< 28 November	30 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Man (Emerson, Lake & Palmer song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lucky Man (Emerson, Lake & Palmer song)

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

WP:NSONGS nothing here to validate notability of the song, no context in article (not to mention cites/references), can be merged into main article (not tat there is anything to merge) Alan - talk 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Emerson, Lake & Palmer (album); does not rise to notability for an independent article. J04n(talk page) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have expanded the article and added sources. Gongshow ^Talk 09:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Keep per Gongshow's expansion. Kudos to Gongshow on a job well done. J04n(talk page) 10:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, WP:SONG, and WP:HEY. I'm only a few years older than User:Alankc, but I am old enough to recall that this song was a big radio hit, and remains so on the oldies stations. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Thanks to User:Gongshow for rescuing this one. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NSONGS. Bravedog (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice work, Gongshow--considering nominating this for a DYK, if you're at 5x expansion! Drmies (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I actually nominated it for DYK just a couple hours before your suggestion. Great minds...! Gongshow ^Talk 02:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this nice history preserving article! Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The band's first single (and a hit for the fledgling supergroup). It definitely passes the notability laws and gives a good bit information about the song's significance. I'm glad someone finally made an article for it. Krobertj (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Besides other indications of notability, a cursory compliance with WP:BEFORE would demonstrate that the song charted (e.g., [1] and thus meets WP:NSONGS, not to mention that there are plenty of 3rd party sources discussing the song to meet [[WP:N]. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 5 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 delete. JForget 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Zones in Nepal (proposed)[edit]

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

Looks like someone's OR (Shree Shrestha, edeja1@sbcglobal.net) rather than anything verifiable. The real zones are here: Zones of Nepal. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Nom, appears to be either WP:OR or WP:HOAX --Fbifriday (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Andrea105 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be the ~~nominator's~~ author's proposal for what the administrative zones should be? Not appropriate as an article, obviously. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a proposal by the nominator. I agree with the nominator that this contradicts Zones of Nepal. Mandsford (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. Meant "author's proposal" - fixed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:V. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is the creator's proposition for creating zones; WP:SOAP. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:38, 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 keep. However, someone may address the thing with more references than actual prose... Tone 22:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Harvey Ladew, Sr.[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, 3 of the 6 references simply verify personal details and do not establish notability. simply having a yacht impounded by the Japanese comes under WP:ONEVENT. could not find substantial coverage on this subject [2], note some coverage is of his son. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another silly nomination of my work by LibStar as retaliation for working on articles he was trying to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NPA. this is also not a valid reason for keeping. see others below. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "silly" is a personal attack? Your standards are low. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, WP:ONEVENT does not make this person notable. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what event would that be? The article mentions multiple events. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Buying a Yacht, having the military seize property or donating property to the military (in this case, property meaning the Yacht), getting married, and having children, are not notable. Thousands of people have bought a yacht, thousands of people have had their property seized by the military, or have donated it in times of need, billions of people have gotten married, billions of people have had children. Therefore, the one event that could possibly be this person's claim to fame is his yacht being impounded by the Japanese, which of itself is unique, but not that notable. But, once again, if you say that is the notable thing, once again we turn to WP:ONEEVENT and must say that the one event is not enough to include in the encyclopedia. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the difference is that all those things were reported over multiple years in reliable media, and other people aren't, when they donate a pair of socks to the military. And this person has an obituary in the New York Times where the first line of the obit is the claim of notability. Once notable always notable. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course those events run from 1899 to 1940. The same argument could be used for a President of the United States or a Senator despite coverage for multiple years as a president, it is still one event, very silly argument in the case of Ladew. The proof is in the coverage by reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the whole idea of AfDs is to ascertain notability through consensus of mulitple users. what you or I think is notable may not be the same for others. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like his birth and death and purchasing a yacht, none of which establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as it stands there's no reason to keep it. Being a yachtsman is about as notable as being a golfer. Getting in trouble with a foreign government when abroad happens to many of us, even today. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are the Tiger Woods of yachting in the years 1900-1913. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Harvey Ladew, Sr. was not the Tiger Woods of yachting. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article to say he was the "Tiger Woods of yachting", i.e. that he was the best in the world. The bit of the obit quoted below just says he was "well known", not famous or renowned. That he could afford a big yacht is also not notable. As for the 'impounded by the Japanese', the June 15th ref suggests it never happened, but even if it did it's hardly enough for notability. JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then who was the Tiger Woods of yachting in 1893 if it wasn't Ladew? Give a counter example please.

Strong keep very well referenced article, meeting all notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 of the 8 current references only verify personal details such as date of birth, marriage and children. such references do not show how he meets WP:BIO]. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown the converse, how it doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. What rule has it violated in the Notability guideline? All you gave was a strawman fallacy as your argument. I am assuming good faith, I always do, but your research skills are either lacking or you deliberately feign ignorance of the basics of a Google search to sway the voting. I don't know which is true. Your only search was on "Joseph Harvey Ladew" with 12 results in GNews; you ignored "J. Harvey Ladew" with an additional 76 hits; and other variations of his name. You also ignored Google Books with "J. Harvey Ladew" giving 134 hits and "Joseph Harvey Ladew" an additional 9 hits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not some of these hits refer to his son not the senior? secondly your statement is faked good faith by saying "your research skills are either lacking or you deliberately feign ignorance of the basics of a Google search to sway the voting", basically when you don't get agreement in an AfD you need to go into these accusations? it is bad faith in the extreme. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering another strawman fallacy? An article only needs two good references to have the multiple references required by Wikipeida. And we can assume if one reference was another encyclopedia we would only need a one reference. -Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith, but one of two must be true. At each AFD you run a search then declare there is nothing worthwhile to be found in Google. I search and find good references and the article gets saved from deletion. So we have two choices. You honestly can't perform a decent Google search, or you feign an incompetent search to influence the vote. As I showed before, you can't run a single narrow search and declare victory or defeat such as "Joseph Harvey Ladew" in GNews and ignore "J. Harvey Ladew" and other variations as well as ignore GBooks. And in the bilateral articles you can't run a broad search that gives 10K results and just look at the first few pages of results and declare victory or defeat such as "Norway 'New Zealand'". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT says "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." That seems to be the case here. ThaLux (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article establish notability. Ladew's obituary in The New York Times runs 432 words and provides ample additional material to expand the article, along with further evidence of notability. It appears that User:LibStar is now stalking editors who have been involved in bilateral relations articles and attacking other articles those editors have written. This tiresome and abusive practice needs to be put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if this is an accusation, it hardly is stalking. at most I have nominated 2 articles Norton has created in the last few months. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times wouldn't run a long obituary if the person wasn't notable. Its original research to think otherwise. Dream Focus 17:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and where is the significant coverage, besides NYT? or the criterion that if someone has an obituary in NYT they get an automatic WP article? LibStar (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in most cases yes. This would exclude paid obituaries. A NYT obit plus at least one other confirming source would show anyone notable by Wikipedia's own rules. Can you give examples where someone not notable is covered by the New York Times in a non-paid obituary? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the WP policy which says if someone has an obituary in NYT they get an automatic WP article. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something in the obit that establishes his notability please put it in the article. That there's a long obituary establishes nothing: it's the job of obit writers to fill pages day after day with facts about people you've mostly never heard of. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia standard of notability is: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." By every objective measure this article meets that standard. His coverage runs from 1899 to 1940 so he is certainly not known for one single event. You argue: "it's the job of obit writers to fill pages day after day with facts about people you've mostly never heard of", and it is also the job of Wikipedia editors to do the same with notable people. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also look at WP:BIO which has a list of addditional critertia that makes "a person [...] generally notable". This article does not meet any of these criteria. Later it says the article should "explain the notability of its subject", which it does not. All the references are to articles behind paywalls, so I cannot see them to evaluate them or use them to expand the article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two references are behind a paywall, the 1940 NY Times, and the Los Angeles Times, all 9 other references are full text or full image, and free references. Maybe you are using a different Internet than I am. Is anyone else having the same problem as the above person? The text you referred us all to reads: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." and of course Wikipedia:Notability reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So I am a little confused as to what exactly your argument is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I tried most of them, clicked on at least one which presented me with a 'please subscribe', then assumed I would see the same on the others as none of the links are direct. I should mention that in accordance with WP:EL links that link to PDFs should show they are links to PDFs, and direct links to the source are preferred, while sites requiring registration should be avoided.

But my main issue is I don't think he's notable - the "so-called seizure" in particular seems more a reporting mistake than a genuine event (the article is contradicted by the last source on it). Other than that he seems un-notable: he worked for the family business and owned a yacht. JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's more text in the references than the actual article. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear claim of notability, article is extremely well sourced. More sources are available [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two references from specialized encyclopedias show definitive notability for the purpose of inclusion per WP:5P and WP:NOTPAPER. The article is reliably sourced, and works to counter bias against notable business figures who are woefully underrepresented in WP. Due to the time period involved, online sources are going to be limited, but this is no reason to delete. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:13, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emesene[edit]

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

Non-notable software project. This article has been tagged for lacking citations for 5 months. The external links section has no third party sources that would reference a claim to notability. Miami33139 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill. The sources surely give notability to the article.Victor Silveira (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references wonderfully provided by Joe Chill. Nice job! All the references are translated also! I will add these to the talk page of the article. Ikip (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry Guys and Joe. Even though you came up with a large amount of sources I'm not sure if any meet WP:RS. --Fbifriday (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Joe Chill (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCES, under Questionable Sources. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." To me it seems like these sources are either promotional or personal opinions. Also, one article heavily quotes, and even mentions, the wikipedia article (WP:CIRCULAR). --Fbifriday (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those personal opinions are reviews which are accepted. Reviews aren't promotional unless they aren't independent of the subject which they are. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone accepts reviews, they are routine. I would not accept restaurant reviews as evidence of notability. I do not accept toaster reviews as evidence of notability. I do not accept software reviews as evidence of notability. Reviews confirm existence, but not notability. Wikipedia wants to cover things that are notable, not run of the mill and average. Miami33139 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Barely anyone doesn't accept reviews. The main time that I see it is from ultra software deletionists. That opinion is bias and I have never seen that opinion get an article deleted. So what does that tell you about reviews and Wikipedia? By the way, that run of the mill page is an essay and the first one is a proposed guideline for news events. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the subject matter of the article is not influencing how I feel about these sources. The plain matter of fact is that reviews ARE a matter of opinion, and as such, are questionable sources. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously misunderstanding it. WP:BK and WP:NF accepts reviews so it is obvious that reviews are accepted for software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Films and Books use reviews for references of the plot. They don't, however, use reviews as the main argument for notability. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film and book articles are constantly saved from AFD by reviews and I've been participating mainly in AFD for over a year. I've done it myself on Gummo, Feeders (film), McDull Kung Fu Ding Ding Dong, Slaughter Disc, Halloweenight, The A-Team (film), and Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger. That's why many articles have sections for reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, these sources are reviews. But, not every review is mere opinion; some of them are comments by experts on the subject. So, some of them are reliable sources. However, after I read again the sources, I'm not sure if the writers of those reviews are experts or supervised by one. The sources seems only reviews from download sites, but I'm not sure. In doubt, I prefer to keep my vote. If someone proves otherwise (the writer are not experts) or give any other convincing prove against these sources, I'll change my vote.Victor Silveira (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't download sites. I found these sources in Google News so that shows that they are most likely reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

infotec.com - This source is two paragraphs, then three paragraphs of complicated install how-to because it's linux.
underpc, - This might be a reliable source, but five sentences and a screenshot are extremely trivial coverage.
engadget genbeta - This is reliable source but also insignificant length (equivalent to about 30% of one page coverage if this was printed). It is also routine: It is an announcement of a 1.0 product. We want significant critical coverage. A feature list, install instructions, says it is open source. This has nothing of length, nothing of substance, nothing that says "this is notable."
infos-du-net.com - This might be a reliable source. Three paragraphs and a screenshot. This is again routine coverage announcing it exists.
tuxjournal.net - A one-user blog in Italian, not a reliable source. It contains two screenshots, reprints Wikipedia text, and then one paragraph of complicated Linux install instructions. It is an announcement of the 1.5 version. Re-writes of product announcements do not show notability!
We would not document any other consumer product on Wikipedia based on these sources. Software does not get a free ride. Miami33139 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take Tux Journal out then because I actually agree with you there. I disagree with your other opinions and I know that you are extremely bias against software articles. Actually, I have seen other articles kept because of sources like that so that is false. The truth is, you are against all software reviews. You said the same thing about a source with over 10 paragraphs. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biased against software, Wikipedia is biased towards software. I have the same prejudice against software that I do for all consumer products and services. We would not write an article about any consumer product based on these sources. The longest source here is five paragraphs? Significant would be five pages, or even a column length review from someone like Walt Mossberg. That we are accepting re-writes of product version announcements of minuscule length as evidence to declare something is an encyclopedia topic indicates something is very, very wrong. Miami33139 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias for all consumer products and services. Even when they aren't reviews, you still aren't pleased. Your 5 pages comment screams bias. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, I am easy to please when significant sources exist, as seen here, which you think we should delete!

But very close since you have a strange opinion about what significant coverage is. That's the only time that it was the other way around. Have you !voted keep any other times? Joe Chill (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami, the size of a source is not a valid criterion to say if it is significant. If it is a reliable source, it is significant. By the way, there are many cases of a long text has less informations than a short one about the same subject. I think they give notability for the article. So, I'll still keep my vote.Victor Silveira (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely untrue. Notability requires significant coverage as point number one of the definition. Numerous other places discuss "depth of coverage" as a necessary element in determining notability. It explains in more detail: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Miami33139 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami, those sources surely satisfy point #1 because notability guideline does not say anything about the lenght of the source. The sources also have sufficient informations for improving the article and give it notability. So, they are reliable sources. The only doubful point of the sources is whether the article was written by an expert or supervised by one, as I said before. However, you can not prove it. Can you?Victor Silveira (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the link up top to check out Google News search. There are plenty of sites that Google News search says are legitimate news venues, which makes them reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 09:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news links to many sources which Wikipedia does not consider reliable. Google news searches also catch lots of mere mentions, version announcements, press releases and direct advertising. Can you identify any of the google news hits as significant coverage that shows the notability of this subject? Miami33139 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the reasons above are valid to delete the article, It doesn't need citations. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia requires that articles have citations as a core policy. Articles without citations should be deleted. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [13], there are fanvids as well[14]. The application has been recently updated in the main Ubuntu repository and its PPA is popular. A search engine query can show that emesene popularity is high in non-english speaking crowd (for some reason). Some may argue there is POV as the PPA is mine, but I thought it could be nice to support such project. Same with Wikipedia; well, sometimes... bjfs _discuss 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not document fansites as evidence of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're the one interested in article deletion, eh? And I was wondering who got rid of the aMSN on Wikipedia, including the comparsion table. Suprisingly enough it was first to be blanked. This makes discussion futile... especially with people who have this policy pointed in their profile page. Writing "WE DO NOT" is a bit of wishful thinking as I don't feel a part of this questionable QA philosophy. Not trying to be diplomatic in here because I never tolerated this on any wiki I edit. How can one imagine a niche software being publicised in many so-called reliable sources ? And no I didn't edit anything about emesene in here and certainly don't fight for publicity in here. I see it as a step back as there is still a pack of people who'd like to read a brief note on their favorite project. What now, they should look at interwikis ? Will such "housekeeping" make Wikimedia servers more reliable, faster, reduce the donation costs by half ? IMHO it only makes more trouble than it's worth but probably boosts the ego of people who can't find luck elsewhere. We Wikipedians are so super-smart y'all hear ye ignorant heathens ;-) bjfs _discuss 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry that Wikipedia has goals and policies that do not intersect with yours. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 4 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 Speedy Keep. No reason given. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Disko[edit]

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

Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your reasons for deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Frivolous Nomination --Fbifriday (talk) 00:14, 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 Keep. No reason given. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Black[edit]

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

Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your reasons for deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, frivolous nomination. Andrea105 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I agree with Andrea105, appears to primarily be WP:POINT. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I can see no justification for deletion (A. Carty (talk) 00:12, 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 keep. JForget 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Bose headphones[edit]

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

I can see no particular reason that discontinued Bose products are notable enough to warrant their own article. I cannot find any independent, verifiable sources which prove that discontinued Bose headphones were so innovative that we need to have a separate article on the headphone products that Bose no longer sells. The editor(s) of this article would likely argue that the Bose headphones article is too long to merge this article in with it. I would say that once all of the advertisments and non-notable/unencylopedic content are purged from both this article and Bose headphones, there would be plenty of space for merging. The (rather attractive) Bose headphones timeline template already appears in Bose headphones, so we would not lose that.

