlikely information about living persons, nor does it prevent us from justly deleting untrue and potentially libellous content. You asked us to disprove the article, and numerous editors have pointed out exactly how this can't possibly be true as written. We asked you to provide reliable sources, and you link to thinks that don't actually support the article and claim that the real sources are unavailable because of some vast conspiracy to have Lesser "erased from history" as you put it. This would be unacceptable in any Wikipedia article, but it's worst of all in a biography of a living person, arguably the strongest policy we have here on Wikipedia. If you have sources that actually support the main points in the article (that Lesser supposedly owned a bunch of casinos and mentored famous people), let's see them. In the meantime, don't accuse other editors of not assuming good faith because they're not gullible enough to swallow this extremely improbable article hook, line and sinker. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as someone who, when you remove the hoax-y bits, itsn't notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that parts without reliable sources. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and LA Board of Supervisors all state that Lesser was VERY notable, and I put that info in, so I hope this addresses your concerns. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm sticking with the WP:HOAX. HW noted the comment that Mr. Lesser buried Ferdinand Marcos in Hawaii - the problem is that he's in a mausoleum in the Phillipines, which completely discredits this. The author of the article is just dragging us along. I'm done feeding him and I exit here to no longer further the contributor's bad case of WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos was interred on the island of Oahu. Oahu is in Hawaii. But I do not have reliable sources yet to include this, so I took it out.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm not saying anything one way or the other, but a Google News archives search on "louis lesser" returned interesting results. They're almost all PPV from the L.A. Times. DarkAudit (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not paying to investigate those archives further, but the City of Hope Man of the Year in 1961 is confirmed. Someone else will need to give the other articles a going over, but just the abstracts give more credence to the article than I had previously assumed. DarkAudit (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is clear that Mr. Lesser was a real estate developer of some note in Southern California. Not knowing anything about real estate development in Los Angeles during the 1960s, I don't have any frame of reference to determine how notable he was but there is a probably a reasonable debate to be had. That said, User:HkFnsNGA you are doing yourself no favors with the article and with your arguments here. If you will take my advice, the best chance of having this article saved is to disengage completely and let some of the more experienced editors here take a shot at fixing the article before the AFD expires.CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 05:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The best way to fix this article is to delete it and start over, and build up a core of V material, rather than removing the 99% here that is not. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article and started over, and tried to built up a core of V material. Have I met your concerns?HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see below. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Disregarding the verbiage above and formerly in the now stubbed article, it is clear that Lesser is/was a major, notable real estate developer, as evinced by the number of gnews and gbooks hits, including this 1963 New York Times article on him or this 1960 LA Times article on him.John Z (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I came across this guy's name while researching the Barrington Plaza article. This guy seems largely forgotten but was at one point written about by some very widely read newspapers. It might take a lot of hours of research to untangle his confusing story, but he does seem notable, given the number of sources that exist. Note that the page creator requested I look at this article/AFD via my talk page... but as I'd already been working on the Barrington Plaza article, I was aware of this AFD anyway. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually on further reflection maybe I should say I just don't think the guy is a hoax. He might have been ah, how shall I say it, given to questionable business deals... but he did exist and develop real estate. I think the jury's still out on notability. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean Keep? You struck your "weak keep", but your comment seems to indicate "keep", but keep with the questionable deals, not keep with a whitewashed article.HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably not a good idea to mention things which are difficult to verify, like connections with Marcos or the Shah, irrespective of their truth. They obscure the fact that there are several major news source articles specifically on him, which would normally be more than enough to prove notability.John Z (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have found reliable sources on both of these, but I do not want to include them yet, because I think I have not yet read enough to write the full truth on the Shah and Marcos stuff, which may be much less flattering to Mr. Lesser than my original article. By the way, I was a student activist AGAINST both the Shah and Marcos. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article has been rewritten with Los Angeles Times and New York Times sources for all claims, addressing concerns of other editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrite the article using a standard news source for each claim. I hope this convinces you that Louis Lesser is not a hoax, so you might change your vote. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, NYT feature clear evidence of notability. Mice in drain (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Mice in drain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. May be sock - I doubt of anyone in this debate, but on checking, the few contribs don't really support being a Louis Lesser - SPA. John Z (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a hoax, and Notability - See here for much[12]

• I'm sticking with my delete vote for now, as the article still reads like nothing more than a vanity page. Proving notability doesn't give one carte blanche for such hero worship. I appreciate the effort the article creator has put in to raise the standards of the artice to satisfactory levels, but it's not enough yet. I do think it's a good idea to userfy the article so HkFnsNGA can continue working on it.--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Changed my vote once more down below.--Atlan (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlan, this is not "hero worship", but mix and matches of almost verbatim quotes from the only available news sources. I had a bunch of VERY negative stuff relating to the Shah of Iran, questionable timber practices, and Ferdinand Marcos, but another editor told me to take it out, since my sources were not good. Also, I had stuff relating to the sales of the Casinos to Hughes and Kerkorian, which had Teamster funding stuff, but the same editor suggested I leave it out as too far fetched, and not properly sourced. I don't think that if only positive news sources exist, that is a reason not to have a Wikipedia article on a person who is clearly one of a handful of the biggest developers in US history. I am all for putting the Howard Hughes, Teamster, Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos stuff back in, but then the article will get deleted! HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hero worship" was a figure a speech. In my opinion the article is still written too much in a style, that highlights Lesser's accomplishments to an unacceptable extent. Note that I now wish for the article article to be userfied, which means instead of deleting it, the article will be moved to your personal Wikipedia space so you can keep working on it, until such a time it is ready to be published as an article again. I feel this is fair, because of the time and effort you have put in so far.--Atlan (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sentences in the article were taken from reliable sources, and no negative information was omitted. Which sentences should I fix, and I will do so. Otherwise, what is the basis for calling to delete an article about a person who has had hundreds of national news stories about him? HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then we have a WP:COPYVIO issue. This needs to be fixed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No artiocle was copied, but the information came from articles, and was combined into the sentences I wrote. No negative information was excluded. In fact, I am now looking for negative information, since there is all this weird Shah of Iran-Ferdinand Marcos-Jimmy Hoffa-Howard Hughes-JFK-Ronald Reagan- Warren Buffet-Kirm Kerkorian stuff, but it never directly mentions Louis Lesser, and one can only infer things by combining stories into a big picure, which I did not do in the article, since I did not want to be accused of "original research. Another editor seems to have drawn a similar conclusion. It looks to me like many of these buildings were made to house rich people underground in case of a nuclear war, and leave everyone else above ground to die, but that is just my own opinion, now. If you read all of the things I read, you get the feeling that there is something else going on from 1958 to 1982 that is veryn different than just "making money", since one person could not possibly have this many connections to all the bad guys in the world on the American side, without help. But maybe I am wrong, and I did not put any of this in the article.