FYI: Many of the Bose family of Wikipedia articles have been AfD'd in the past, with varying results. This particular article was involved in a few bundled AfD's, some in the recent past, some several years ago. Below are links to a few past relevant (and semi-relevant) AfD's. Most recently, this article was bundled into an AfD on Bose stereo speakers which ended with no consensus. This AfD is an attempt to pick out the most egregious articles and AfD them separately.

SnottyWong talk 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Discontinued notable headphones retain the notability they had when they were being manufactured. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eastman is correct, notability does not expire. Ikip (talk)
- Comment - Quick clarification: Assuming these products were once notable, and that notability does not expire, does this mean that WP needs two separate articles on headphone products from Bose? One for current products, and one for discontinued products? Secondly, notability of every product in this article has not been established, as the majority of the products mentioned in the article are completely unreferenced. SnottyWong talk 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep While I commend Snottywong for keeping me informed about this, I have no clue why this editor is so keen on CONSTANTLY trying to delete these articles, especially after they have JUST gotten out of AfD. He should know he was the reason for them.
1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose stereo speakers Closed 2 November 2009
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination) Opened (by another user) & Speedily Closed 3 November 2009
3. Talk:Bose stereo speakers/Archive 1#Merge Discussion - Bose Products Opened 2 November 2009; Closed 10 November 2009 with a decision to keep.
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive115#User:Phoenix79_reported_by_User:Snottywong_.28Result:_protected.29 Opened & Closed 10 November 2009
  There seems to be a content dispute, but in all reality, I was pretty close to blocking Snottywong (talk · contribs). It's evident that between the user's nomination of the article for both prodding and articles for deletion, and then the subsequent actions on the article after both of those had failed, that the user has a very strong viewpoint on the issues covered by the article—one that is not necessarily shared by the other editors to it. --slakr^\ talk / 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [15][reply]

As I said before, your first attempt to remove these pages from wikipedia failed, ~~so you attempted another and it was speedily ignored~~, so you try another nomination to remove at least one page and you fail. And now this your ~~4th~~ 3rd... let me repeat... your ~~4th~~ 3rd attempt in one MONTH!!!! Please Quit Gaming the system! You have previously agreed that "(I) have successfully established notability". As I told you last time and as you have pointed out in your own nomination the whole reason that there is a Bose headphones and a Previous Bose Headphones is because the article was over 32 kilobytes which it way too large and forces wikipedia to give the warning saying some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Article size

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects.

the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections. Connections to consider include dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 KB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are not recommended.

There is a reason that there are so many Apple articles on wikipedia. Just like Bose, there is just that much information about them. Also the only reason that this article has been nominated so many times is because of blanket AfD's like what you have attempted soooo many times now and they passed every time. And as many people have pointed out, time has no limit on notability. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please don't attack the nominator. Let's discuss whether or not this article should be deleted and leave it at that. I have started one AfD on Bose product articles (which I mentioned in the nomination and provided a link), and one merge discussion on the Bose stereo speakers talk page. One of your pro-Bose cohorts started the AfD on Bose wave systems (in bad faith, I might add). I have no idea why you're saying that I've started four AfD's in one month and that I'm gaming the system, nor do I understand why a lengthy copy/paste from the administrator's noticeboard has any relevance to this discussion. Attacking the nominator will not win the argument. Let's keep it civil please. I did not personally attack you, so please don't personally attack me. SnottyWong talk 12:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to say you are correct and I am sorry. I had no idea that it was another editor that initiated the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination) that was speedily ignored. I made an assumption and it was grossly wrong. But I was not attacking you. I am just getting frustrated with you. You are correct you have never been personal, and I hope you dont think that I was either... but it is hard to AGF when you nominate every article to be deleted, then attempt and fail to merge this article with another one, then report me to the admin board only to have the admin give you a warning to desist. So you now nominate to delete another article! The Same article that you have already failed in deleting before and the same article that you failed to get merged... Do you understand why I am getting annoyed? The reason that I have posted a snippet of what was discussed before is very simple. I am trying to allow other readers to catch up on this debate.... the debate that I thought was closed. I have also asked you to help with the articles to improve them by doing a bit of research and bring more resources to the articles. But your actions have shown that you have no interest in improving the articles only on removing them. I really was flattered (and slightly amused) by your compliment of the timelines I have made.... They take a very long time to create and I still have to create them for a few more articles <sigh>. But it is nice to know that you appreciate them. So can we close this AfD and I ask that if you have no interest in improving these articles that you try and help another article to be better? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A month ago I had concerns about this article, as I saw it of marginal value in relation to its size. It appeared to meet policy requirements, but there were reasonable grounds for discussion as to whether any article on "previous products" should be merged with current products or even deleted.

At the time, I favoured keeping it (but only just). I certainly opposed merging it (I understand it was created as a fork anyway) because of WP:UNDUE size issues.

Since then this article, and the related Bose articles, have been substantially improved by the addition of graphical timelines. Whilst I did originally have concerns over their readability and ability to present some coherent overall picture of the topic, these timelines are enough to swing my opinion that these are now both useful and readable. A niche interest certainly, not even my own interest (and those are pretty obscure), but that's no reason for me to see anything here as unencyclopedic. I also appreciate how much work it is to create timelines like that, so my thanks to the editor who did so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that the timelines are liked by everyone. There are more to come.... but with my real life getting in the way, I probably wont be finished until sometime in 2010. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once notable, always notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:55, 6 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 keep. JForget 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dajae[edit]

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

not enough there (one tiny paragraph) to constitue it's own article Alan - talk 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:STUB. Length does not mean delete it. --Fbifriday (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a perfectly good start. Polarpanda (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article fails WP:STUB "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Alan - talk 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Article Meets one of the criteria you listed for deleting. "or if its subject has no inherent notability". This article shows inherent notability with the line "In 1996 her hit "Day By Day" hit #1 on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart.". Yes, it needs to be sourced, but it is a stub, and is not subject to deletion. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I don't like how the nominator changed the reason his reason for deletion. Most articles start out as stubs. This article has met notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where did i change reason? i responded to reasoning for it to comply with WP:STUB which I don't feel it does Alan - talk 03:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is candidate for expansion, not deletion. There is likely enough material from Billboard magazine alone to help build up the article. Gongshow ^Talk 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:MUSICBIO under point 2, at least, does it not? Cocytus [»talk«] 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This nomination is a waste of everyones' time. Following WP:BEFORE before nominating it would have avoided it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 4 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 keep. JForget 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust It (album)[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a tracklisting, fails notability for an article about an album Alan - talk 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NALBUMS --Fbifriday (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator really should read WP:BEFORE and stop wasting our time with these nominations. The album has received plenty of coverage, with an Allmusic review already linked in the article, plus BBC, ResidentAdvisor, Music Week, and this.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Article certainly could use expansion, but not deletion. Gongshow ^Talk 09:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with Michig and Gongshow. There is a difference between "non-notable" and "needs expansion." Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. And at least one review is linked in the article. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strobelite Seduction[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a tracklisting, fails notability for an article about an album Alan - talk 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NALBUMS --Fbifriday (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:ALBUMS provides the reasons to keep, not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable album by notable artist.--Michig (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable artist, album has a notable song Move for Me which has climbed high in a notable chart. This article needs to be expanded, but that is what stub tags are for. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Doomsdayer520. Notable artist and album. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Gongshow ^Talk 09:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. And at least one review is linked in the article. If it were just a track listing (which it is not) it would be a candidate for merge (per WP:NALBUMS), not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:40, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Mysterious[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a tracklisting, fails notability for an article about an album Alan - talk 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NALBUMS --Fbifriday (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ALBUMS actually provides reasons to keep. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable album by notable artist.--Michig (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Michig above. Also, I am going to say the same thing for several of the deletion proposals by Alankc. You have a point about WP:NALBUMS but just because an album needs expansion (more sources, especially) does not automatically mean that it should be deleted for non-notability. It should be expanded, which is what stub tags are for. Also, you have some recommendations in various places to become more familiar with WP:BEFORE, which is a legitimate recommendation. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Doomsdayer520. Notable artist and notable album. Passes WP:NALBUMS. Already, at least one source of coverage is linked to within the article. Gongshow ^Talk 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability per WP:NALBUMS, significant, third-party coverage. One source already provided in the article, maybe add this as well? Cocytus [»talk«] 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And second the sentiment about wp:before.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. And at least one review is linked in the article. If it were just a track listing (which it is not) it would be a candidate for merge (per WP:NALBUMS), not delete.Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Moment[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a tracklisting, fails notability for an article about an album Alan - talk 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NALBUMS --Fbifriday (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable album by notable artist.--Michig (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Michig above. Also, I am going to say the same thing for several of the deletion proposals by Alankc. You have a point about WP:NALBUMS but just because an album needs expansion (more sources, especially) does not automatically mean that it should be deleted for non-notability. It should be expanded, which is what stub tags are for. Also, you have some recommendations in various places to become more familiar with WP:BEFORE, which is a legitimate recommendation. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Doomsdayer520. Notable artist and notable album. Passes WP:NALBUMS, The article could use work, but not deletion. There's already one source of coverage linked to within the article. Gongshow ^Talk 10:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. And at least one review is linked in the article. If it were just a track listing (which it is not) it would be a candidate for merge (per WP:NALBUMS), not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's You, It's Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's You, It's Me

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a tracklisting, fails notability for an article about an album Alan - talk 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NALBUMS --Fbifriday (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable album by notable artist.--Michig (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Michig above. Also, I am going to say the same thing for several of the deletion proposals by Alankc. You have a point about WP:NALBUMS but just because an album needs expansion (more sources, especially) does not automatically mean that it should be deleted for non-notability. It should be expanded, which is what stub tags are for. Also, you have some recommendations in various places to become more familiar with WP:BEFORE, which is a legitimate recommendation. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Doomsdayer520. Notable artist and notable album. Passes WP:NALBUMS, The article needs work, but not deletion. There's already one source of coverage linked to within the article. Gongshow ^Talk 10:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. And at least one review is linked in the article.Rlendog (talk) 01:44, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovefreekz[edit]

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

one sentance makes an article? Alan - talk 21:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One E makes a word a sentence ;) --Fbifriday (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Delete'~~ Fails WP:BAND As far as I can tell --Fbifriday (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am removing my vote as per DitzyNizzy's comment down below, I did not notice that part of the article. I now support Keep. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Rather ironically, in view of the above deletion rationale (which makes me thinks he didn't read it), per Wp:BAND: No2 reads, "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." He has a song that made No6 in the United Kingdom. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to expand the article with riliable sources, for now, it doesn't even pass WP:STUB Alan - talk 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "In 2004 his single "Shine", re-creating a sample of the Electric Light Orchestra's 1979 track "Shine a Little Love", became an international club smash and was a Top 20 hit on Billboard's Hot Dance Airplay chart in 2005.The track also reached Number 6 in the UK Singles Chart." Yes it does.--Fbifriday (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He had a top 10 hit. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He at least appears to meet criterion #2 of WP:MUSICBIO; having a top 10 hit on the UK Singles Chart is notable. I prefer expansion over deletion in this case. Perhaps something from these pages (many of which are pay sites) might help. Gongshow ^Talk 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This nomination is a waste of everyones' time. WP:BEFORE would have avoided it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Gongshow and Michig. That an article about a notable subject is a stub is reason to expand, not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second the Snow Keep - It is a very small stub but it meets WP:MUSICBIO. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:37, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Wild[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS no references or cites, very little context at all, doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article Alan - talk 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song was a hit in the UK, making the Top 20 of the national singles chart, so it meets WP:MUSIC notability requirements. (And how many songs have had a perfume named after them?) I've added some sources, although more would be welcome. Markfury3000 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONGS. It's a charted song, the article is reasonably detailed and (now) sourced. Gongshow ^Talk 10:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Town (Shiny Toy Guns song)[edit]

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

WP:NSONGS no context, no notability cited, no references or cites, can fit easily into main artists article Alan - talk 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NSONGS "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.". Ranked on the charts is notable. Also, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It seems the nominating editor has been nominating alot of articles from the same genre, mainly the electronica genre, that are perfectly fine. Please see This, this, and this. May be a "I don't like it, so it deserves to be deleted" instance. --Fbifriday (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per Fbifriday. Article needs to be expanded and sourced, but it passes WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Fbifriday. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This article meets notability requirements. As mentioned above, User:Alankc, "Alan" is nominating numerous articles for deletion. Ikip (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable for an article.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable song. The article needs work (i.e., sources), not deletion. Gongshow ^Talk 10:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get a keep under WP:SNOW? --Fbifriday (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Yes -- Absolutely. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NSONGS and WP:BEFORE. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricochet![edit]

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

WP:NSONGS no context, no notability cited, only one referance for a single peak position, can fit easily into main artists article. Alan - talk 21:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NSONGS "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.". Ranked on the charts is notable. --Fbifriday (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Fbifriday. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Meets minimum notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable song. The article needs work (i.e., sources), not deletion. Gongshow ^Talk 10:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get a keep under WP:SNOW? --Fbifriday (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per all of the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination begins by stating the reason to keep, i.e., WP:NSONGS, which this subject meets. Rlendog (talk) 01:49, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Monday[edit]

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

WP:NSONGS no context, no notability cited, no referance, article has nothing but a sentance. Alan - talk 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song charted and is sufficiently notable to pass WP:NSONGS. My admittedly quick search for coverage included finds of a couple short reviews [16][17], and I'm thinking the article simply needs work (i.e., sources), not deletion. Gongshow ^Talk 10:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Criterion 1 and charting.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charted, so meets WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 5 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 keep. JForget 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Lorenzi[edit]

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

No sources identified to verify points apparently establishing notability made in the article; WP:GNG therefore applies. Scoop100 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar and Google Book searches bring up hundreds of publications /by/ him. Third-party reliable sources /about/ him are a little thinner on the ground, but here are two:
1. Guide to standard floras of the world, page 349: "Since 1992, however, Harri Lorenzi has been producing an attractive series of well-illustrated , all-color dendrological atlases worthy of note here."
2. Conservation education and outreach techniques, page 362: "The sale of guidebooks can generate income for local organisations. A plant guide, Trees of Brazil—Arvores Brasilieras was produced in Brazil by author Harri Lorenzi. Researchers use the book for reference. The high quality photographs and large format also makes the book popular among middle class people with an interest in nature. Lorenzi directs a private research institute funded through the sale of the guides. The proceeds of book sales fund employment of four scientist and an airplane for botanical research in the Amazon." This is cited to the Lawrence and Hawthorne (2006), Plant Identification: User friendly Guides for biodiversity management, so that's a third source.

There also appear to be quite a few sources in Portuguese, but I can't read them. Hesperian 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: For some of them, I think there was little update, the remaining parts of the article needs to be wikified, some of the sentences to be properly written and not from machine translations. A part of it will be rewritten with translations not messy made from a machine on a special page. After the sentences has been corrected, it will be pasted to the article. For some articles that has not made proper sentence in years should have the sentences corrected. I am not sure it will be kept once after some of the sentences are corrected and portions of the article redone removing remains of machine translation sections. Some of the articles that were machine translated should be redone and properly translated without incorrect sentences. Pumpie (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With GS cites of 1666, 506, 436, 274 and h index = 12 he appears to satisfy WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. As well as the highly cited publications satisfying WP:PROF criterion 1, the subject appears to pass the general notability guideline based on the Google News search linked above, with, for example, these articles being devoted to him. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), primarily based on the citation impact of his six top cited publications. All of these have more than 150 citations in GS. The most cited publication looks like a book, single-authored by him, with 1,666 citations in GS.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add the necessary information brought out above. The nom could have easily found most of it also. WP:BEFORE should be a requirement whenever it is applicable, to discourage nomination without checking. (it may help people realize that we do not delete because an article has no references, only because we cannot find them after a good search). DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. So no more time is wasted. Clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an expert on Brazilian plant species, and it seems co-wrote Weeds of the United States and their control‎. Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 4 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 delete. JForget 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Holland[edit]

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

Article was deleted through the proposed deletion process and restored after I received an email contesting deletion. The name seems a relatively common one, and a search on it alone yields nothing: [18]. Given this, I also tried several more targeted searches, which I would expect to turn up sourcing if it is in existence: [19], [20], [21]. I have not found any reliable independent source material through these either, and even these searches seem to yield several results of people who just happen to share a name with the subject. Given this lack of sourcing, I believe that the prod proposer was correct and that the article should remain deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from the notability concerns, a significant portion of the page consists of BLP issues. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Nom and concerns above --Fbifriday (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be shown. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom's detailed rationale. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Petot[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: this was originally WP:PRODed and then incompletely listed for WP:AFD. I have no opinion as to the notability of this person. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ross Petot is known worldwide. He often plays with Neville Dickie when Dickie is in America. He was often written up in The Mississippi Rag which had a worldwide distribution discussing traditional jazz and ragtime. The article does have sources by the way. And because he has a lousy website is one of the stupidest reasons ever to claim a person is not sufficiently notable. I believe the user Paul whatever has no idea about this person as I have no idea about punk rock but that is not a reason to remove an article. Dwain (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.His fame is only in New England. His website merely reinforces his obscurity. By the way, I am a huge jazz fan .Paul210 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that Petot is only known in New England is patently false. He is known widely in Europe, Canada and the US. People are even playing music that he composed. Here are just two examples at the Mather Dance Center in Ohio his ragtime compositions were used^[1] and at Cliburn a piano competition Martin Gross an East Texas resident played Petot's "Atomic Suffle" in 2007. Pretty interesting for someone who is supposed to be only known locally. Dwain (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician. Fails WP:BAND, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this artist qualifies under the BAND policy, probably under criterion 1 but certainly under criterion 7. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local musician with local coverage only (Boston-area musician who plays at (very small) Boston-area places and gets covered in the Boston paper once). He does not meet criterion seven, because there is no local "stride piano scene", and there are certainly plenty of local jazz musicians in a major city like Boston. The website reference isn't independent, and obviously does not confer notability, and with no indication of the distribution of his releases, there's nothing that really shows that he meets BAND. MSJapan (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence offered of this international or even national fame and barely any suggestion of even municipal fame. --Calton | Talk 14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's recorded albums, he's mentioned in the Boston Globe as well as in other newspapers.Tris2000 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those "other papers" are trivial mentions and are simply notices of artist lists at festivals. Most tellingly, every hit in that search is primarily from Massachusetts or Connecticut (with two New Hampshires). We also have very specific criteria for what constitutes an album release that confers notability, and that has not been met at all, seeing as how no one has been able to find these albums or even who released them and when. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - just had a look on Crazy Jazz (the British jazz catalogue of albums for sale) and found two Ross Petot albums immediately: link title which lists two albums, the first from 1999 and the second from 2002, both on the Stomp Off label:

28712 : THE BACK BAY RAMBLERS - JON-ERIK KELLSO / BILLY NOVICK / JOHN CLARK / BOB CONNORS / ROSS PETOT / PETER BULLIS / SCOTT PHILBRICK / VINCE GIORDANO... : CUTTIN' UP - (1999) : STOMP OFF : £14.50 :
25875 : THE BACK BAY RAMBLERS feat. JON-ERIK KELLSO / BILLY NOVICK / JOHN CLARK / BOB CONNORS / ROSS PETOT / PETER BULLIS / VINCE GIORDANO / BILL REYNOLDS... : RED HOT BAND - (2002) : STOMP OFF : £14.50 : Tris2000 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as those are not solo albums, I would say they don't really help for Petot's individual notability, as notability is not inherited. This, by the way, is the site for the Stomp Off label (which is a sub-catalog of another label), and it is therefore difficult to say that it is even a major jazz label. MSJapan (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Tris2000, Stomp Off is a major label for Trad Jazz. Just the fact that a British company is selling music featuring Ross Petot is proof alone that he is known beyond New England as has been suggested. Good work. Dwain (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As per Anthony_bradbury. Friuli (talk) 20:45, 4 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 Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G12 or WP:CSD#A7 - take your pick. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure Girls[edit]

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

Article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. After discussion with author on the talk page, the author claims to have a website for the content in question, but I cannot find any other location at which this content is discussed. Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note: The author has linked the website which he mentioned on the talk page in an effort to indicate that the article is not a hoax. ~~However, the page linked indicates that it is "under construction."~~ As this appears to be the only location at which this content is even mentioned, and there is no actual content on the page, I feel we cannot possibly maintain this article without violating no original research, and I feel that the lack of notability is asserted. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page has been changed by the original author since posting this message, so the "under construction" message has been removed. I feel this indicates a WP:NOR violation. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There I just changed the website so you can't delete my page. What do you mean this indicates a violation? There's nothing that says I can't change my webiste.--ProjectShadow94 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR is the policy which states that articles must not contain original research. This means proper, independent, verifiable citations are necessary for content to be included. Because the website is controlled by you, any content cited by you from that site would still be original research. Additionally, the policy clearly states that primary sources must have been published by a reliable content stream. The details on what is and is not original research can be found within that policy. I feel that this article qualifies as original research and thus should be removed. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made-up by author, WP:SELFPUB and not notable even if it wasn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I can't find anything to link 'Kendra Yoder' with 'Adventure Girls' - except for http://theadventuregirlsseries.weebly.com/home.html . I have tagged the article for Speedy Deletion as it appears to be a copyright violation of this site. (I quote from the site "© www.TheAdventureGirlsSeries.weebly.com 2009.") The site in question is not a valid indicator of notability as it is self-published. Peridon (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just replaced my SD tag and the AfD tag on the article after their removal by the article's creator. Please do not remove these tags from articles you have created. Peridon (talk) 22:41, 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. JForget 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Schügerl[edit]

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

No sources identified to verify points apparently establishing notability made in the article; WP:GNG therefore applies. Scoop100 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research not verified by reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion as a non-notable person. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this reference and this one. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, your second reference is a copy of the the Wikipedia article and it is expressly attributed to Wikipedia at the bottom of the page. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also this Google Scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The CV from the University page looks like a citable source.--Stone (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find an extra source:[22], a biographical article about him in the journal Bioatomation. Nsk92 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this biographical article about him[23], he is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and of the New York Academy of Sciences. I think that is enough to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This[24] also indicates that in 1992 vol. 46 of the book series Advances in biochemical engineering, biotechnology was dedicated to his 65-th birthday. The volume contains a detailed biographical article about him full text of which is available here[25]. I have added this info to the article. Also, the Bioautomation article mentions that he has been an editorial board member of a large number of journals: Chemie-Ingenieur Technik; Chemical Engineering and Technology; Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology; Journal of Biotechnology; Analytical Chemical Acta; BioEngineering; Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Biotechnology Monographs, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was also awarded the DECHEMA Medal in 1997. I added a mention of this, with a ref[26], to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites 89, 39, 28, 21, ... h index = 10. Borderline case for WP:Prof #1 on this basis but he did much of his work before the web existed and may not be well represented there. WoS data would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that GS does not always list the articles in the decreasing order of the citation hits. In this case, the GS search[27] on page 2 lists publications with citation hits 92 and 47, for example. And, as you said, for somebody who did most of his work in the 70s and the 80s, GS is not very good at fishing out citations (plus the rate of publication was slower then). Citability is not the only way of satisfying WP:PROF and in this case there are other factors, such as the academy memberships, that are better indicators of academic notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aufgrund der Akademie der Wissenschaften mitgliedschaften. Andrea105 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad translation: memberships because of the Academy of Sciences Ikip (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... that's Google's machine translation producing garbled English :) In lieu of getting a native speaker of German to review this, let's try breaking down the sentence, and feeding it into the machine translator in manageable, bite-sized pieces:

aufgrund der => due to the

Akademie der Wissenschaften => Academy of Sciences

mitgliedschaften => memberships

Yes, human fluency in foreign languages is still important :) Andrea105 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's messing up Google's translator? Because "mitgliedschaften" is a noun, the translator expects it to be capitalized (the German language being one of the few that adheres to this convention). Yes, their translation system seems to choke on anything that isn't textbook German -- it's not like English-speaking internet users would ever omit capitalization :) So, if we submit "aufgrund der Akademie der Wissenschaften Mitgliedschaften" to the translator, the result is "because of the Academy of Sciences membership" [28]. No, this still isn't quite correct, because "Mitgliedschaften" is supposed to be plural, right? As a review of German_nouns#Declension_classes should make clear, however, there may actually be no way to tell the difference; correct translation requires inference from context. Andrea105 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would translate the sentence in Keep because he is Member of several academies of science.--Stone (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets minimum notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a CV and a wiki mirror are by definition unreliable, almost anyone can join the New York Academy of Science - I am a former member - and I see nothing else to prove he passes WP:PROF. I can change my mind if convinced by multiple reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, has an honorary doctorate from Budapest University, and received the 1997 DECHEMA Medal; this info, with references to independent sources (not his CV) has already been added to the article. Plus here are two published biographical articles about him: [29] (scroll down to page vii there) and [30], the first one particularly extensive and detailed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right about the New York Academy of Sciences (it is not clear if NYAS has elected fellows/members in addition to regular membership, and if yes, to which category Schügerl belongs). However, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is a different matter and he is definitely an elected external member there. Here is a bio page about him at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences website[31] confirming that he is an external member since 1995. Here is another page[32] at the academy's website explaining the structure of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This page makes it clear that all external (i.e. foreign) members of the academy are elected:"... can be elected to become external members if they pursue their field of science on a particularly high and creative level recognised by their field of science, and if they keep in close touch with Hungarian scientific life". Nsk92 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The dedication of the volume of Advances in Biochemical Engineering to him is a clear proof of notability. It's exactly the sort of recognition from outside sources that is often asked for. And so is the DECHEMA award. This is one article for which there is no need to analyse the publications, because it has been done for us by RSs in the subject. (FWIW, it has indeed been recognized in multiple afds that NYAS membership is indeed not a significant distinction for notability). Fortunately, he has enough other. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on above basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 3 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 delete. JForget 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BruteForceBlocker[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this script. Joe Chill (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable script. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources or any evidence to justify pulling an WP:IAR. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:50, 3 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 delete. JForget 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Stanley[edit]

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

Completely non-notable. Page apparently created solely due to prominent descendant 19 generations later. Agricolae (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominator, no independent claim to notability here. She might deserve a mention in some article (something about Obama's genealogy), but not a separate article about her. Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person. Notability is not inherited. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Thousands of people are descended from Edward I. Equally at 20 generations, any given person has about 1,000,000 ancestors. The whole business is completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we start creating articles for every distant relative of President Obama, we'll double the size of Wikipedia with those alone. Fails WP:BIO so get rid of it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Dwain (talk)

Expand with what? What about her is noteworthy that justifies a page? Yes, she had parents and a husband and children. She was born and married and died. She probably even brought a minor property or two to her husband as the result of the marriage, but that is all you are going to find. She did nothing that merits special note, that made her different from the thousands of her contemporaries, nor has she received any significant coverage by historians as an individual (rather than as a conduit through whom genealogists trace their pedigrees). Katherine may be ancestral to millions of people, great and anonymous alike, but she simply is not a notable person by Wikipedia standards. Agricolae (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wp:NOTINHERITED. (Incidentally, I'm distantly related - although nowhere near this distantly - to KT Tunstall. Does that mean I can have my own article?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I look further, there is nothing to indicate notabuility on the page of her mother, Joan Gousell, her grandmother Elizabeth de Bohun, or her great-grandmother Elizabeth de Badlesmere. The latter two follow the same cookie-cutter approach to creating a page for someone's wife. Born, parents, grandparents, married, all kinds of things her husband did, children, when her husband died, when she died, important people descended from her. None of this indicates notability - all appear to exist due to a failure to apply WP:NOTINHERITED appropriately. Agricolae (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a textbook case of WP:NOTINHERITED. As Agricolae points out above, there are many other articles this applies to as well, but just because they exist doesn't mean we should keep this one. Robofish (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I was not arguing that the existence of others means this one should be kept. I was suggesting that there appear to be others that should also be removed. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 3 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 delete. JForget 00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Armenian Church (Southfield, Michigan)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable church. What little coverage in reliable sources there is appears to be confined to the local Armenian community. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search finds no independent information about the church. Lots of pretty pictures on this article and a nice looking building, but that's not enough to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. I'm going to merge this to the school district since it is verified. Tilliego (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seaford High School (New York)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this school. Tilliego (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Community consensus is that all high schools are notable. Joe Chill (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per common deletion outcomes and WP:RS given for school. tedder (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- High schools are kept except where they fail verifiability. Tilliego (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't that what I said? It is verifiable, so it should be kept. tedder (talk) 20:18, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Sherman (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, per WP:ENT. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author claims notability due to "significant cult following" on the basis of one interview on a Sandbaggers fan wesite. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB entry on Bob Sherman: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0792384/ He's been in lots of shows, and the Sandbaggers has a large cult following, even if you've never heard of it. Now please stop listing for deletion. --Morse321 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - passes WP:ENT (despite claim by nominator) due to appearance in multiple roles over many years, including notable movies and television shows. Article needs expanding with reliable sources, but there should be material out there to work with. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT. Just because the show has a large cult following does not mean this actor does. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it you think it fails WP:ENT on (2), Bob Sherman passes on point (1), because he's been in lots of shows (reference). Morse321 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ENT, part 1, states (in part) "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I looked over http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0792384/ his credits at IMDB], and they do not satisfy that requirement. In his time since Sandbaggers, he's had many minor roles ("Ambassador's aide," "Pentagon Senator," "Policeman #10"), including the few notable productions he was in (Superman IV, Little Shop of Horrors, Hellboy). --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We look past the minor roles, as even the most notable of actors have had minor roles... its called paying bills. Not to spout WP:OSE, but a notable like John Travolta has done some quite forgetable commercial spots before he hit the bigs... actor Bill Pullman has done a great number of small roles in forgettable films, right alongside his bigger roles in major films... and even such as John Wayne did some early crappola before he made his mark. What is to be considered in judging notability for this actor is his overall career and his 50+ years of coverage in reliable sources. And yes... an actor who's career started in the 1950's will certainly have had many minor roles. That is not the point nor the issue. As you do point out, he has been part of notable productions even as he has been part of minor. Notability is not to be judged by the least of what an actor does, but by the best of his works and the scope of his career... and the coverage to match. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My intention was not to imply that performing in minor roles or in non-notable productions negated the notability "accrued" by performing in significant roles in notable productions. I was pointing out that many of his roles since The Sandbaggers have been minor. I supposed it is a somewhat flawed arguement now... --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not flawed really... its just my thought that the argument concentrated on the negative rather than the positive. My own experience as an actor is unless one is part of the top 1% that are able to set their own rate, one takes the roles that pays the bills. If some are major roles, then wonderful... if some are minor... well at least the rent gets paid that month. I agree that he has had lessor TV roles since Sandbaggers... but since that time he has also had major roles in several TV films and mini-series and feature films. All bricks in the building. You'll note that in my current expansion of the article I did not include the minor roles in the major films. Still a work-in-progress though.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting of WP:ENT [33] and over 50 years of coverage in reliable sources [34] What this stub needs is expansion and sourcing... a surmountable propblem... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, he was also pretty notable for his work on the stage, and also as a playwright. He was notable enough to warrant an obit in The Times when he died. (reference). --Morse321 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. A well-rounded individual. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have begun expanding and sourcing the stub. Any assistance is welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has had plenty of roles in notable works, over a rather long career. Dream Focus 01:17, 5 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 Speedy delete per A7 and also noting that Nancy is not her real name and the article was only created per WP:POINT because I salted the original Nancy ^talk 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Uchitel[edit]