I should have listened to your suggestion above, to simply fix the article, and not waste my time on this page arguing and responding, but I did not know that an AFD nomination allowed me enough time to do so. Now I am asking you to follow your own suggestion to me, which was a good one, and help fix the article, instead of wasting time here, if there is still something wrong with the article. There is an entire "David Susskind Show", with a young Warren Buffet across from Louis Lesser, but it is not transcribed. I will try to get a copy of the photo of Lesser with young Buffet from the show, but I can't do it until I visit Los Angeles again in a few months.

Is the article now better than when you first criticised it? I can not really find more information in news sources that does not duplicate what is already in the article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, indeed, and I note that. I'll be posting more to your talk page when I get some time, but the short version is that it still needs a good amount of work - more details and tips will definitely come from others. =) Given this, I'd be inclined to go with a userfy !vote to allow you to work on it without the risk of deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Article has been completely rewritten with all unsourced material removed, using only reliable sources. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately that's just not so. I'd reaffirm my delete !vote; this article may concern a living person who's apparently notable, but its history is so riddled with misinformation, and every draft has been so badly sourced, that I doubt there's any version with significant content that doesn't involve BLP violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am still learning.HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'll be looking into more things, but according to http://www.secinfo.com/dv22g.4f8d4.htm , (I quote) "LOUIS LESSER. Mr. Lesser has been a consultant to the Company since 1991 on financing and real estate transactions. Mr. Lesser has successfully

built, owned and operated numerous real estate companies, hotel properties and oil and gas companies since 1935, including Chairman and President of Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. of Beverly Hills, CA, which was listed on the American Stock Exchange." This is in relation to Tri National, which according to the article: "Louis Lesser was the founder and owner of Tri National Development Corporation." The section goes on to refer to 'this wife of 70 years' - should this be 'his (etc)'? As to Zenith Refinery, the only ghits for this connection are this article and http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=1249224814 . Peridon (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the original Zenith Refinery Public Offering brochure, with a picture of Louis Lesser at the controls (with 1970's sideburns!), but it was deleted by and editor, with no notice to me of doing so, and no warning, and no explanation. Can something be put in that at least says that Zenith Refinery's public brochire from 1975 claimed Lesser was the founder and president? Also, there is a lot of stuf on this in Chinese newspapers, but I don't know how to cite it in this English language Wikipedia.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that profiles can apparently be added at zoominfo (probably on receipt of the appropriate fee - it is a commercial site). Peridon (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know Zoominfo was a pay to post. I worded it as being self published, but will delete the section if it is not reliable. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's self-published (or editable) it doesn't really matter whether it's pay or not. It's the self bit (or the editable) that counts against reliability. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. OK, I did not know and I deleted the whole section.

2. Why was the Public records Special Commendation for Louis Lesser, from the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, and SIGNED by each of them, dleeted? And why is this not a reliable source, since it was signed by each and every Supervisor? It verifies much of the article's information. If it is, can you help me fix getting it undeleted, since it was deleted as a "copyright violation"

3. Also, why is the public record 1963 Annual Report of Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., audited and signed by Arthur Anderson himslef, not a source, at least a source of what Arthur Anderson and Loiuis Lesser Enterprises claimed and put in the public record to get listed on the American Stock Exchange? If it is, can you help me fix getting it undeleted, since it was deleted as a "copyright violation".

4. Finally, what is the basis of your "delete" vote, and is there anything to change it?HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being acceptable as a source is different from being hosted by Wikimedia. They may be usable for sourcing, but not able to be uploaded in full. The Zoominfo stuff is coming from Creative Environments; if you can get sourcing direct from them, or earlier versions of their site from the wayback machine, that would be usable.John Z (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your time. Do you know how to get the Board of Supervisors Commendation onto Wikimedia Commons, and keep it there, so it can be cited?HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The basis of my !vote is that there appears to be little backing for the parts of the article I have investigated so far, and that others haven't found much either. If reliable references are produced - not for Lesser's existence, that appears to be established - for the notability of Lesser and the accuracy of the information in the article, I may well change my mind. Others may too. Sorry, uploading to the Commons isn't in my area of expertise. I must look into it, as I have a photo to upload. Peridon (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalized Someone went in and removed all of my uploads, including the upload from the Los Angeles Public County Records the Commendation by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, confirming much of the information in the article. Also, one of those pushing for deleting this article as a hoax was blocked. What is going on here? How can an image from public records be deleted without explanation, and why are all of the sources I put in disappearing? There does appear to be a a hoax, but it is not by me! I spent my own money for this stuff, from the government (and LA Times), to upload it (or cite from it), now it is all deleted without explanation or any notice that it was being deleted. I did not even get a single notice regarding the PUBLIC RECORD Commendation Image being deleted, and there is no discussion on the talk page of edits. Someone smelled a hoax at the top of this page, but the hoax seems to be coming from somewhere else. Why sneek around deleting public record information? Why have a talk page if you are not going to use it. When the New York Times and Los Angeles Times run articles about how notable Louis Lesser is, and he is STILL called a hoax, and I paid my own money to get the articles, and public record information is vandalized, and Wikipedia editors do not follow their own talk page guidelines, and all of this is done in secrecy, I give up. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded a large set of document images to Commons claiming you held the copyright to them. Just scanning or photographing a document doesn't give you any copyright rights, and you can't give any permission to anyone else to use them. If you'd uploaded content from the LA Times that the paper was selling, that's also a clear copyright violation; buying a copy of a text doesn't give any right to republish it (just try doing that with your Kindle copy of Going Rogue). You really, very badly, should review WP:NFCC and related policy and guideline pages. It's also not generally appropriate to insert images of the (primary) sources you're referencing into the article itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the image of the public record of the Special Commendation from the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, which lists notable and historic achievements of Louis Lesser? And the references included a signature by Arthur Anderson himself, in a PUBLIC document prepared for listing on the American Stock Exchange. What is wrong with citing this document, and stating that it is the source? The fact that Louis Lesser Enterprises made the claims in its public document, is itself a fact. I changed the wording to state that the claims were made in the Annual REport, not by a newspaper. The Annual REport for the SEC is where the newspapers get their information, so is more primary, and I worded the article so that I said that the information is "according to the annual report signed by Arthur Anderson", or something like that. What Wikipedia guideline does this violate? It is standard in scholarly and academic research to cite a company's own words in public reports, not as facts, but as a claims to facts made by the company. Furthermore, there are historic photographs in the public annual report made for the SEC. It is NOT copyrighted, and you deleted it as a copyright violation, without bothering to notify me. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did't delete anything. I raised the issues related to improper copyright tagging at Commons, and an administrator there deleted the images in question. You can't just create images of documents then upload them claiming to control the copyrights, because you don't control the copyrights. You need to show that the images meet Wikpedia's requirements for the use of non-free content. Public documents aren't necessarily public domain documents -- for example, when somebody sued JK Rowling over the Harry Potter books, the books went into court files as public documents -- but that didn't mean that Rowling lost the copyright to them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think many originally thought this was a hoax, but I do not believe that anyone NOW thinks Louis Lesser is a hoax. Instead, I think a small handfull of editors like giving others a hard time, instead of helping them just a little. It is not required, but the TINIEST bit of help, especially with uploading the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Commendation, and its many findings, or uploading of the 1963 Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. Annual Report, with its Arthur Anderson Co. wealth of information (signed by Arthur Anderson himself, certainly a reliable source if there is one) would save everyone here much time, since most claims in the article, would then be well sourced, by Arthur Anderson, and the SEC, which listed Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. on the American Stock Exchange. The Tiniest bit of help... I am striking my accusations of vandalism, but it seems clear that some people on this page like fighting over nothing, when a TINY bit of help would end ANY controversy, and it is clear that some take pleasure in making others do meaningless work for no reason, and then fighting over a tehcnicality, when the content could easilty be indisputable, but for the tiniest help to someone who does not know technical details of Wikipedia.

• As the nominator, I am changing my position to neutral as my original rationale for deletion as a hoax is no longer valid in light of changes made to the article since the nomination. However, I do believe there is still a lingering question over whether the subject qualifies under WP:N that needs to be addressed. I'm going to remain on the fence in that debate, as I believe this individual is borderline. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I think the article is now sufficiently documented. It still remains in a style that is usually considered promotional, and that continues to some extent to influence a reader's first impression of the reliability. The next step is to remove the adjectives and terms of praise, following the advice in WP:PEACOCK. We say something is important by saying what it is, not by using words like "pioneering. whatever, and "many historic figures". I think it's unfortunate that the attempt at showing the significance managed to be so over-extended as to give an opposite impression. the style for a Wikipedia article is what is expected of an encyclopedia: plain , dull, and descriptive. If I have time tomorrow morning, I'll indicate this more clearly, by reworking some of it. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will follow your lead if you make the first couple of changes. You can leave my boldface joke in the Phillips Ranch section after the opium den. The information is exactly accurate, but I am not sure jokes are appropriate, and a rewording may be appropriate. You might call the wording WP:ANTI-Peacock. I am not sure I am so impressed by some of the business dealings listed on the talk page, but they should stay there until reliably sourced. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• V Weak keep if trimmed considerably. There seem to be very few distinct references, almost all come down to 3 very old articles in the LA times that are repeated ad nauseam and that are locked so they are hard to check. Lesser may be worth 1/2 a page but not this much detail. (in short, we need lesser Lesser) NBeale (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Request of User:KuyaBriBri moved to this page for comments of others if I am still doing it wrong]

[editing Section moved here for comments from others if I am still doing it wrong]

• Keep This is a real person, who got significant media coverage for his work. If there is anything in the article that someone doubts the accuracy of, tag it and discuss on the talk page. Dream Focus 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I deleted unsourced things as best as I could, and I added these reliabel sources instead -

• 1. LA Times, December 17, 1950, “Active Week Puts Tract’s Sales Past $3,750,000”
• 2. LA Times, October 9, 1954, “Subpoena in Quiz Faced by Builder”
• 3. Los Angeles Times, Feb 10, 1957
• 4. LA Times, August 3, 1958 “Overseas Unit of Constructino Company Set”
• 5. LA Times, October 3, 1958
• 6. Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1959
• 7. LA Times, March 13, 1960,
• 8. Los Angeles Times, January 16, 1961
• 9. Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1961
• 10. Los Angles County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, April 9, 1961
• 11. Los Angeles Times, Oct 15, 1961
• 12. Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1961 “Board Asks Full Study of Shelters”
• 13. Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1961 “Businessman Appointed to CD Group”
• 14. New York Times, September 23, 1962
• 15. LA Times, March 3, 1963
• 16. New York Times, March 16, 1963
• 17. Arthur Anderson, Arthur Anderson Co., Audit of Louis Lesser Enterprises, September 13, 1963
• 18. LA Times, September 22, 1963
• 19. Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1964
• 20. LA Times, September 18, 1966
• 21. LA Times, February 27, 1970
• 22. LA Times, Septemeber 20, 1970, Al Delugach, “Morris Shenker: The Money Mover”
• Even new sources put in article

• many major newspapers in 20 years added, all for different things. This shuold show Louis Lesser is not a "hoax" and is "notable" HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an awful article, but the sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Huge number of reliable sources indicate this is a notable subject. The aticle needs a lot of work but is interesting and rescuable. I can help improve it if it survives AFD. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My current position is Neutral following rewrite by creator and confusion on my part as to what the heck is going on here.... The article is looking more reasonable, but I'm still a bit worried about where all the junk came from. Why should there be so much stuff that smacks of Walter Mitty or blame shifting or whatever? Peridon (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mitty has a Wikipedia article, and would be an amateur compared to Lesser if Lesser is a hoax! User:Peridon, more seriously, what have you found on the Tri National stuff, and could you add what you found to the Lesser article for others to expand on? I can not figure any of it out, except that something very fishy went on, possibly fishy enough to merit an enire Wiki article on Tri National Development alone. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at home tomorrow. Will look again if I am. (The office will ring me at 9.00 now to go to London...) Peridon (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject is clearly notable and very well documented, far more so than many who have survived AfD challenges and remain on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Alright, I don't think I've ever reconsidered my vote twice in one AFD before, but here you go: Keep this article. Again, I appreciate the work the creator has put into this article to address the concerns voiced here, but it definitely needs some clean-up by someone further removed from the subject. The creator is, at the very least, an admirer.--Atlan (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser/Testing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser/Strikethrough

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 South Florida Bulls men's basketball team[edit]

2009-10 South Florida Bulls men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that a team that does not have its own article should have its own season summary page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was added to the talk page by Smcollin33 (talk · contribs). It has been transcluded here to provide a unified discussion of the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• I started the page today (Nov 23), using the format from the Louiville page. I am working on changing the content, as well as creating a team page. It's a work in progress and I ask for some patience. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcollin33 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - that's not a valid reason for deletion. Pats1 ^T/C 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What is the notability standard for college teams and their season pages? Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not the issue the nominator brought up - it was that there is no South Florida Bulls article. Pats1 ^T/C 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per precedent of other NCAA Division I teams. I don't think it matters that a team page has not yet been created. Location (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly. Pats1 ^T/C 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with that. Someone is certainly welcome to create a page called South Florida Bulls men's basketball, but there's no rule that such a page has to be created before an article about the 2009-10 season is made. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No rule that says a program's article MUST come before an article on a specific season. Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by User:Willking1979. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Trans Pet Cemetery[edit]

Cal Trans Pet Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not news KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not news.