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

Rachel or Nancy? And the references look as though they don't pass WP:RS, though I have no NY Times membership to check that one. I think borderline notability at best, and that's why I am putting it to the community to judge. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recreation of Rachel Uchitel which was speedy deleted and salted, Nancy was the deleting admin. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy It's the 3rd recreation of the article (it's Rachel by the way). [35] I deleted it the first time and Nancy got to it the 2nd. User created it with Nancy as the first name, possibly confused the names. RxS (talk) 19:52, 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. JForget 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lee (Czech pornographic actress)[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not comply with WP:PORNBIO standards. 71.230.1.236 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no evidence that the subject can pass the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no indication the article can be appropriately expanded beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why do people want to delete everything to do with porn from wikipedia? It's censorship really. VenomousConcept (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not about censorship. It's about notability. Which your !vote has nothing to do with. Joe Chill (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All pages to do with porn stars get deleted. There are four references, that should be enough. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What don't you understand about multiple sources with significant coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO, cannot find any useful sources (and I looked really, really hard). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
at least keep the photo Inmate 5317 (talk) 22:49, 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 delete. JForget 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Mason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant independant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. Currently it's sourced to IMDB and an archive.org copy of a deleted AVN webpage, which appears to be promotional in nature anyway. Even if these are deemed reliable sources, the article already lists all the encyclopedic information that could be gleamed from them. Notability is based on the existence of sources with which we could actually write a proper encyclopedia article... with the sources we have so far we can't get past a stub. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO and the AVN article is not enough to satisfy GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:02, 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 delete. JForget 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead Eurovision song contest entrants[edit]

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

Useless and incomplete list. Speed King (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete. Struggling to find any reason to keep this article. Szzuk (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't imagine someone having an urge to browse through a list of Eurovision Song Contest entrants, but only wanting to see the ones who don't happen to be alive any more. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wp:IINFO. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot imagine a good reason for keeping this article, it's totally random. Fences&Windows 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless intersection. Info would be on their individual Articles. This cannot even fit into List of dead people, and THAT is pretty creepy. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:23, 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. JForget 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Malone[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 5 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 keep. JForget 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krysti Lynn[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, and no coverage except for news reports about her death. Epbr123 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in books seem substantial enough to satisfy general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are snippet views and pages that can't be viewed maybe because of the content in Google Books, but the descriptions on the first search page show that the first page definitely has significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Joe.--Adam in MO Talk 05:15, 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 redirect to Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe#RGM-89 Jegan. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RGM-89 Jegan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article about non-notable fictional weapon. Was kept at previous AfD due to "having lots of sources", however all those sources were primary and later deleted as copyvios. Appears not to have significant coverage in third-party sources. Black Kite 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what to do with this article. The mobile suit is featured in several Gundam series set in the Universal Century, and there isn't a single list for all mobile suits featured in the Universal Century timeline (and would be too unwieldy in the first place). Instead, we have lists for each individual series. (Original, Stardust Memories, Zeta, ZZ, and Victory) I would suggest redirecting it to Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe#RGM-89 Jegan for the time being until someone can eventually sort things out. —Farix (t | c) 03:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have reverted the link removal if I noticed it; the person who did it has since been smacked down by arbcom for various reasons. That being said this can't really stand on it's own at the moment anyways, so Redirect to somewhere appropriate. Jtrainor (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[*sigh*] Delete as failing all relevant notability standards (no real-world coverage in substantial sources). Second option is redirect per TheFarix, and protect redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why should the redirect be protected? Jtrainor (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically to ensure that nobody circumvents the AFD decision after it's completed and died down. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will be a problem. There is no evidence that anyone will recreate the article or restore a redirect. The only thing I see in the article history is an edit war over some copyvio stats. —Farix (t | c) 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge - likely target List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam. Thus hardly seems undue or false just likely unnotable on its own, no reason to delete however, simply merge to a more central list. Those familiar with the storylines should add refs at least to which episodes these came from. There likely is some real world correlates but that too may already be handled in the main list. -- Banjeboi 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the criterion were ghits, this would be a hands down keep, but sadly Wikipedia requires reliable sources and none, so far, have been proposed: ghits!=rs. Also, I am a little baffled by Moonriddengirl's closure of the copyvio debate on the article talk page. She says she is closing with a decision to remove the material, but the edit she makes is to restore the deleted material. Is this a mistake? If so the article should not be merged. SpinningSpark 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no mistake. The material that was a copyright problem is visible in comparing these diffs: [36]. User:A Man In Black had already removed it, but blanked the article anyway to keep it from being restored pending closure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the material was -claimed- to be a copyright problem, but in actuality the removal was part of an edit war between AMIB and various WP:GUNDAM participants a while back. Jtrainor (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the uninvolved administrator who closed the listing at CP, and I explained at the talk page why I agreed that it was a copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The proposed merge target is listcrufty and doesn't contain any out-of-universe information, so I don't want to add more wood to the fire. This article itself fails WP:N as the individual weapon hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, selectively merge and redirect to Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam_universe#RGM-89 Jegan, but not to the larger "list of mobile weapons in gundum" article, which contains the problems I listed above. This list is backed up with at least some real-world documentation. Them From Space 21:31, 6 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 merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSM-04 Acguy[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable fictional weapon. Black Kite 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons as currently proposed on the article. —Farix (t | c) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nothing that point out any notability. While the article name implied that one mecha design is covered, it isn't. Four designs are covered and i'm not sure that all four should be kept in the merged list. --KrebMarkt 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 4 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 merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS-09 Dom[edit]

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

Huge slab of unsourced in-universe original research about non-notable weapon, masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Black Kite 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons as proposed on the article. —Farix (t | c) 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 4 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 redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam F91. JForget 00:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XMA-01 Rafflesia[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable weapon. Black Kite 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge or redirect~~ ~~toMobile Suit Crossbone Gundam. This series may need a separate list mobile weapon depending on the number of mobile weapon featured in the series.~~ Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam F91. The films plot summary should take care of describing the mobile weapon's role in the story. —Farix (t | c) 04:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't you have anything constructive to do? Instead of flooding AfD with a bunch of inevitable merges and redirects, why not just initiate an actual discussion somewhere? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam F91. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 4 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 redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack. JForget 00:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Gundam[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable item in animated movie. Black Kite 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack. Hopefully, when the plot summary is rewritten, it will detail the mobile suit's role in the film. —Farix (t | c) 03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 4 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 keep. JForget 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Kesarovski[edit]

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

Not very notable (gSearch comes up with less than 600 results in quotes); only written one book (6000 hits). fetchcomms☛ 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changed to Keep: ~~I can't find significant coverage for this author.~~ Per Phil Bridger. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's possibly unfair to expect a lot of sourcing about him in the English-speaking press. Here is one article that makes him sound notable: Science Fiction Fandom in Bulgaria. His "Fifth Law of Robotics is explained at the Three Laws of Robotics page, and includes a reference, but the reference is not in English. Suggest that we bend over backward to grant notability to writers whose work is not in English. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment. The Three Laws of Robotics article uses Kesarovski's book as a primary source for the fifth law - that's fine for verifiability purposes but it doesn't help with notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case it helps anyone looking for sources this is the subject's name in Cyrillic: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The subject doesn't appear to have an article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia but he is redlinked from its article on the fourth and fifth laws of robotics. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that the subject committed suicide in 2007, spookily just a week or two after our article was created. Kulturni Novini, which appears to be a reliable source, published "in memoriam" articles six months and a year after his death and according to this a national science fiction award has been named after him. It's taking me rather a long time to wade through the search results because Bulgarian isn't one of my stronger languages, but I think that this is enough to show notability. I have other things to do for the moment but I'll update the article later today. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't speak Bulgarian or anything, But if Phil Bridger says they assert notability, I'll take his word for it, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 19:55, 4 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 keep. JForget 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2014 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

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

the World Hockey Championships is notable, but in my opinion it fail WP:SPORT. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 18:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it will be notable when held; deletion followed by recreation is a needless waste of effort. Andrea105 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only keep vote violates WP:CRYSTAL. As of now the event is non-notable, may be notable in the future but that's not relevant here.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to keep because in hindsight, there's no doubt this event will occur and its notability is not questioned.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We regularly keep world hockey championships that are this far off. Generally it is considered not to violate WP:CRYSTAL if planning can be shown to have already started. Which in this case it has because a site has been choosen. -DJSasso (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DJsasso. A host has been chosen and the event is therefore considered to be notable. Not sure how this would violate WP:SPORTS. It's a world championship in a major sport. Patken4 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Four years out is pushing the limit, but we have verifiable information on the tournament, and it isn't like the World Championship is going away any time soon. Not to mention that violating a wikiproject somehow is hardly a valid rationale for deletion. Reso lute 02:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to atleast prevent needless recreation. It isn't an issue of CRYSTAL, as the event will no doubt be notable, and basic details are already known. We create articles for far less notable and even further in the future events for the same reason. Grsz¹¹ 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article demonstrates that this is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, in that the subject has received coverage in reliable sources and self-evidently a sourced encyclopedic article can be written, because it has. If this gets cancelled then it will be all the more notable for that fact. I'm not sure, however, that Grsz11's comparison will convince many editors here, because this is only a world championship rather than a North American event. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Phil Bridger. Rlendog (talk) 02:02, 5 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 redirect to Traditional games in the Philippines#Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken"). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk and Chicken[edit]

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

~~Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. This article does not refer to any social importance. It would be better off at WikiHow, whose purpose if to host "how-to" type entries.~~ -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect instead of deletion - to Traditional games in the Philippines#Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken"), as mentioned below -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per ~~WP:MADEUP~~ WP:WP#NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the game is mentioned in A study of Philippine games By Mellie Leandicho Lopez, it is not made up. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of Filipino Children's games or keep. See [37], [38], Page 52 of [39]. Less of of howto than a documentation of games played. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can see, all of those sources mention how to play - but not the social relevance, or detailed history, etc of the game. That is why I recommended (both in this AfD, and on the creator's talk page) that it might be better off on WikiHow -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest we merge all discussions on these articles on Philippines games to [40]. I think this issue has been addressed there fairly well by Phil. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, normally I'd agree with Steve, but in this case I'm gonna have to disagree with the AfD propsal. I see NO reason why this article needs to be deleted. But then, my opinions and suggestions mostly go unheard... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Bati-Cobra, Calahoyo ("Hole-in"), Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken") and Sambunot to Traditional games in the Philippines, as I feel that this is a more appropriate location for them -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I now think that this article should not be deleted, but redirected to Traditional games in the Philippines#Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken"), as all the information is now there, and so there is no need for a separate article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I agree with this. Redirecect might be fine if the information contained in the oresent article is prenet in the target article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If RadioFan, Pookeo9 and JoeChill are willing to change their !votes, I am willing to perform a non-admin closure and create the redirect as mentioned above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:37, 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 redirect to Traditional games in the Philippines#Calahoyo ("Hole-in"). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hole-in[edit]

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

~~Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. This article does not refer to any social importance. It would be better off at WikiHow, whose purpose if to host "how-to" type entries.~~ -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect instead of deletion - to Traditional games in the Philippines#Calahoyo ("Hole-in"), as mentioned below -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per ~~WP:MADEUP~~ WP:WP#NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a made up game, as it is mentioned in A study of Philippine games By Mellie Leandicho Lopez so as that appears to be your only reason for recommending deletion, I think you need to consider it a bit more! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why wouldn't redirect rather than delete resolve the WP:WP#NOTHOWTO? Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and likely merge per discussion here. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting we merge all AfD discussion on these Philippine games to here rather than try to hold three substantially identical conversations. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Bati-Cobra, Calahoyo ("Hole-in"), Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken") and Sambunot to Traditional games in the Philippines, as I feel that this is a more appropriate location for them -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I now think that this article should not be deleted, but redirected to Traditional games in the Philippines#Calahoyo ("Hole-in"), as all the information is now there, and so there is no need for a separate article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If JoeChill is willing to change his !vote from delete, I am quite happy to perform a non-admin closure on this AfD, and create the redirect, unless there are any other objections. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with revised nom. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 5 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 Redirect to Traditional games in the Philippines#Sambunot. (non-admin closure) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sambunot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. This article does not refer to any social importance. It would be better off at WikiHow, whose purpose if to host "how-to" type entries~~. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect instead of deletion - to Traditional games in the Philippines, as mentioned below -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep last AfD was just a few weeks ago and it closed as keep. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict)Keep. I don't see that anything has changed since this was kept at its first AfD 16 days ago. The books cited in the article and referred to in the last AfD show that the subject has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The "procedure" section could do with rewriting to make it descriptive rather than instructive, but that's a matter for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not saying that the game does not exist, or that there are no references to it in books (including in the reference provided).

However, the article is just a "how to play this game". The reference provided in the article (A study of Philippine games By Mellie Leandicho Lopez) and in the previous AfD Games the world around: four hundred folk games By Sarah Ethridge Hunt, Ethel Cain would both appear to show how to play it, but I see no evidence that they also provide the history of the game, the social importance of it, etc.

I wouldn't normally think of nominating an article for deletion so soon after the previous was so recently closed - but I do not see anything in the article explaining the social significance of this game - along with suitable references.

If anyone can show me where in the policies and guidelines it says that a how-to-play article is OK, I'll happily withdraw this nomination.

I should point out, however, that WP:NOT is a policy, and clearly seems to says that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal and While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style" - and further refers people to WikiHow as I have done both on this AfD and on the user's talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, the game exists and has some solid sources. As noted in that AfD I'd prefer a merge of all these games into a single article. But a stub on the game is just fine. Describing how to do something is sometime similar to describing the thing itself. Kids games are almost always like that, but we still cover them. If you want to delete this, I suggest you also nominate Hide and seek and Horseshoes. Otherwise I think we are hitting a cultural bias issue. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:NOT#HOWTO is policy, but if an article on a notable subject is written in a way that contravenes that policy the solution is to edit it, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me explain why I believe that the two examples put forward by Hobit are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, whereas this article (and the other 2 I put up) are not. Hide and seek shows variations in several countries: to me, this shows that the game is relevant in several country (it has a more global notability). Horseshoes may not mention international variants, but it does have a recognised national organisation which represents it and co-ordinates it.

If Sambunot (and Hawk and Chicken and Hole-in) were to show variants from different countries and/or indication that there was some kind of national organisation that sets out official rules and competitions, then I will happily withdraw my nominations for any of them which meet that criteria. I feel that these should be mentioned at Traditional games in the Philippines in the same way that the other games are mentioned at that article - a sentence or two explaining in outline what the game is. I do not see that they justify an article of their own without more information about variants in other countries, mention of national bodies that co-ordinate the game and/or mention of social relevance or importance. I had a look for such information on all three articles, but I was unable to find anything along these lines -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The article is too how-to-ish and not encyclopedic. Furthermore, I think it fails WP:GNG as I can't find much coverage via a web search. PDCook (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established via a Google Books search that coverage exists. The fact that you can't find anything via a web search doesn't negate those sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it exists, but existence is not notability. PDCook (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the existence of the subject, which, I agree, doesn't equate to notability, but about the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which does equate to notability, and, less than three weeks ago, was accepted by consensus as equating to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that there are at least 2 reliable sources of information, I am not convinced that they represent significant coverage: from what I can see, those sources merely explain how the game is played - similar to this article. Does that mean that we need to create another 400+ "how to play" articles for the other games in those books? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to keep more information unless Wikipedia Foundation needs to free up webspace to save money.--Phil997 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC) — Phil997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked as a sockpuppet. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in large part due to the prior AfD that passed as a keep very recently. If there are concerns with the content of the article, they should be discussed at the article's talk page. If they go uncorrected for a sufficient period of time—and three weeks is not sufficient—then the article could warrant going back to AfD, but this is premature. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Bati-Cobra, Calahoyo ("Hole-in"), Lawin at Sisiw ("Hawk and Chicken") and Sambunot to Traditional games in the Philippines, as I feel that this is a more appropriate location for them -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I now think that this article should not be deleted, but redirected to Traditional games in the Philippines, as all the information is now there, and so there is no need for a separate article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Steve, good work! I'd suggest the 3 AfDs be closed and each be made into a redirect. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If PDCook changes their !vote from delete, I'm quite happy to perform a non-admin closure and create the redirect on this article. I will leave a similar message on the other 2 AfDs, if you want to make the suggestion on those as well! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, I change my vote to Redirect as suggested by Phantomsteve. PDCook (talk) 23:04, 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. WP:CSD#A10 - recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Эрнест Вуд[edit]

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

there is already an article on en:wp about Ernest Wood RaseaC (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect, no AFD needed for this. MuffledThud (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no justification for a Cyrillic redirect to a non-Russian subject. Andrea105 (talk) 17:49, 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. JForget 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Des Moines, Iowa)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Des Moines, Iowa)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for its own separate page. Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary/independent sourcing to establish notablity. The only sources listed are internal. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N--MaximilianT (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried to fix it this past June, so I will leave it up to the community to decide. Thanks for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis disc manufacturing[edit]

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

Unremarkable Cd manufacturer, references consist of 1 self reference, and a mention in a college website. WuhWuzDat 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Wuhwuzdat's comments. In addition the whole tone of the article is promotional, and a Google search produced mainly the company's own site, other promotional sites, company profile, myspace, etc: no evidence of substantial independent coverage.

JamesBWatson (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cd historian Thank you, Mr. Watson--I have removed as much of what I think you consider the promotional content as I could without removing the reasons for the entry, it seems a bit of a fine line but I chopped a lot of what I believe you object to. I also added a bunch of links to give more background information. I also re-did one link you removed that was incorrectly done, and agree with the unsubstantiated information you removed. Thank you very much. 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)~[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cd historianDear "Mr. Chill" (great pseudonym!) I am surprised that you can't find significant coverage for this company, which is one of the largest of the independent CD replication companies and introduced several new technologies which are now taken for granted, but the onus is on me to clarify that in the article--thus I have added many more references per the requests above, please review in this light. Thank you for the guidance to a neophyte. 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the first 50 ghits for the company, I didn't see one that didn't look promotional.

There was even one on myspace! The references? One labelled Success Magazine article takes me to an 'article' (on the Oasis website) that looks more written by Oasis than Success. The Success home link takes me to a total mess. There could perhaps be a problem with using Firefox on Win2000Pro instead of Internet Explorer on Vista, but that doesn't bode too well. Apart from which, there is still an odour of spam lingering. I like the idea of the company, but this isn't the place for promoting it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory - or a myspace... Peridon (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cd historian ouch... thanks for your input, I think this is confusion; perhaps this is in part a function of Oasis the company correctly uses its current name, Oasis Disc Manufacturing, and other sources (see the references in the article, like Seth Godin's bestseller, Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable, The Washington Post[41], Seth Godin's ebook Micah's Site [42], Performing Songwriter Magazine [43], etc. ) use its prior name, Oasis CD Manufacturing or Oasis CD Duplication. This is easily the most prominent CD and DVD manufacturing company except for Disc Makers, which of course has its own Wikipedia entry; Oasisit has in certain ways at least a similarly storied reputation in the business press and in the eco innovations that would be of interest to you I would think, which is why I wrote the entry and have tried repeatedly to make it conform to your requests. Please advise further how I can make it conform additionally. 23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cd historian Please note I've also changed all external links to internal reference list, I understand about do not follow and was never intended this to be or appear spammy; yikes... my apologies... Cd historian (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cd historian has clearly put considerable effort into improving the references. Following these improvements the current reference situation is as follows. Eight of the eleven "references" (including both inline citations and external links listed under the heading "references") are links to Oasis's own web site. One is a list from a college of "what some of our ex-students are doing". One is a list of the Washington Area Music Association's awards, in which Oasis's name appears as the company where an award recipient works, and again in an unexplained list in connection with another award: it looks to me like a credit that Oasis did the duplication for the award winner, but in any case it is not at all clear what it is saying about Oasis. The Washington Area Music Association web site makes it clear that the association exists to promote its members' interests. Finally, the one other "reference" is a link to an Amazon page selling a book, which establishes that the book exists. In short, not a lot of evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cd historianDear Mr. Watson, thank you so much for noting that I have put considerable effort into improving the references. I have also put considerable effort into improving the article. I think you are accidentally penalizing the article for my neophyte ability to put together such an article. There is some confusion due to the recent change in name and my attempt to accurately call the page Oasis Disc Manufacturing, rather than its earlier, better known name of Oasis CD Manufacturing or Oasis CD Duplication, something I tried to explain above). Wikipedia has always had a special interest in music and musicians, and Oasis has "grown up" with wikipedia along those same lines. Only some of the most prominent oasis collaborators are mentioned in the article, but probably 20% of the independent musicians with wikipedia entries are Oasis clients (I cannot back this up without doing endless research, but I would say that is a conservative figure.) I think it is notable within the Wikipedia community, even if I have so far failed to make the case to you. 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Cd historian Wait--try it now, I added about five more external links, including to three additional books that discuss the company (including Gareth Branwyn's), in response to your request for what 'elsewhere' meant, and I removed some of the internal links. I apologize that performing songwriter folded a few months ago, along with the other music magazines that have folded, which is why that link is to our site rather than theirs. Ditto for the previous iteration of Success; I have added the volume number but need to research the date. See what you think of the notability now, and please improve the page as you see fit as well. Thank you. Cd historian (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The three Amazon references are just selling of books with no mention on the page for Oasis. Yes, Micah Solomon appears to have been named Executive of the Year. Good. I quite like the Berklee one - and they are an accredited college. AudibleHype is possibly viewable a blog, but I would personally credit as something more. That'll do for the moment. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Cd historian I have now added the publisher information for all four books listed. Thanks. 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Cd historian I am sorry to be unclear--all three amazon referenced books include discussions of Oasis--just search amazon for the string oasis cd and you will find their discussions in their books. I can add them in as fuller references with dates and publishers if that is preferable. Certainly gareth branwyn, seth godin, et. al are viable sources I had thought, let me know how to better credit them. More to the point, the AMACOM/American Management Association Spring 2010 catalog has been published now, with a full length volume primarily centering on the methods of Oasis and The Ritz-Carlton, so I was now able to reference that. I have added that link to the article so you can review it directly: Oasis is also the primary case study used along with The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company as the basis for the American Management Association's full-length volume Exceptional Service, Exceptional Profit: The Secrets of Five Star Customer Service Organizations, recently announced for their Spring 2010 catalog.^[2]Cd historian Cd historian (talk) 20:14, 3 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 delete. JForget 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Think Pink[edit]

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

Non-notable nonprofit group; Google News searching produces nothing to support its inclusion here. A PROD tag was removed, so it is being brought here. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary/independent sources cited. No Google coverage except internal stuff. Not rated by Charity Navigator. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Don't Delete: "Hungry for Change - Bringing educational opportunities to Iraqi women", Ryan T. Blystone, USD Magazine (http://www.sandiego.edu/usdmag/?p=663). I think it's a reference and it's more than several newborn (and also old) organizations have online. OTP was a delegate at the Joan Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice (http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/ipj/) for Crafting Human Security in an Insecure World in September 2008. Giacinto W(talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (GMT+1)
Delete without prejudice. When it's notable enough, recreate. All I can find (after removing 'cancer' and 'Robert & Kristen' - whoever they may be - from the search) is Facebook, linkedn and other such that don't count as reliable. And the San Diego magazine, which I regard as somewhat promotional - but a step in the right direction. The organisation sounds worthwhile, but we aren't getting or finding evidence of this. I'm prepared to change my mind if presented with a bit more. By the way, OTP can't BE a delegate, unless it consists of only one person. It can send a delegate. Peridon (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 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 keep. JForget 00:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACS:Law[edit]

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

As I mentioned on the article's talk page, when one takes a closer look at the references, there is a single BBC link, but the rest doesn't confirm any particular notability - simply because only two other references, torrentfreak and beingthreatened, mention this particular firm. These two are blogs though and I won't consider them as primary sources. All other references deal with legal aspects of file sharing or with Davenport Lyons instead of ACS. So to sum it up, one BBC news appearance is not sufficient to speak of notability. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACS:Law have far more notoriety. A quick search will demonstrate coverage a lot wider than purely the BBC. Which? (a large consumer organisation in the UK) have covered the issues several times, and the cases of Gill and Ken Murdoch made headlines in most major news outlets. Additionally ACS:Law have history on notable cases outside filesharing including the 'sex on the beach' Dubai case. The article should stay, but it needs a greater range of sources and more information added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.137.8 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw the BBC article listed on Google News UK's front page today, so I came to Wikipedia to find out who ACS:Law are. We might not know much about them, but they are in the public eye now.--Farry (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a bunch of references beyond the BBC article. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. I think that they're all Internet based "tabloids" except for T3 which also has a print edition. Some of those sites have blogs, but these references were written by staff writers. So not much yet, but it's a step up from blogs.--Farry (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saw them first on BBC, googled them and read The Register's article, then came to see if there was info here. I would say they are notable, and likely to become more so in January 2010. 81.147.32.248 (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's three mentions on the BBC (one for the Dubai case and two relating to actions against suspected illegal filesharers) various mentions in other papers relating to Dubai, another article on Which?, one on The Register, and the one on T3 along with the various web based 'tabloids'. I'm not the original creator of the article but I am new to Wikipedia so if I'm missing things or misinterpreting rules please let me know. Furtled (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is more than enough evidence out there to show these are a real company and the tactics are well documented http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/198192-acs-law-73.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.87.191 (talk) 16:26, 3 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 delete per WP:A7 by Acroterion (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina castaways[edit]

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

Nearly identical to speedily deleted Justin prichard, no evidence that this team is planned. Kitty Hawk has a population of under 3000 and probably less in the fall and winter months. Even the county as a whole has a population under 30k making this claim of a new hockey team unlikely. A google news search brings up nothing. Appears to be a hoax. RadioFan (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A hoax, and an illiterately written hoax at that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrea105 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Either G3 or G1 could apply. I chose G1 nonsense based on the incoherence. DarkAudit (talk) 18:22, 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. JForget 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Cole (revisionist)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, attempting to complete nomination based on this edit, though the editor stated later he was having trouble with Twinkle. I believe his rationale, based on this edit, to be: conflict of interest, notability, primary sources, and poor quality of references in a BLP.

Abstain as procedural nominator. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I have to admit that his name sounds vaguely familiar, but this is a common name, and Google News showed a number of David Coles but not this one. The article as now written relies entirely on non-reliable sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while he doesnt appear to have had much coverage, it seems he may be the only jewish holocaust denier on record (noting that he recanted of course). here is a ref from one of our own articles, [50], Criticism of Holocaust denial. Im not sure at this point if his mention in this other article is all he needs, but at least he is mentioned somewhere, which i think is probably necessary, considering his unique situation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you Blaxthos for completing the AFD for me. The rationale stated above is mostly correct. Being a holocaust denier alone is not notable. The sources do not substantiate the subjects claims about his documentary. His only other claim to notability is an appearance on Donahue 15 years ago. The first ref on the article page appears to be a part of the subjects homepage. The other refs for the article along with google hits show that this subject has a history of self promotion and uses his views to create drama and spread his name around. Beach drifter (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS meeting WP:GNG -- holocaust denial websites are quintessentially unreliable sources. Andrea105 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not voting because I am the author of the article. I have replaced the reference to vho.org with a reference to archive.org, which I don't believe is considered a revisionist website. I also gave a citation, as requested, for Mr Piper's job title at the Auschwitz Museum, which it turns out was actually "Head of the Historical Research Department". As to the supposed conflict of interest: I do not know Mr Cole personally, nor am I affiliated with any revisionist or Holocaust-affirming organizations. I propose the COI point be removed unless it can be substantiated. Ramos221 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being somewhat confused on the COI, which I tagged the article for. I did so because when googling David Cole, the fifth link is "Home Page of Jewish Holocaust Revisionist David Cole". This link is very clearly on the same website as the first ref for the article. Clearly the title indicates that David Cole is indeed the author of a source for this article. However it is not clear at all that he actually is the maintainer of this website. In any case I hope the link above counts for "substantiation". Beach drifter (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the Internet Archive hosts a number of open-source videos, it does not thereby endorse their content. A Holocaust denial video is clearly NOT a reliable source, and cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. Conflict of interest issues are somewhat moot, as the article is quite likely to be deleted on other grounds. Andrea105 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree re. the video not being a reliable source on how David Cole came to doubt the Holocaust, because he himself says it in the video! As for notability, Cole's video caused quite a stir: One of the top Holocaust experts, Yehuda Bauer called it a "powerful and dangerous video"; it prompted the Head of Historial Research at Auschwitz to write a letter which was published in a U.S. newspaper; and it earned David Cole threats from the JDL and others. Plus, David Cole and his work gets mentioned frequently in the Holocaust controversy. As for primary sources, how much more primary does it get than a documentary made by the person himself? Another criticism was "poor quality references". May I ask which ones that would be, the official Auschwitz page? Or the JDL page? Or the codoh.com article on David Cole? The Auschwitz documentary by Cole? Clarification would be appreciated. Ramos221 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons that the nominator outlined. Please note that the correct term on Wikipedia is Holocaust denier/denial, not revisionism/revisionist. WilliamH (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the term "revisionism" is a euphemism invented by Holocaust deniers. That Ramos221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) choose to make multiple uses of this language in writing the article is a cause for grave concern. Andrea105 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer the NPOV term revisionist to the semi-religious term denier, but I changed "revisionist" to "denier" in the article. The only occurrence of "revisionist" that is still left is in the page title. Is it possible to change the title, and how do I do it? Thanks! Ramos221 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism has been around a lot longer than Holocaust deniers, and they are 2 different things. Historical revisionism#Revisionism vs. denial, but this isn't the place for THAT discussion. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:55, 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. JForget 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Currency Direct[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, WP:Conflict of interest by creator, borderline WP:SPAM, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of directory listings and company press releases, but no coverage from any reliable sources, and nothing indicating notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 23:37, 2 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 speedy delete. Speedy delete as a hoax. tedder (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People's Pioneer Mountain Bank of Utah[edit]