• It was the subject of the keynote address by the president of the Association for Engineering Geologists in 2003, which is six years ago.

• It was a news story in 2007, 2 years ago.

• The "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" received international news coverage as such, and is cited by the Association of Engineering Geologists as the singel biggest example of "junk science" in the courts by its former presdident.

• "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" is the name given to any government pollution scandal, based on the severity of the pollution problem.

• "Cal Trans Pet Cemetary" is cited at hearings before Boards of Supervisors around the country.

• I am a new editor. Please give me guidance as to why this story is not significant enough.

• Perhaps the entire article should be moved to the Cal Trans article, but compared to Cal Trans itself, it is small, but for major government pollution scandals, it is big. Please let me know what you think is best. I think it should be a small section in Cal Trans, and a big one in its own article.

Thank you . HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Going with Delete here. To HkFnsGNA, there is a note on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia - you'll find some guidelines on how to create an article. In the meantime, I hate to say it (for fear of sounding like I'm coming off biting the newbie above), but the long and the short of it is that the article is best stricken and started over. Not the best form at all, and comes off initially sounding WP:COATRACKish. Furthermore, citations need to be better, and to be frank, the above statements need to be backed up with evidence. I hate to say it, but being a native Californian (and a road geek at that) and not hearing about this, it raises my eyebrows. If anything I'd be for userfying the article for the new guy so he can work on it in background and then later repost it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget Cuts in Goochland County, VA + Athletics[edit]

Budget Cuts in Goochland County, VA + Athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV essay, WP:COAT, not an encyclopedic topic but apparently someone using Wikipedia to advance his/her point of view. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reads like an excerpt from somebody's letter to the editor. Even if de-POV'd and wikified, this is still a minor budget matter of local interest that is best covered in the back pages of the local newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an OpEd, and I'm sorry that these budget cuts are happening - you have my sympathies - but this is neither a complaint board, your school board, or the Opinion-Editorial section of your local newspaper. This material is best left in those places. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, not an encyclopaedia entry. noq (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, clearly not encyclopedic. JBsupreme (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dennis Tim1357 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper LoudHowie (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Us Win This War[edit]

Let Us Win This War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very good point. Very little notability now. Smithers (Talk) 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What I said on the other one - create the band's article, then we'll talk. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Independent album article not warranted at this time; band's notability not established.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: db-album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A9 by User:JamieS93. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol of Triumph[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What I said on the other one - create the band's article, then we'll talk. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Independent album article not warranted at this time; band's notability not established.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: db-album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WatchIndiaTV[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM.

• This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#WatchIndia.tv

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; non-notable and sources given are insignificant. Haakon (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Spammy, only sources seem to be press releases. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keepWeak keep The sources are clearly not press releases, did you read them? The company is the first to broadcast Indian content via the web to reach elsewhere. It also is in multiple independant sources receiving substatial coverage. The advertising material has also been cleaned up. This is clearly a notable internet television station.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Switching to neutral - If the company didn't pay for so much advertising, maybe it would be easier to find actual coverage. As it stands, the 1 ref that isnt a press release and the fact that the company is the first of it's type is my only reason for keeping.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the sources are clearly press releases: [13] and [14]. The third source, [15], is mainly a press release-like "In their own words" section -- not independent, and certainly not significant. That's all the sources accounted for. If you can list some of the multiple independent sources, it would be helpful. Haakon (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your right about the first two, that was my oversight. There were plenty of hits on google, I am sure I can find more references.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good deal. Keep us posted as to whether you find anything and change the article accordingly. I'll change my mind if it meets up. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've actually given up now. I spent a good half hour searching for sources and most of them are paid advertisements meant to read as reviews. I believe I've done as thorough a job as possible by anyone. I've appropriately changed my !vote to weak keep as noted above.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Feh, that's a shame. May very well be too new. Not an uncommon thing, it's not going to be notable overnight. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article is simply promotional with no useful content and not much likelihood of improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SPAM. 2 press releases and a blog post != WP:N. Additionally, self-serving claims of "first!" contained in self-published sources fail WP:V. cab (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A9 by User:JamieS93. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors Divine[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The creator of these articles is doing it backwards, and needs to follow the nom's advice. First start with the band, then we can talk about keeping albums based on the band's merits. Until then, no go. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Independent album article not warranted at this time; band's notability not established.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: db-album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A9 by User:JamieS93. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken Pagan Gods[edit]

Awaken Pagan Gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. An article on this album is not warranted at this time; band's notability is not established.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was all deleted under the speedy deletion criterion A9. JamieS93 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Metal Compels You[edit]

The Power of Metal Compels You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: CRYSTAL and WP: N. Band does not have its own article and there is no information given on when this album will be released, or by what label. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If a band isn't notable enough to have an article, it follows that their albums aren't notable either. (And I would have put Awaken Pagan Gods, Conquerors Divine, Symbol of Triumph and Let Us Win This War up for AfD as well, for the same reason.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Procedure) - I agree with Ditzy above. I am unfamiliar with the process for the "combined" AfD process which might be relevant here, when many related articles are proposed. I will do the AfD for each of those individual albums separately. Someone please help with combining the proposals if relevant. Thanks. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. These independent album articles are not warranted at this time; band's notability is not established.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete this page but rather to keep the information, although there is no consensus whether to do so in a stand-alone article or by merging the content. This can be discussed on the relevant talk pages though and is not hindered by the outcome of this AFD as "keep". Regards SoWhy 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire House Preparatory School[edit]