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

Can somebody finish nominating People's Pioneer Mountain Bank of Utah for me? It was prodded before. Basically it's not notable, with only some charity work (very common among banks) claimed. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this bank. Joe Chill (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page is a hoax. No such FDIC insured institution has ever existed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It appears to be a hoax. Warrah (talk) 23:02, 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. As it stands, fails WP:V Black Kite 00:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functional temporalism[edit]

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

Placing "Functional Temporalism" into google returns very few results that are not either this article or mirrors of this article. Even if this is not a hoax, then it appears to fail the notability test. Lear's Fool (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly non-notable; cites no sources; reads like content-free jargon; quite possibly a hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete. Meaningless word salad. I'm reminded heavily of the Postmodernism Generator. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after making various online searches, I could find nothing but definitions, blogs, and lists of random phrases. Leads me to think this is a hoax or neologism. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article some time ago. I acknowledge it is poorly-referenced (actually, not referenced at all). However, this is a genuine, notable theory. I am a humanities and social sciences student and know for a fact that this theory has been extensively discussed and critiqued in top undergraduate work that I have proof-read. The anthropological world is not one readily accessible via Google - the anthropologists I know certainly aren't as a rule too partial to blogging and so forth! I will look through anthropological journals and find some appropriate references but this will take a little while. Thus, I ask you grant a few days pardon while I work on this. Thanks MaxWeberJr (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anthropologists may not be partial to "blogging and so forth", but they are certainly partial to writing books and scholarly articles, but neither Google Books nor Google Scholar comes up with any hits for this phrase, although they index many works by Clifford Geertz.[51][52] Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this looks extremely like a hoax but, as Sokal showed, it's hard to tell postmodernism from parody; in any case a Wikipedia article should have (a) meaning and (b) reliable sources, and this has neither. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"as Sokal showed, it's hard to tell postmodernism from parody" LOL! --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Keep I do not believe that the article needs to be deleted at this stage. As the article's creator has admitted, the article needs to be expanded. However, with some fine-tuning, it can be rectified to meet wikipedia's standards. Time must be granted to editors who are knowledgeable in the field of anthropology to expand it. The deletion tag should be removed, and you should replace it with a "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" tag. Surely this will be more efficacious.

Regarding Phil Bridger's point, it is certainly true that anthropologists write in scholarly publications; nevertheless, it is true that many of these publications are not often easily accessible. While anthropological academics may receive journals in the field, published texts from this field are often only found in university libraries - not even in book shops or online. While google scholar is certainly a useful device, it is by no means exhaustive. While some anthropological journals, such as "Anthropology Today" and "General Anthropology" are readily accessible online, google scholar returns no articles from other highly reputable anthropological journals, such as "Food, Culture and Society", "Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania", and "Archaeological Papers of the AAA" (American Anthropological Association). These are some of the most well-known journals in the field, and this can be proven by research; to illustrate this, Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania has been continuously published since 1853, and it is arguably the most relevant sociological journal in that area of the world. I could also list the countless anthropological books that are not recognised by Google Books, but I do not know where to begin. I think I have shown, however, that Google Scholar and Google Books are not sufficient research to determine the merit of an article. There is also another reason that you may have struggled to find information on functional temporalism. You have said that you searched for work on functional temporalism by Clifford Geertz, and you were unsuccessful. Clifford Geertz in fact did not found functional temporalism, nor did he ever write about it. Rather, the theory was developed by postmodernists who came from his school of thought. It is, therefore, unlikely that the two would come up in the same article.

Also, this article is very short, compared to that of many other theories. Where you claim that it seems exceedingly unclear, this lack of clarity is surely due largely to the fact that it does not go in to sufficient detail, but incorporates a vast array of points into just three paragraphs. You have drawn many comparisons to the Sokal affair, but I am sure you are aware that Sokal's article was much longer than this article. Sokal's article contained a huge amount of fraudulent information, all of which was masked by sophisticated language. However, the functional temporalism article seems to be dubious only because its points are not elaborated. Surely you can realise that any article which is not sufficiently explained may appear to be meaningless. I do not see how an article that is unclear because of its inadequate length can possibly be compared with a much longer one, which was unclear because of the way it was written.

I agree with wikipedia's editors that the article requires drastic alteration. However, time must be given so that it can be improved. With the help of anthropological academics, the article can be fixed, but this process requires time and careful consideration, rather than a hasty deletion. Thank you.Higginson21 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point about Sokal was actually in defence of the article - it reads like parody postmodernism, more so than Sokal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a parody, because real postmodernism reads like that, too. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the article is short, or even that it seems like gibberish to the casual reader. The problem is the lack of any external sources to WP:V verify that this concept even exists, and to establish that it is WP:N notable. If such sources do not exist, then by definition this does not meet Wikipedia's standards and should not be here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

I agree with MelanieN. I nominated this article for deletion not because it fails to meet any style or length criteria, but because it's content is completely unverified within the article. Despite this discussion, neither the article's creator nor anyone else have managed to establish the veracity of the article, let alone the notability of it's subject.Lear's Fool (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN and Lear's Fool, I understand that the article is not referenced at all. One of my points, however, was that the current length of the article may not allow for sufficient references to meet wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. Seeing as the article currently does not make many points regarding functional temporalism as a theory, there are not many statements that even currently require references. Looking at the article, the first section essentially concerns one point. Because an article needs a wide range of references for notability under wikipedia's standards, would referencing the current points be considered enough? I am arguing that the article needs to be lengthened, so that there is room for enough references to satisfy both wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. This needs time, and I maintain that it is unnecessary to tag the article for deletion, because the referencing will be made much easier once it is lengthened. I will endeavour to find journal articles on functional temporalism very soon. I am simply asking that the supporters of this article are provided with more time to improve it. I am currently in the process of locating credible, secondary academic sources to add to the article. Please allow time for this. Higginson21 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of the article being too short to "allow for sufficient references": a reliable reference is required to verify that this concept even exists, by our fundamental principle of WP:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

The only name cited is Geertz, and it is now admitted that he ~~had nothing to do with this~~ "did not found functional temporalism, nor did he ever write about it" - there is absolutely no firm peg at all.

There are statements in the article for which, if he is not making them up, the author must have a source and be able to provide more detail:

"Functional temporalists maintain... " Who are they? Name three. Where do they maintain it?
"Some critics of this school of thought have argued... " Who? Where?
"Many advocates of the theory do admit... " How many? Where? When?

These are weasel words - statements which seem to mean something but cannot be checked. If they are right, however, there must be published sources in which the temporalists maintain, the critics argue and the advocates admit - unless, perhaps, this new theory has not yet developed beyond the student union bar (I note the author refers above to "top undergraduate work"), in which case it is too soon for a Wikipedia article.

I do not think we should keep this while waiting for sources - if it is a hoax it should go, if not it needs a complete rewrite anyway, and deletion now does not prevent introduction of a properly sourced article if one can be written. It will have to pass the WP:CSD#G4 hurdle of being "not substantially identical to the deleted version", but any acceptable article will do that. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fundamentally we need to have a source to verify the first six words of the article ("functional temporalism is an anthropological theory") before worrying about expanding it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD, allow me to clarify my position. Firstly, "it is now admitted that Geertz had nothing to do with this" is simply untrue; both what I wrote and the article never claimed this. I stated that functional temporalism derived from his work but was not coined by him. That certainly does not say that he had "nothing to do with this". Secondly, unsourced material may appear to constitute weasel words, regardless of its truth. The issue is not that the statement is untrue, merely that it does not have a source to verify it. As I have intimated, I request that supporters of this article be provided with further time to find references, beyond only Google Scholar. As I have said, Google Scholar fails to return some of the most renowned anthropological work and is by no means a fair representation of what articles are on offer. I ask that the article not be deleted. While I definitely believe that the article needs to be expanded, what is currently written is of good quality and would highly benefit an article. The deletion would mean that the current sections would have to be changed, rather than adding further content, and this is not what is needed. Thank you.Higginson21 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with weasel-worded statements is not that they are not sourced; it is that they are not falsifiable. They look as if they mean something, but there is no way to prove them untrue. That's why Wikipedia doesn't like them, and insists on Verifiability as a primary requirement.

I do not understand why it need take lengthy searching to provide any kind of reference. When, for example, the author wrote "Functional temporalists maintain that such paradigms are consistently overlooked by mainstream academics", how did he know that? Either he knew it from his own experience, because he had heard or read them maintaining it, in which case he can tell us who they are and where they maintained it; or he knew it from some other source and can tell us what that source was. If, having made that statement and had it challenged, he has to search for confirmation, and a week later is still asking for more time to search, you must understand our increasing suspicions that this may be another in the long line of hoax articles (including at least one actually written by the Postmodernism Generator) which require constant vigilance to keep out of Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, fails WP:V. It is very rare, if not unheard of, that a technical term, however obscure, does not show up somewhere in google scholar. This one succeeds in getting zero hits across the entire web, if wikis and similar are filtered out (I have a CSE doing this for me). No one denies that there are good sources to be had offline, but none have been put forward. Not even the name of a proponent (or a critic) so we can look up their work. At best this would seem to be a neologism. SpinningSpark 20:50, 6 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 speedy delete. Obvious copyvio, thanks User:David Eppstein tedder (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwyer (professor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a resumé; no indication of meeting the WP:PROF or WP:BIO notability criteria. Contested PROD. Sandstein 11:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite obviously CV puff, not even in article form let alone worthy of being kept as one. Establishes no claim of notability other that being a professor, and lacks sufficient references. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like an WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No list of published works, published research projects, or anything establishing notablity -- a few administrative positions do not a notable professor make. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — While I do not believe this is WP:AUTOBIO (the original editor does not have the same name as this page), it clearly fails WP:BIO. Further, the other article relating to notability, Dwyer Function has been deleted. Tpk5010 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for ample reasons given in first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio (WP:CSD#G12) of http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/staff/JohnDwyer/. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Meredith[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable, AFAICT. Flunks WP:ATH. Has been the locus of WP:BLP violations recently, as well. — æk ^Talk 11:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since he is based in Japan, a review of Japanese-language sources would be helpful. --Eastmain (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Wikipedia seems to imply (Notability (people)#Athletes) that almost any athlete who competes at the professional level is notable. However, since the article contains no references at all and Google never heard of him, it isn't possible to confirm that he actually does compete at that level. (For that matter, Google never heard of the Japanese Pro Sedan Series either.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and created by single issue editor. No indication that he is notable enough for a wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any indication that this person passes basic WP:N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:26, 3 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 speedily delete as a copyvio, if nothing else. Even nonsense forum posts are technically copyrighted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Rules[edit]

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

Contested PROD, and total trash. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty funny, but no attempt to prove notability, not so much a Wikipedia article as a forum post copied DRosin (talk) 10:59, 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. NW (Talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Preston[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E concern. Suggest a footnote at White House intruders like Michael Winter. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the article at 1974 White House helicopter incident -the focus of the article was the incident, not the person, so that it ought not being titled as a BLP. I think this can satisfy the BLP1E concerns. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It has already been merged into 1974 White House helicopter incident, which itself is a notable event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White House intruders. I don't think we need individual articles on particular incidents like this, when everything can be covered in one main article and there's no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with User:Cyclopia's bold merging in principle. But I find it absolutely farcical that someone who steals military hardware and flies within a whisker of the White House is not notable, yet two people who turn up to a party they're not invited to get an article each. People wonder why wikipedia is losing editors. This is why.WFCforLife (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't merge, I just renamed. About the difference of treatment, well, you're welcome to help adjusting the situation. This is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" for a reason. Complaining won't go far. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this in good faith. But are you suggesting that I merge the Salahis into the gatecrashing article? I can think of more entertaining ways to get myself banned. WFCforLife (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them are notable enough for their own article (an expansion of the intruders article with details as to changes at the White House may be more prudent), but we have serious recentism issues here ("everyone is going to be looking here for it so let's keep it" is pretty standard reasoning at AFD now). I'd just follow what I did here and relist it for deletion when things calm down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, one could try to restore this bad boy if they want to take the other "anything related to the White House is relevant" extreme. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White House intruders. I've likewise advocated merging the articles for Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Robert K. Preston deserves a note, but a separate article violates WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I don't believe this comment is accurately interpreting WP:UNDUE. Undue is a section of WP:NPOV, which requires articles be written from a "neutral point of view". The Undue section proscribes giving some particular argument or position, within an article, more than its share of the space within that article. I do not believe WP:NPOV advocates elimination of whole topics. If we allowed contributors to suppress whole articles, based on some kind of interpretation of UNDUE, we would be opening the door to the proponents and critics of holistic and conventional medicine mounting challenges based on that interpretation of UNDUE to articles from the opposite POV. Do we want proponents of conventional medicine to claim UNDUE authorizes them to delete whole articles on aspects of homeopathy, or chiropractory, or iridology, because they consider those fringe topics? Doing so would open conventional medicine to a tit for tat retaliation, with holistic medicine advocates arguing that UNDUE authorized enforcing a merger of, for instance, the articles on X-rays, CAT scans, Nuclear magnetic resonance and ultrasound -- because it gives "undue weight" for each of those techniques to have a whole article of its own. Personally, I think much of holistic medicine is nonsense, but, so long as those working on those articles can make their contributions using WP:RS, while complying with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER, I support allowing those articles to grow as long as necessary. I do not believe our goal should be to suppress "bad topics". That is entirely too subjective. I believe that all topics, for which we have good WP:RS, can be covered in a manner that complies with all our policies. So, rather, our goal should be to remove or improve material that doesn't comply with our policies. This article does comply with our policies. And, it seems to me, the WP:UNDUE argument is entirely misplaced. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FX (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WRT the suggestion that this article be merged with "White House intruders" -- could those who advocate this make a greater effort to explain how this would be an improvement? The article has been renamed to the incident, so calls upon the biographies of living persons policy, or the coatrack essay are no longer relevant. I looked at "White House intruders", it includes zero details on any of the incidents or individuals it lists. So, those arguing for a merge are either all the details in this article be discarded, or they are arguing that "White House intruders" should contain a bare list, where one entry is populated by details, and the rest aren't. In the first instance, why throw away the information about the incident, or in the second instance, why not keep the list an easily navigated list, with no details, and place all the details where they belong, in the articles about the alleged perpetrators and/or incidents? Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan (I noticed I didn't !vote yet). I completely agree that the merge suggestion is a disaster, it would annihilate the content of the article without any good reason. The subject is notable ([53], [54]) and BLP1E does not apply anymore due to the move. The article needs help and sourcing for sure, but policy requires us not to delete for reasons that can be dealt with editing. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT blp1e -- I suggest that the most useful way to interpret blp1e is that it should be a guard against covering trivial, ephemeral material -- material that turns out to be forgotten a week after the event. But, for single events for which there is some kind of twist, which continue to generate references in the popular or scholarly press, for months or years afterwards? I suggest it would be most useful to exempt those events from blp1e. When commentators keep writing about events months or years afterwards we should count on at least some of our readers turning to their most trusted source, the wikipedia, and looking up that incident, or the individual(s) involved. Removing well referenced and neutral material that serious readers will later want to read, due to an overly literal reading of blp1e is a serious disservice. Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unvoiced assumption -- I suggest there is an unvoiced assumption in the "merge" arguments -- namely that the only possible topid anyone would ever consider would be an appropriate target to merge this into is "White House intruders". I placed additional references on the article. One of those additional articles ended with the passage: "Sewell, who had chased the helicopter in an erratic, stunt-filled flight through several Maryland suburbs and the the capital city, said he thought the runaway pilot intended to "end it all" by crashing into the White House." So, the incident would be of interest to those intending to look at all incidents where a plane was stolen, or hijacked, and posed a security risk. Alternately, the incident would be of interest to those looking for incidents that could have served as examples or inspiration for hijackers like the 9-11 hijackers. In my opinion over-hasty merge enthusiasts do a disservice to our readers by trying to out-anticipate what they should be interested in. I suggest that when someone suggests merging an article into a related article, but there are other possible merge targets, it is best not to merge that article after all. Rather we should merely make sure that all the articles are wikilinked to one another, with enough context readers can navigate the path that best leads them to the particular information they need. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. FX (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 1974 White House helicopter incident per Wikipedia:Notability (events). Good work to the editors who have properly renamed the article and expanded its content. Location (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 1974 White House helicopter incident per Wikipedia:Notability (events).Per Swan - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:23, 4 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 delete. JForget 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant El Morocco[edit]