Devonshire House Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible non-notable independent preparatory school; references are mostly weak, consisting mainly of passing mentions in press-releases/newsletters that don't meet the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" required by WP:N. The inspection report is fine, but I'm not sure that by itself it's enough to meet the GNG (which specifies "sources" plural). EyeSerene^talk 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are valid, I think. The charity work is notable and widespread. If you read the coverage several of these articles have long sections describing how the School has raised funds and how the School works with these charities - such as the hospital in India. I do not feel these are trivial, superficial references. There are many other references for the charity work that the school encourages that are not cited in the article to keep it short. Taken together I think this would constitute significant coverage alternative coverage to the ISI report. I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that primary schools are generally regarded as not notable because they don't usually receive the sort of widespread, in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Every school I'm aware of raises money for charity, so unless there is some unique distinction about your school, as opposed to other similar schools, then I don't believe it warrants a stand-alone article. DDG's suggestion below of a merge into our article about Hampstead might be the best solution. EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per 193.195.235.194... A reference is a reference. Smithers (Talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Tend towards delete. Schools raising money for charity? I'd say that would need a little more in the way of citation than self promotion and the websites of charities the money's being raised for. Otherwise I'd suggest this means just about any organisation which gives enough to charity to get a mention on a couple of websites or newsletters becomes notable. I might be more convinced if a case were made that it has secondary age pupils. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough notable Rirunmot 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
• merge to the location as usual for primary schools. There is absolutely nothing notable shown. The charity gifts might be notable if covered by independent RSs. This is one place where the GNG makes some sense. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to List of schools in Hampstead per usual practice for primary schools without a clear claim to notability. Such core details as can be independently sourced should be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article updated Up to this point I find myself actually agreeing more and more with a deletion or a merging of this article since I can now see that, so far, the references are not adequate. I agree - a charity publishing the receipt of funds is clearly not really independent. Of course a lot of schools do excellent charitable work, but I do think the scale and nature of the charity fund raising at this school is notable, although I agree the references so far aren’t adequate. I have therefore added three further references to the article. The first two concern funds raised for the victims of the Asian Tsunami. One of the pupils was involved in the Tsunami and survived. These are interesting but again the first reference may not really meet the criteria for a good reference since it is the Sri Lankan Government (who received the funds - same problem as above). The second is from the Sri Lanka Daily News which is apparently Sri Lanka's national daily newspaper - established in 1918. I have no way of being totally sure that this is reliable, but it could well be. However I think the third reference is definitely valid. This is a news story in the well-established Hampstead and Highgate Express regional newspaper (the Ham and High) which had a story about the pupils recording music with singer Beverley Craven for charity. Since the ISI inspection report reference appears to be accepted as valid then surely the decision hangs on whether Ham and High article is a valid second reference and Sri Lankan newspaper is a valid third reference. Maybe that's too simplistic an approach but I think the Ham and High news story clearly meets the standards of an independent, verifiable and reliable source and the Sri Lankan Daily News probably meets the criteria and shows that coverage isn't just local. The article should be kept.

Here are the first two articles on the Asian Tsunami

Government of Sri Lanka http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200503/20050318kadirgamar_on_sri_lankas_foreign_and_security_policy.htm

Sri Lankan Daily News http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/03/19/news03.htm

Here is the Ham and High news story on the music recording (sorry it's upside down!) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Ham_%26_High_14_June_2002_Devonshire_House_Singing_With_Beverly_Craven.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are more articles covering the school in both the Ham and High and the Camden New Journal which aren't picked up by the Google News system. I can dig them out if they would help? In any case if there is still doubt about the acceptability of this article, would it be possible for this discussion to be relisted so that the AfD editors can asses the quality of all the new evidence?86.151.0.44 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article Updated I have added coverage of school run congestion (in the Independent) and coverage of the response from the school (in the Camden New Journal).193.195.235.194 (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article Updated I have added the Alumni section to show potentially notable academic success with senior schools which have competitive entry. Since the school's inspector (the ISI) doesn't give a grade 1 (like OFSTED) or Blue Ribbon award (for both primary and secondary schools in the US) there is no clear-cut sign as to notability. However the performance of the school's Alumni does suggest academic notability, perhaps?193.195.235.194 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect Call from Mars[edit]

Collect Call from Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band per WP:MUS. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely fails WP:BAND. No secondary sources describing them. On a non-policy note, awesome name for a band. Angryapathy (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Angryapathy on the band name, as well as the lack of reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and reverse charges). NN. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Did anyone come across the articles in the Dutch magazine De Echo? (For example) I'm not sure how reliable a source it is, but it does have an entry in the Dutch Wikpedia (seems to be a free magazine with a large circulation). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RHUB[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company; article written by single purpose account who is the CTO of the company. Unable to find any significant coverage of this company. Articles on RHUB have been repeatedly put into Wikipedia by other SPAs and then deleted; see logs [16], [17], [18], and [19]. Haakon (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep COI and neutrality issues aside, this company meets the notability requirements for WP, per Google News hits. Article needs work, but does not warrant deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete I now see the conflict of interest, and agree that this article should be deleted. If RHUB is notable enough, someone without a COI will write the article. As it stands, the editor is not following WP policies with WP:VERIFY, even with the userspace revamp. This article is not being created for WP or for the public, but instead only for the CTO of the company. Ergo it doesn't belong on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 429 Google hits, mostly to self-published press-releases, makes the company notable? Haakon (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [20], [21], [22] are a few articles that discuss RHUB. There are a ton of PR releases, but the company seems to be getting secondary press. It's not strong notability, marginal at best, but I believe it meets the threshhold. Angryapathy (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunatly those seem to be paid/press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. --Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conflict of interest is not a valid reason to delete an article. I had already declined speedy deletion as the article contained what is potentially encyclopedic information (assuming there is any indication that the company is notable; if it clearly wasn't then I would have just changed it to a ((db-corp)) template). snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete History of spamming WP by former org. members with article removed (twice) as spam. A new group of SPAs using similar names now appear re-adding this article and promoting it on other articles. Unless this article reflects neutrality (which it does not) and notability (which is marginal), recommend deletion. Calltech (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, yet another tech business, and unambiguous advertising: Soon the two founders found that the market needed an appliance solution for web conferencing to facilitate deployment, improve security and eliminate monthly subscription costs to end users. After several rounds of trials and errors, they settled down the hardware selection --- an embedded Linux-based communication device, which is not only reliable but also cost effective and consumes less than 4.5 watts power. In the same year when the product was shipped to the market, it was recognized as one of "2007 Tech Innovators Finalists". Let's put some teeth in it! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete, it is clear I don't need to spend any time on this subject. Please remove my article.

• Follow up I feel I am obligated to share some thoughts through this frustrating experience with Wikipedia from my first article. I do this not to beg you to restore my article. I am done with it and I had attached too much unnecessary emotion and time to it. I do it simply because I love this community. (I have been one of donors to appreciate the values to me as a reader.) I hate to see it heads to a wrong direction.

What is the real value of this community? It is the knowledge sharing! Yes, you do need to excise rules to ensure the quality and I fully respect it. However, the whole debates with you indicate the core value of this community is forgetting. I have asked repeatedly to help me on my article, the merit of my work to the readers. But I have not received a single word from any of you during the entire debate. So it appears to me that rules are in the first place and knowledge is secondary, in a distant secondary place.

Also, it is frustrating to see instead of honoring people’s honesty and dignity, the debate takes advantage of it. I tell the truth of my motivation and explain how the mistakes have been made. That has been taken into the debates everywhere loudly and I look like a stupid spammer. Note that each author has their own motivation, good or bad. Do you have to look into their motivation in order to validate the knowledge, the core value, to share? Why does motivation really matter after all?

Please stay with the core value of this community --- the knowledge sharing.

Best wishes to Wikipedia. Jmao1 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • FYI The following is part of an article by Daya Baran at November 23, 2009

"Volunteers have been departing Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” faster than new ones have been joining. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors. One of the reasons is that Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers.

....

Many volunteers are leaving because they feel as Wikipedia ages many rules have sprung up and it is less freewheeling and collaborative and more like a traditional organization with hierarchy and rules."

RULES! RULES!! RULES!!! We are lost in those fuzzy and double standard rules.

Jmao1 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is ranked 6th in the world (alexa rankings) and has 11,075,028 users (as of this post). Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site for their own profit or adjenda. This this is the case here. It is also true that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia, but are here for your own comercial and financial adjenda (ie RHUB). Perhaps you see your contributions as some sort of "volunteering", or helping wikipedia out in some way. I would hate to think that your adjenda and "Wikipedias rules" interfered somehow with your marketing attempts. --Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmao1 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Jmao1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I got the number from clicking Angryapathy's "Google News hits" link. I see that there are better search terms to use, but none of them yield the kind of significant third-party coverage needed to be cited by encyclopedia articles such as on Wikipedia. I also think your comment is a strong self-indictment and should be taken into consideration by the closing admin. You are specifically not the best person to write the article, since you have a fundamental conflict of interest. Moreover you indicate that your efforts are driven by analysis of the promotional effect of Wikipedia articles, and that driving traffic to your company's website is specifically your goal. Haakon (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote RHUB Communications, Inc. Accounts used for promotion are strongly discouraged, and as such have Unintended Consequences. Your contributions to wikipedia under Jmao1 and the multitude of meatpuppets you've admitedly paid to Seed wikipedia with RHUB related articles, is considered WP:Spam.

RHUB Communications, Inc article spam

• RHUB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rhub Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rhub communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rhubcom.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Jadore126/RHUB Communications
• User:Jmao1
• TurboMeeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turbomeeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Web conferencing appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete; non-notable Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Also this is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review my response in the above for the spam accusation. Jmao1 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this have been mentioned without the previous deletions? snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Jmao1 removed the parts where he pointed out the desired promotional effect, so for prosperity, it can be read here. Haakon (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there is a conflict of interest, this seems to be someone who understands that the previous versions were not suitable and has attempted to create something more appropriate. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly seems to be less transparent than we were lead to believe. These two accounts are the same, Jmao1 (talk · contribs) = Jadore126 (talk · contribs) and is responsible for the bulk of re-creations. Its clear the Jmao1 account was created after multiple article deletions under the Jadore126 account. Here is log data;

(Modified/shortened for readability)

• 06:02, 22 November 2009 N RHUB ‎ (←Created page with '((Infobox_Company | | company_name = RHUB |
• 23:59, 16 November 2009 N Web conferencing appliance ‎ (←Created page with 'Web Conferencing Appliance
• 23:50, 12 November 2009 . . RHUB Communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
• 00:06, 12 November 2009 . . Rhub communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
• 21:22, 9 November 2009 . . Rhub communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
• 22:41, 6 November 2009 . . Web conferencing appliance (←Created page with 'A Web Conferencing Appliance
• 20:17, 22 July 2009 . . RHUB Communications (←Created page with 'Rhub

None of the above re-creations were by a contract marketing firm as previously professed. Seems only this one version, potentialy might have been. While the user attempted to create something more appropriate, the omision of sock accounts and multiple recreations gives one pause.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep there is some notability, although it is marginal. I think that the discussion about deletion should depend on the notability of the subject, and assuming it is notable, whether the content is appropriate (e.g. whether it is verifiable, and not defamatory or consisting of promotion without information), and should not depend on the motivation of the creator of the article. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. In due course the company may become notable and a new article can be created then, meanwhile Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CampusIT[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a company that does not meet WP:CORP guidelines for notability for companies. The article started as a copy of material from the company's web site. Almost all references in the article are primary sources from the company web site. The two exceptions (at time of nomination) are a listing in a business directory and a listing as an exhibitor at a trade show; neither of which establish notability. A search of Google News shows [23] that there area couple of articles behind pay walls that appear to be related to their implementation at the University of Glamorgan. But even if we assume that the coverage in these articles are not just mere mentions, this represents very sparse coverage for a company. Whpq (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another of the endless series of minor tech businesses: student management solutions to education institutions in the UK and Ireland. No inkling of technical or historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only an advertisment User:Lucifero4
• Delete only references are to its own website, or yellow-pages like mentiones. Nothing except for fleeting mentions of it in secondary sources, from what I've seen from a brief look on google. Tim1357 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an ad, no credible coverage LoudHowie (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork (band)[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have declined an A7 speedy on this on the basis of another editor's plea on the talk page that "I feel that this article does, at least partially, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for one reason only: the band's music has been featured on the well-known show The Hills," so that it should go to AfD rather than be speedied. In fact the article only claims that a song written by two of them is "soon to be featured" on The Hills: it is not clear that this band will perform it and, with their debut album "TBA", I think they anyway fall well short of the standard required by WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This band may be on it's way to notability, but at this time they have not achieved the threshold for inclusion on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources that demonstrate the band's notability. Maybe one day, but for now fails WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no coverage for this band. Article can certainly be recreated if and when the band becomes notable, but at this time they do not appear to meet WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incidentally, I was the editor who requested that the A7 speedy be declined and that the article should go to AfD, stating that "I feel that this article does, at least partially, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for one reason only: the band's music has been featured on the well-known show The Hills...". However, as this is the band's only claim to fame, the band's article does not fully meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Therefore, it should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The speedy is contested, fair enough, but this definitely does not have the coverage warranted to meet WP:BAND criteria. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mandsford !vote needs consideration and probably some wider discussion should be started to determine whether such articles should exist in general or for only specific countries/days/subjects/etc. Unfortunately for him, the consensus in this AFD is pretty much unanimously in favor of deletion, so there was no way to close this any other way. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