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

Deprodded, but the references added are not WP:RS. Owned by the same family as Morty's, which has just been Afded by me as well, for a similar lack of notability per our primary criteria. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the original prodder. With no reliable sources, the claims to notability like "the first Kosher restaurant in Montreal" seem very dubious.--TM 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible that it's Montreal's oldest existing kosher restaurant, with the Jewish community here having gone through a pretty severe reduction in recent decades. But as worded now, I'm pretty certain that's incorrect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this restaurant. Joe Chill (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly fails WP:GNG and the article borders on promo. PDCook (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references are travel guides, and a claim that this was the first kosher restaurant in Montreal when it opened in 1977 sounds dubious. Ben's Deli and Schwartz's have been around much longer. Though neither have ever claimed that their food was kosher, Montreal has had kosher restaurants long before the 70s. I would daresay that their radio ads are omnipresent on CJFM, but our notability guidelines say nothing about that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:18, 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 delete. JForget 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morty's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Morty's

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

Despite the claims made for notability in the article, I have been unable to find any significant coverage in WP:RS for this restaurant, at present. Google reveals a lot of reviews and user-generated hits, but I find nothing that meets our primary criteria for notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:RS and possibly WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article, and no elaboration on the term "award-winning." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:21, 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 delete. JForget 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Seng[edit]

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

Subject has requested deletion at OTRS ticket number 2009112910000953. This is a procedural nomination, so I have no opinion. Chaser (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is Jennifer. I had sent an email to Wikipedia requesting that this article be deleted as it was not written by me, nor do I wish for information on myself and my personal life being divulged as an article here. I would rather that I was not a feature in Wikipedia. I hope you can honor my request, thank you! -- Jen

Delete per WP:ARTIST. The referenced articles are about The Boondocks, and only mention the subject in passing as a ghost artist. She did not play "a major role" in creating that work. GreenReaper (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - respect the lady--Brunnian (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't establish notability, only mention her in passing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While i of course wish her the best in BECOMING more notable as an artist, if she so chooses, her duties on Boondocks are mentioned (with a reference) in its article, which i think is adequate, so delete per her request, considering she is marginally notable (sounds mean, but its true).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Boondocks following request and because of little demonstration it satisfies WP:N separate from the main article. (Emperor (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, redirect and fully protect seems to be the best resolution here. Plausible search terms should not be a redlink, and redirects are cheap. This also complies with the subject's wishes, in that no personal information about her will be revealed. Tim Song (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see semi-protection, so that regular editors are not locked out should the subject gain sufficient notability to justify an article in the future. Editors should strongly consider the subject's wishes - and any protection message should note this discussion - but I don't feel it should be binding. GreenReaper (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the circumstances of this case, future recreations should probably be approved by a DRV first. Tim Song (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy at the idea that an entire article deleted on notability grounds should be subject to prior restraint. I would rest easier with an understanding that, should the subject's notability increase, personal non-notable activities should not be mentioned. Protection policy suggests semi-protection (at most) is appropriate in this case. GreenReaper (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally yes, but there are WP:BLP concerns here. Tim Song (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you read the section I linked, it says quite clearly that semi-protection is the appropriate level of protection for BLP issues. GreenReaper (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
insertion of BLP-violating material to an existing article, yes. But protecting a redirect to prevent recreation is akin to salting, and AFAIK is normally done with a full protect. Tim Song (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I don't feel salting is appropriate. I suggested semi-protection as a compromise, to avoid accidental re-creation by new users and to ensure that editors read this discussion first, not to protect against willful re-creation. Requiring users to go to an administrator for permission is overkill in this case. GreenReaper (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not achieve the same thing if we all watchlisted the article?--Chaser (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person but poorly written article. Can be improved. Ms. Seng doesn't own Wikipedia, if she did, she could delete it, otherwise she shouldn't boss us around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inmate 5317 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is she notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people)?--Chaser (talk) 01:54, 2 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 merged to Antarctic Press by User:GreenReaper. (Non-admin closure.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Life (comic anthology)[edit]

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

No sources, and Google doesn't turn up much. No indication that this meets WP:GNG. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Antarctic Press. Artw (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 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) 00:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and I've done this as nobody felt the need to speak up the last time. There is little to be said about this work, even by fans. GreenReaper (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per work by GreenReaper. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:46, 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 speedily deleted. TN X Man 15:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Legendary Tribe of Bantu[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX, I can find no references that support anything about this article at all. Fbifriday (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, it's a hoax. The Bantu expansion wasn't anything like that. --Chris Johnson (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly even a speedy. Utter rubbish. Were there any truth to this, sources would abound. (They don't.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax — æk ^Talk 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax DRosin (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Not even a shadow of a doubt. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:38, 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. Wizardman 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Tress[edit]

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

Possible WP:COI creation, does not unambiguously meet the general notability guideline. Two sources provided are self-written, and the third is a profile from an organization that promotes the sport. General-interest sports news coverage is lacking. ~YellowFives 05:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete a fairly nonnotable sportsman. Laudak (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With international competition, documented by USOC as shown here [55] I believe that Mr.Tress meets our requirements under Athlete. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 05:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure the intercontinetal cup is the highest level he could compete at. If he gets in the Olympic squad then I'd be happy. Unless someone can show the i/c is the highest amateur level or the equivilant of the full professional level then I'd tend towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Blue Square Thing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Blue Square Thing. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as subject has participated in a World Cup race, which is the season-long competition at the top of the sport. Further background at the governing body's site, which states "The World Cup involves the top athletes in the sport". CJPargeter (talk) 08:48, 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 delete. JForget 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vytaute Andrijauskaite[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No external references to sustain assertion of notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I can't find any mention of this actress at all, let alone find verifiable source. Tpk5010 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that the article asserts she has a role in the upcoming film Salt... but even IMDB does not list her as being in the film. Fails WP:ENT. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:33, 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. JForget 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Saunders (actor)[edit]

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

Unnotable minor actor of "Z-films", whose "best" role was a supporting role in one of these low grade films. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:ENT. I cannot find signifigant coverage for this actor. Tpk5010 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worse than failing WP:ENT, the actor fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 00:34, 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 keep. Further discussions concerning merging may take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chilled[edit]

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

nothing notable at all in article, not even an article, jsut a six song track listing. Alan - talk 05:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Album of an artist with apparent notability, could use expansion. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just because the artist has notability doesn't mean the album does. WP:NALBUMS Alan - talk 06:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to the discography article. The artist is notable, all information is easily verified.--Michig (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to keep this as a separate article simply because it would be a better way of organizing the information than trying to fit this into the discography article.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — The artist has apparent notability; this should be merged into Chicane discography. Tpk5010 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (don't merge). Artist is notable, and convention is to therefore keep album. Among other things, we would lose track listing in a merge, as if convention is to not include it (as is the case with merges into band/singer articles), and in any event including the track listing would be inconsistent w/the current format at the discog article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 5 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 delete. JForget 00:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Salama[edit]

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

This person does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. ~YellowFives 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:BIO ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mr. Salama sounds like a person we would all like to have as a friend and confidant. However, under our current Notability guideline requirements there needs to be coverage from third party - creditable - verifiable and notable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sorry to say, those requirements are not met at this time. ShoesssS ^Talk 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absence of reliable sources in this article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:47, 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. Sandstein 07:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in the Czech Republic[edit]

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

No evidence of any scholars or journalists writing/publishing non-trivial material covering this minority group. No attempts to fix the article since February when it was created --- instead the creator is going around creating articles about Turkish people in pretty much every country on earth, consisting of a table of population statistics. This is not the proper basis for an article. I could only find a one-line mention of them in a reliable source: "no important Turkish minority in the Czech republic" [56]. cab (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nomination. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources insufficient, and numbers appear to be tiny. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Turkish community in the Czech Republic is a growing community. Moreover, they make up significant number within the muslim community in the Czech republic. I dont feel that the fact that the population is small is a reason to delete this article. The majority of ethnic minorities in the Czech Republic are small communities e.g. Greeks in the Czech Republic and Macedonians in Czech republic. Turco85 (Talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if we look at Wikipedia article traffic statistics the article Turks in the Czech Republic is actually viewed more than Mongolians in the Czech Republic (who form a much larger community) and almost just as much as Greeks in the Czech Republic. Turco85 (Talk) 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether they're big or small or how many times people have viewed the page. It matters whether there are reliable, non-trivial sources about them or any of the other dozens of boilerplate stubs you have created. cab (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with CaliforniaAliBaba (04:48). I think the only reason of creating the "article" (just stub, in fact) Turks in Czech Republic is Turco85's patriotism, not actual national situation in Czechia. Besides, the argument about more frequent viewing of the "Turks" article than "Mongols" is unfair: Mongolians comes from poor country, mainly without knowledge of internet (and time for browsing! They're gastarbeiters, working for 10–13 hours per day!) – so "traffic statistics argumentation" is very dubious. And what about Turco85's statement "Turks make significant number of the Czech muslims?" I don't think so: there are circa 13–20 000 muslims in Czechia whereas Turkish community here has only 1100–1300 souls... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to talk about me or my 'nationalistic ways' please stick to the subject and dont get personal. If we look at the article Macedonians in Czech republic there isnt even a sentence in that article... Only an info box on the ammount of Macedonians in this country, therefore, this article we are talking about cant be that bad. I therefore find it ironic that the other ethic groups from the Czech republic are not Afd nominations. I honestly think that this article will have more potential, as it is a new wave of migration by Turkish immigrants.Turco85 (Talk) 10:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Iaroslavvs, Turks making up around 20% of the muslim community in the Czech Republic is a significant number. And even if we look at the article Germans in the Czech Republic the article only really states the population of Germans in this country. Turco85 (Talk) 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other groups are not AfD nominations because scholars and journalists have written extensively about them.

In four cases (Vietnamese, Mongolians, Chinese, Poles), numerous sources are already mentioned in the articles' "References" and "Further reading" sections. In some cases people have even written entire Ph.D. dissertations and books on those topics.
In the remaining four cases (Jews, Germans, Macedonians, Armenians), where sufficient sources are not already mentioned, one can easily find them through Google or Google Scholar. For example Marián Sloboda of Charles University has published many journal articles about Macedonians in the CR [57]. For Armenians there are papers like [58] even in English. Et cetera.

In contrast I could not find any such sources about Turkish people in the CR, whatever language I searched in. So instead of arguing that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, you should look for academic publications and newspaper articles of reliable, well-known publishers which discuss Turkish people in the CR. cab (talk) 11:40, 2 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 delete. JForget 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XHW (Habbo)[edit]

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

Claims to be a popular online wrestling federation, but a search for reliable sourcing doesn't turn up anything usable. As such, it appears to be non-notable. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — G3 as Hoax. Not found on the internet. Seems to be copied from another Wrestling organization. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a hoax just a non-notable virtual wrestling league. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per Nomination. Non-notable --Fbifriday (talk) 06:27, 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. JForget 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubled identity[edit]

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

Band page created too soon - band may be notable soon, but they aren't there yet as near as I can tell. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:BAND ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Most sources appear to be myspace, facebook, or self-generated sources. Fails WP:BAND --Fbifriday (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with above, as I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient for to pass WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 10:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all above DRosin (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still fail to see why this wasn't speedied. With "new, up-and-coming", the insignificance of a high school battle of the bands, and the lack lack of a debut album, no notability is even asserted. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The (weak) sourcing plus the talk page claims of importance were enough to avoid speedy.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to be debating or questioning your judgement, and this will obviously be deleted, but "The members are only in high school", "They are friends with...", and "in the very near future" are not particularly credible claims of notability. Plenty of people have been interviewed in local non-notable magazines. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly the band is non-notable, and some admins would have speedy deleted it most likely. However, it is better to err on the side of caution and to me any kind of (non-faked) sourcing is enough to avoid speedy. Usually local-only sourced articles are deleted at AfD, but there are exceptions, so it is best to let the community decide than for me to decide unilaterally, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW? --Fbifriday (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Playing at "Park West" in Chicago being interviewed by the famous "Time Out" company, and being played almost every night on 93.1 WXRT-FM is pretty significant, especially for band with members no older than 17. --DoctorAmazing 12:21, 30 Novemeber 2009

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Non-admin closure as all delete opinions, including the nominator, have been withdrawn. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional autochthony[edit]

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

Okay, this was WP:PROD'ed for being unsourced since 2007. I ran a google search, and found two sources that I believe that are reliable that use the term, one in the title of a journal article, the other that defines it.

Why are we here? I strongly suspect this doesn't pass muster under WP:GNG. However, ultimately, I'm just not certain. (And, strictly speaking, the exact reason this was PROD'ed no longer applies.) Hence, nothing is harmed by an Afd and a discussion. Consider this a neutral nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ the example given is original research unless it can be sourced that the term has been used to describe the example. What's left is a dictionary definition and I'm not sure that the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:N or WP:NEO. Them From Space 04:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep per the excellent rescue job. I think we can close this early. Them From Space 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a month. If the citation can be produced, it should stand. WP:Wikipedia is not on paper. If not, it can be deleted. I will list it on the Irish Wikipedians task group to see if anyone can provide the citation. --Red King (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait? It has been marked as unsourced for 2 years so there has been plenty of time to search for references. If the spur of potential deletion isn't enough to drag out some source material within a week then I don't think another 3 weeks will make too much difference.