1975 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pretty colours, though. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any reason to treat Down Under differently than the U.S. of A. Since examples of previous consensus are being cited as setting some type of precedent, then see this and this and this. My recollection is that when American television schedules have been nominated, the consensus on that sort of thing is clear, only it's in the opposite direction. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my previous comments - Australia did not have national TV networks in the 70s.The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't there, but my understanding is that there were networks starting in the early 1960s, and that whatever was on Channel 9 in Melbourne would be on Channel 9 in Sydney, and that the same company would take Channel 9 when going into a new area. I don't know if the "Nine Network" and the "Seven Network" etc. owned stations around Australia, but assuming that they did, I would be surprised if they had left it up to each affiliate to make its own programming. In American television of that era and later, the general rule was that there is network programming in morning and afternoon blocks (news, game shows and soap operas), and local programming (syndicated shows and local news and kids' shows) during the noon hour and late afternoon. Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this page is to be deleted, then so should 2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) and the relevant template. I'm on the fence with regards to keeping or deleting the pages though. Australian Matt (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT#DIR specifically vetoes this exact thing. Glittering Pillars (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The participants in this discussion cannot agree on whether the sources and archievements, that exist and are not doubted by anybody, make this subject notable or not. As such, there is no other viable option than to close this as "no consensus" but with a sentiment amongst the participants that further improvement is probably needed. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Karanja[edit]

K. K. Karanja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is someone who was once a promising young chess player. He apparently abandoned the game shortly after obtaining the National Master title from the United States Chess Federation. The player's current rating (from January 1990) is 2193, just below National Master (2200) level. (Go here and type in Karanja.) There are probably over 100,000 players in the world stronger than that. According to this article, "[i]t is unknown whether he still plays". In addition, an examination of the sources cited in the article shows that many of the statements about Karanja's chess achievements are not supported (note the "citation needed" tags throughout the article).

Karanja's 2193 rating places him far below the Grandmaster level, which members of WikiProject Chess generally accept as notable; the International Master level, which may be notable, particularly if one has other achievements (for example, as a writer or chess coach), e.g. John L. Watson, Mark Dvoretsky); and even the FIDE Master level, which generally is not considered notable unless one has substantial other achievements (for example, as a writer, e.g. Graham Burgess, Eric Schiller). Karanja's rating is slightly below that of Pete Karagianis, who was recently deleted as non-notable after a unanimous vote. In addition, Karagianis had been Iowa State Champion twice, and had written about chess.

The article describes him as a "prodigy", but his achievement of attaining the National Master title before age 16 pales in comparison to players like Ray Robson and Fabiano Caruana, who qualified for the Grandmaster title before age 15, or even Kayden Troff, age 11 (possibly 10, depending on when his birthday is), who recently achieved a 2215 FIDE rating. I do not think that Karanja's achievements as a young player, in the absence of any career after age 16, are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Krakatoa (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are the following reasons this article should not be deleted:
  

1. He drew with the World Chess Champion (Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chessplayer of all-time) in a simul while only a teenager -- a feat accomplished by only one other person at the time (who has his own Wiki site).
2. As winner of the Laura Aspis Prize, he is automatically notable as being the top chessplayer under age 13 in the United States. That alone is notable; having been African-American and accomplishing the feat helped contribute to his pioneering status.
3. Winning the National Elementary Championship cemented his status as a prodigy; him being the first African-American to win the penultimate elementary championship in the United States, in combination with his other achievements makes the history of chess incomplete without his inclusion.

I agree that his current rating and status do not make him notable; however, neither does the status of Joshua Waitzkin, Vinay Bhat, Patrick Wolff, Stuart Rachels, Ilya Gurevich, Maurice Ashley, or Tal Shaked. What makes Karanja notable is the same thing that makes each of these people notable: their pioneering accomplishments during their peak playing days.

For these reasons, this article should not be deleted. I warmly welcome others to contribute to it in order to make it a better piece, hopefully with the same fervor and energy as those who desire to see it removed.

Please feel free to ask any further questions. Thank you. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The players you cite (Joshua Waitzkin, Vinay Bhat, Patrick Wolff, Stuart Rachels, Ilya Gurevich, Maurice Ashley, and Tal Shaked) all went much farther in chess than Karanja did. Bhat, Wolff, Gurevich, Ashley, and Shaked all became Grandmasters. Wolff also won the U.S. Championship in 1992, and was co-winner in 1995. Rachels became an International Master and was a co-winner of the U.S. Championship in 1989 (one of the youngest champions ever). Joshua Waitzkin became an International Master at age 16; the famous book and movie Searching for Bobby Fischer were written about him. Karanja's achievements very much pale in comparison: he never won a state championship, much less playing in or winning the U.S. Championship, and never obtained any international title (Grandmaster, International Master, or FIDE Master). I do not consider that winning the Laura Aspis Prize and the National Elementary School Championship, and drawing one game in a simultaneous exhibition, makes one notable. Krakatoa (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>the famous book and movie Searching for Bobby Fischer were written about him. </snip> ... you failed to mention that his (Josh's) father wrote the book. Gee, I could get my dad to write a book about me. I could bribe the newspapers to make articles about me. Would that make a notable or newsworthy person (No Josh Bashing intended)? - 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - for the time being, based on coverage he received at the time. But there are many things that need to be referenced, some material seems to be opinion, and things such as him inspiring non-notable (i.e. no WP article) players needs to stay out. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 00:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum - I think more goes into notability of a chess player than just the height that they achieve. K.K. got a lot of coverage at the time. He was even a guest commentator in the TV coverage of a world championship match. Many people remember his name and may come to Wikipedia to look him up. On the other hand, there are probably over 1,000 grandmasters with articles that I've never heard of. For comparison, the chess project has about 3,250 articles. K.K.'s article is the #515 most frequently read, being read 22 times per day. In contrast, Artashes Minasian is a grandmaster but his article is #1500 on the list and is read about 5 times per day. Ernesto Inarkiev is #1498 - another grandmaster I've never heard of. And there are about 1,750 chess articles that are less-frequently read than that one - a large number of which are grandmasters who almost none has ever heard of.

• • I don't think drawing Kaspy in a simul or winning the Laura Aspis Prize makes him notable; and I don't think that winning the US Elementry school championship necessarily makes one a prodigy. If that was true, we would have some new prodigies each year like clockwork. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Krakatoa's analysis. Regarding the points made for inclusion: (1) Drawing against Kasparov in a simultaneous exhibition does not equate to notability. In fact, there are only a few cases where beating a champion at a simul gives a person a place in chess history (John Lindsay McCutcheon being one of them), so I cannot see that drawing a master can yield much notability either. While Karanja may have been the first person at the time to manage that feat, it is not unique. In fact there is one player in my hometown of Bergen who managed to draw Kasparov in 2000, and who doesn't have an article either. (2) While I feel that winning a national championship is enough for notability, I cannot hold the same true for the age-restricted Elementary School championships. Winning an international championship may be enough, but the National Elementary School Championships aren't really all that strong. (3) Pretty much ditto on the Laura Aspis prize, it is an age-restricted national achievement. While obviously a very strong player, Mr. Karanja has not attained the titles where his strength makes him notable, and the coverage is mostly incidental. The only one which goes into in-depth coverage on Mr. Karanja is The Chess Drum, and that one appears to be self-published. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I obviously agree with Sjakkalle. However, in fairness, I do not believe that the coverage of Karanja on The Chess Drum is self-published. That site focuses on African-American chessplayers. Its webmaster is Daaim Shabazz (whom I knew in our youth, and who is now a professor in Florida, and a Facebook friend of mine). The article about Karanja on that site indicates that he returned to Kenya and that it is unknown whether he plays chess anymore. As far as I know, Karanja has no connection to the site. Krakatoa (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ChessDrum article said that it was written by a friend of K.K. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Friend Reflects on KK Karanja - I think the friend referred to is Geoff Gladstone, a college friend of Karanja's (in the early 1990s, I would guess), who is quoted at the end of the piece. Krakatoa (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my position to weak keep based on the NYT source in Pawnkingthree's vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Should we delete the article on Martin Luther King because he has been surpassed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes no sense. Martin Luther King's impact on the civil rights movement was about a million times as great as Karanja's impact on chess. Krakatoa (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion. Was Karanja a newsworthy person or not? If not, then is King a newsworthy person (in current events)?

Karanja inspired many players and was a pioneer in his field. Would we dare to delete the article on Cerf because the net has surpassed his own contributions? Certainly not. We can just rewrite the article, unless you feel like deleting Josh's article because he is no longer active (and has been surpassed). 75.159.103.161 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The point, though, is that notability is not temporary. If there was enough coverage in reliable sources at the time when he was considered a prodigy, it should not matter that he did not subsequently develop into a GM or IM or whatever. I'll say Weak Keep based on the New York Times article covering the Kasparov simul and significant coverage in such magazines as Ebony as shown by the Google Books Search here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Delete. It is true that Karanja won the Aspis award, but all other details point to him not being worthy of an article. True, he was once a prodigy, but he petered out and stopped playing. Also, the fact that he drew in a simul against Kasparov is not sufficiently notable in its self. Josh Waitzkin did more in his chess life than draw with Kasparov, whereas it is questionable whether Karanja did. Oh, and I can't find any indication that this chess book that he wrote is notable at all. Therefore, I say delete. GrandMattster 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:BARE. He was named in a 1988 Times article [24], and a quick search online [25] reveals many possible citations. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I don't agree with WP:NTEMP as applied to this article. To me what was notable then isn't now, likewise most of what is in the papers today won't be notable in 50 years time. On the other hand, I don't see any sense in deleting what is now a pretty decent article. So overall I really don't care. SunCreator (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Solar System probes by country[edit]

List of Solar System probes by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page -- a spinoff of List of Solar System probes -- seems to have been left in a part-completed state, but I'm not sure I agree with the need for it even if it were still being actively constructed. I think we already have enough maintenance problems trying to keep the existing "list of space missions" pages up to date and in sync (see ((Space exploration lists and timelines))). I don't think we need yet another article presenting exactly the same data in a different way and requiring separate upkeep. I think List of Solar System probes suffices. 86.152.242.27 (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC). Nomination completed for IP editor. snigbrook (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the proposer, I would just like to emphasise a point that might not have been very clear in my original rationale. It might be assumed that the historical information about these missions is fairly static, but as one who has been active in the maintenance of List of Solar System probes over several years, I can confirm that this is not the case. There are still omissions, errors and inadequacies being sorted out. I can guarantee that edits made to List of Solar System probes will not be correctly propagated to List of Solar System probes by country, and vice versa. In an ideal world, the data would be stored in one place and would be sliceable and diceable to suit the user's requirements. That does not seem to be possible given the facilities available within Wikipedia. 86.136.194.122 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• keep yes, it's useless until expanded in some manner--but that seems to be the intention--to divide them up. It might not be necessary to do so if the main list were sortable, but the multiple sponsorship of many missions would seem to make this quite tricky. Given that it's only a month old, there is no deadline. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the deadline expired when someone reconsidered whether it was necessary to divide up a perfectly good list by country. There's a difference between only a month old and work ceased a month ago. I can't remember the Latin phrase that inclusionists refer to, but it has something to do with not losing knowledge. Well, no knowledge will be lost when this xerox copy is erased. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because this can be accomplished by correctly formatting List of Solar System probes as a sortable list, so that it can be sorted by—guess what—country (and any other issue value such as success, date or planet). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Arsenikk points out, this list can be sortable by country if formatted to do so. It's no use having two articles when one can do the job of both. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna go on a limb and keep, in rare agreement with DGG. =D Basically, he says what I have to say. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you have to say is that "it's useless" but that "there is no deadline?" I would understand if this was something original, but I can't figure out what this is adding to Wikipedia. I don't agree with deleting something for the sake of deletion, nor for keeping something for the sake of inclusion. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Mandsford, is that it's useless until expanded in some manner - quoth DGG. I have to confess that I'm working partially off of WP:INTERESTING, but for this purpose I'm wanting to ignore the rules a little. Personally, I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit, and then revisit later. Granted, though, that based on the current concensus, this probably isn't going to happen.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Changing !vote to delete, as this is, indeed, a duplicate of a currently existing article. We need to format the current article correctly instead. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no information in this list that isn't already in List of Solar System probes. It is incomplete, and I see no reason to maintain the same data in two places. – jaksmata 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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