The article itself doesn't amount to much anyway and may benefit from a complete rewrite if sources are uncovered after deletion. Road Wizard (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless the article can be expanded beyond the single sentence definition and reliable sources can be found. Road Wizard (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn. The article is now a good quality stub, verging on start-class. Well done. Road Wizard (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is inaccurate in its definition. 'Constitutional autochthony' means building the constitution of a country from within, indigenously, and it is used in sources to refer to the creation of constitutions in former British colonies. See a book search:[59] I think it was coined in print by Kenneth Wheare in 1960.[60] We might want to merge something about this into Constitution#Principles of constitutional design or another article. A related phrase is 'legal nationalism'.[61] Most of the sources are behind pay walls. Fences&Windows 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've started sourcing this article- Greek origin of definition etc. It was an important concept in the writing of British Commonwealth constitutions.There are reputable constitunional law sources for it.Cathar11 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to the article as you lifted the text almost word for word from the source material. To avoid violations of copyright you need to put things in your own words. Short quotes are acceptable, but you need to make it clear they are quotes and who you are quoting from. Road Wizard (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. I'll have a look over the next few days for references.I'm not sure if Professor Wheare is the originator of the phrase.Cathar11 (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator, consider me now a solid Keep. Great work, Cathar11! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:23, 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 delete. JForget 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Flood[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The text says he was a US political prisoner, a very dubious claim, but doesn't make it clear why he was one, or offer any evidence. There's nothing else on the page as notable as that, i.e. even if he is a retired union organiser, a perceptive essayist, etc. that hardly makes him notable. And there are no third party references for any of this, just a link to a essay and a dead link. Google only seems to find this page and the two links. JohnBlackburne (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Way too many issues to even consider keeping. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-neutral in the extreme, totally one-sided. (Presumably he was convicted of something, but the article makes no mention of that.) Nothing to establish notability. No sources or references. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FeedLynks[edit]

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

This is an article about a nonnotable website (I believe it's a website?) which hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if this site ever eventually meets WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Currently it fails both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 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. JForget 00:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Bent[edit]

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

This is a newly created stub, but from my searches the subject doesn't meet WP:N as she hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The network she co-founded doesn't seem very notable either, much less than the amount which would lead her to pass WP:BIO Them From Space 03:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — One item in her claim to notability is also in the AFD process. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FeedLynks ContinueWithCaution (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no shame in any article being a stub... but this one has no WP:POTENTIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:27, 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. JForget 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars: The New Era[edit]

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

Non-notable video game modification, bordering on advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom. Appears spammy and nonnotable. Them From Space 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some sources would be nice, right now appears non-notable DRosin (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Any article that starts with a disclaimer raises a red flag to me. This appears to be spam. Tpk5010 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of media coverage indicates this is probably non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns. The majority of the article also seems to be a mixture of game guide and advertisement too. --Taelus (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, advertising, game guide; this article's got numerous problems. Reach Out to the Truth 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Fails WP:N, no reliable sources, full of WP:GAMECRUFT, and primary author is a member of said mod team, failing WP:CONFLICT --Teancum (talk) 19:01, 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. JForget 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Young[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:ATH Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:ATHLETE, no sources to sustain notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have time tonight to do a news search, but the article indicates Young was on the watch list for the Outland Trophy awarded to the top college football lineman. I suspect a thorough search might indicate he meets general notability standards based on performance as a college player. Cbl62 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the college career section as a copyright violation of [62]. Grsz¹¹ 03:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:ATHLETE ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present. If everyone who was nominated for a college award was notable per se then we'd be swamped. Should he play at the professional level then reinstate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG since's never played professionally.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 06:18, 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 keep. JForget 00:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was also previously moved to E. Marmsoler --JForget 00:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marmsoler[edit]

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

Cannot find any online sources (the one source in the article is a dead link). All ghits are mirrors. Missing first name, and only "possibly living". The subject seems notable, but lacking evidence that he actually exists, we can't be sure. (Edit: google query was marmsoler luge -wiki.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Should be in the "Living people" category because there's no way he's over 90, but tossing the link into the Wayback Machine confirms that the link verified his existence as does another results page for the tournament. Whether WP:ATHLETE covers every participant at European Championships I'm not certain, but I'd argue that it covers the medal winners at the minimum. A better course of action here would have been to leave a note on the user's talk page asking him to provide confirmation, rather than nomming for deletion. Cheers, CP 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am only going on the information I had at the time. The FIL does not have the information on their site so I had to look to alternative sources as a result. Even though they did not compete at the World Level, they were successful at the European level. Chris (talk) 18:01, 22 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) 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Assertion of notability is enough to warrant a keep despite a lack of verification, since it appears that there could be sources out there. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per above reasons, weak. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation for complete lack of sources. I don't doubt existence, but notability claims notwithstanding there is no reason to have a 'biography' that merely is an inference from some results tables.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long walks on the beach[edit]

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

I do not believe that this phrase deserves a dictionary entry. I tried looking for references that establish that this is a well-known trope, but found nothing. Whatever is in the article is pretty much original research, whatever could be added is probably synthesis. Disclosure: I am the one who added the one reference to the article. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doc, are you sure this can't be improved? Clearly, the concept of avoiding a second date when you hear this phrase on the first, is encyclopaedic and not something that belongs in a dictionary? -SpacemanSpiff 05:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiff, are you channeling ChilfofMidnight? You sound like a carbon copy. Also, someone who has nekkid ladies hidden in their talk page should maintain a diplomatic silence on this topic. But feel free to improve it: as you saw, I already had a go at it, unsuccessfully. And would you be willing to also write an article on "slow comfortable screw against the wall", and I'm not talking about the drink? Drmies (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was skeptical, but it's easy to see that this is a well-worn cliche [63] judging by the past month's use in the news. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford, would you make the same case for "hearty meal"? or "kind words"? (Sarah Palin uttered them about Hillary Clinton!) Of course the phrase is mentioned often enough, but I didn't see a single example of discussion of the subject. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a phrase. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a phrase. An encyclopedia article should be more than just origins, definition and examples of usage, as if those are the only things present, it's a dictionary entry. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phrase is widespread and is defined within a certain cultural context, so I think it has merit as encyclopedia article. Possibly it might be reconfigured with a different title. Everyking (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's kind of like saying “everybody knows it’s true." Trouble is, we have to document it. Incidentally, LOL, 285 hits just within Wikipedia. Too bad we can’t use Wikipedia itself for a reference. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. What's next? "Looking at sunsets"? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's only a phrase. It is not a metaphor, it doesn't really need help to understand. Shall I create a page for Candlelit Diner like the example in the article? It's somehow useless. --Stroppolo (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a dictionary or catalogue of phrases. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Useless, WP:DICT ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDICT. There is little hope of finding a source that separates the use of this phrase as a romantic cliche from its use as a normal English phrase. (No prejudice to recreate if such a source is found, however) — æk ^Talk 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a category of cliches on Wikipedia, with legitimate articles such as Tastes like chicken, but this one isn't quite a cliche, as it simply describes a thing that people do. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it is a cliche, lots of things are (in fact almost any phrase is cliched in the right or wrong context), and i could not find any reliable sources that expound on this idea. put it in a list of cliches, wictionary, anywhere but in its own article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:DICT is rather clear here, in terms of what the article is now. This could be expanded into a more encyclopedic discussion of the cliche, but in its current form the article should be deleted. Tpk5010 (talk) 17:12, 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. JForget 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VideoGet[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable product. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Weak - Covered by CNet, mentioned amongst various places of the intertubes. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are worthwhile reviews of Videoget on the "intertubes", I can't find them amongst the download links and SEO. Cnet's coverage appears limited to this, which is only slightly reworded from the developer's page and can't be considered independent. —Korath (Talk) 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage either. --George (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to avoid this discussion because it is overwhelmingly delete already. I am stating delete specifically because ContinueWithCaution attemped to use such trivial examples of sources. We need to stop pretending that random mentions on places like CNet are notable. Miami33139 (talk) 20:43, 3 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 speedily deleted as hoaxes. A country that existed with a 62,000-strong army, and not a single historical reference? Even Sealand can do better than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republik of Peć[edit]

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

Apparent WP:HOAX, I cannot find any sources for this 'republic' \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No mention of this 'republic' at History of Serbia or the article about Peć. Jarkeld (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly someone’s fiction. Completely unreferenced. While it is possible that there was some small faction that declared its own “republik”, they could not have had 62,000 soldiers and remained off the history books. Also note that the population consisted of 95% Serbs, 71% Montenegrins, 32% Turks, 12% Macedonians, and 5% Russian. That amounts to 215% of the population! I am also highly suspicious of this contributor. Note the broken English, and yet with his first contribution, he knew immediately how to create an infobox and select appropriate categories. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I say delete and invite original editor to recreate when, and only when, he can provide reference. I did not find any relevant info on the article on google so far. --Stroppolo (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax / dubious. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxy, some references would be good DRosin (talk) 11:07, 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. Sandstein 07:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring pugs[edit]

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

This article is fails WP:N as its subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None of the appearances of pugs have been verified, and the article as a whole appears to be listcruft, particularly points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. The related category, which is subject to a broader criteria for inclusion, is also up for deletion. Them From Space 01:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Usless list. Not verified. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even with references it would be useless. Unless we want a page for every breed. JohnBlackburne (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft --Pboyd04 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of films "featuring pugs" is not an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list because it would essentially be a directory of tangentially-connected films. It is not appropriate to lump together on this basis a film that is primarily about a pug with one in which a pug appears on-screen for 5 seconds. A list of films about dogs with defined inclusion criteria may be viable; however, a list that includes any film in which a pug appeared on-screen in a secondary role (or perhaps even only for a few seconds) is not. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the thought that someone took the time to research this, but I can't see any reason to have a list about pugs. There are a lot of animal species out there, is there anything particularly significant about pugs? DRosin (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This might also fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Maybe not, but even then it's non-notable and unreferenced. I appreciate the work that's went into it, but what possible benfift could this article be to anyone in any situation? Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 11:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate and pointless list. JIP | Talk 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete in agreement with nominator. Even were the list to be verified, it would still be useless. Pugs? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above comments. Looks like almost pure OR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/upmerge to List of fictional dogs#Dogs in film. This is perfectly acceptable list information but the present list is too narrowly focussed presently. As part of a broader list it's fine and delineating by breeds is quite common in the dog industry. Nom means well but looking for alternatives to deleting likely should have been explored on this 5-day-old article. -- Banjeboi 14:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the things listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_featuring_pugs should be moved to the list. I don't recall Dune having a dog in it, but its been awhile since I read the books or saw the film. WP:LIST "An Index of articles page presents an alphabetical list of articles related to the subject of the index." I think its fine for a list article. There are many people who love dogs, and they'd like to see how many times this type of dog was in a major film, it'd help them. If you aren't interested in that sort of thing, you won't find your way to this article anyway, and thus never even know it existed at all. Wikipedia has no limit on space. You gain absolutely nothing by deleting something others might find useful. Dream Focus 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. For example, a list of all phone numbers in a particular city would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. Likewise, while a list of all films in which pugs make an appearance (said appearance ranging from a few seconds to most of the length of the film) could be useful to some people, it does not change the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory for trivially-connected films. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, don't even bother to change his opinion. Dream Focus wants anything and everything kept, even if it's not suitable for this site. If Dream Focus had his way, there would be no guidelines and any garbage would be suitable here. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the discussion, not the individual. And no, I don't want everything to exist. I just don't see anything wrong with this article, and there nothing gained by deleting it. You apparently want to delete something because you don't like it, considering it garbage. Dream Focus 12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "I [just] don't see anything wrong with this article" see WP:NOHARM, and no one has said they don't like it. As for people who love dogs, I'm sure there are places for them on the internet, but Wikipedia is not one of them. JohnBlackburne (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is now an essay. It isn't a policy you must follow, nor is it even a suggested guideline. Just an opinion page, and nothing more. To delete an article you must state a legitimate reason for it to be deleted. It doesn't violate any policy, and there is nothing gained by its destruction. Dream Focus 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that John was only referencing the argument laid out at WP:NOHARM, and not attempting to invoke it as some sort of "higher word" (WP:NOHARM has been an essay for as long as I've been aware of it). However, just because an argument is not part of a policy or guideline does not mean that it should be ignored (the strength of an argument is judged on its own merits, independent of where the argument is presented); for instance, I support most of the principles contained at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but I oppose making it a guideline or policy for the simple reason that it would be practically impossible to implement or enforce. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no higher word, there's just us discussing it. I was pointing out the page titled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which includes the WP:NOHARM text which I thought relevant. The essay at WP:HARM is something else, specifically about biographies. As for reasons for deletion both WP:N and WP:LC apply. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pugs? How about dalmatians? Or golden retrievers? Or Siamese cats? How about car models, or brands of beer, or musical instruments? This is just unmitigated trivia: WP:LISTCRUFT at its finest. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this page because it was suggested several times in the discussion about deleting Category:Films featuring pugs. I have found references and I am expanding the list. Given time I expect that this will become a featured list. Please reconsider deleting this important article and give it a chance to grow. Dolores Luxedo (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at that discussion there are three calls for listify. But one questions whether it's worth doing, one just agrees, and the third says it should be a list of all dogs in films. A fourth person gives reasons why it should not happen at all. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to larger dog list of some kind. Artw (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last night my wife cooked the most delightful meal for our friends Artie and Wanda. They came round with a bottle of fine wine, and we had the most lovely evening. One of the subjects that came up for discussion around our dinner table was this very list, the category that inspired the list, and the ensuing deletion discussion. (By the way, I think it is pertinent to mention that I created the original category (now deleted), and that me and my wife are the proud owners of a number of pugs. We love the little scamps!). Anyway, I mentioned how the consensus from the deletion discussion for the category seemed to be to listify, and user:Dolores Luxedo was kind enought to do that. And now someone has nominated the list for deletion! It seems that any attempt to list pugs in movies will die a death of a thousand cuts! My wife agreed, and thought it was outrageous - how one can recommend that a list be created, and then remove the list! Artie, however (we always tend to disagree, but we're the best of friends) said that both the category and the list have to be considered as individual and separate objects, and the arguments for their deletion must, by definition, take place separately. Wanda (we call her 'the microphone' because of her funny fuzzy hair) said that while this may be the case, that doesn't mean that the list should necessarily be removed, that it contributes greatly to pug related articles in this encyclopaedia, that, with the exception of the Lassie movies and possibly golden retrievers, pugs have more 'film time' than any other breed of dog. Not only this, but if the list is comprehensive and full referenced, it becomes an invaluable resource for anyone making a study of such a thing. The microphone teaches media studies at a local college, and she said that the very nature of the list and the arguments for deletion would make a fascinating lesson! I have to say I agree with the microphone... this is a well reseached list, and valuable for the study of pugs in movies. Either way, I hope you come to a good decision. Hope you're all well, sorry I haven't been around much recently. Things have been pretty hectic in everyday life. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:55, 4 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 delete. Wizardman 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Connect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Article created by a single issue editor who clearly is only here to advertise his or her companies product. Plain simple SPAM. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: For those that can see deleted edits, please note that the spammer(s) is so desperate to get this article into Wikipedia that this spam article was deleted four times at Aqua Connect and twice at Aqua connect in the space of three days. And resurrected by not one, not two but three (Special:Contributions/Dani5703, Special:Contributions/JoMoMac, Special:Contributions/CMLeister) different sock puppet accounts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are created by one editor, as long as its edited by more then one then it has some value. Look at the article's history and you will see some of my edits. While I don't know who the original author is (too lazy to look) I do think that the earlier version of the article was more on the sales side and less on the informational side. However that is why we all can edit articles to improve it. Don't delete an article because you don't like it, edit it until you do. Otherwise you are just being lazy.

Ooops forgot to sign it. CupOfJava (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your three day old account has NO edits to the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. Look at my IP address. I have edited not only that article but also the RDP article as well. I have been editing things on wikipedia from time to time as anonymous user since my edits were mainly minor such as adding references, adjusting a few sentences for clarity. For example I, (not someone else), added the DOJ reference to the article. I (not someone else) added the reference by brian madden on terminal server scalability. So do some simple checking you nit. If I say I have edited the article then look for my name. Don't see my name then look for my IP address. Once you have done that if you don't see me then ask me why you don't see edits by me. Don't just come half cocked as a jerk and assume automatically that I some shill. A LARGE percentage of Wikipedia articles are edited, updated and maintained by people like me who go onto an article and adjust a few things here and there. I would argue we out number you "regular" authors by at least 3 to 1. Wikipedia was designed for people like us to free our selves from selfish, self righteous and egotistical nits as you. I only created this account because I needed to go on the record as to why another person was arguing with my edits, otherwise I would have maintained just an account on wikibooks and done minor edits on wikipedia. CupOfJava (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but unless you tell us which IP address you previously edited under, or someone places a Wikipedia:CheckUser request there is no way for us to know which IP address you are editing under. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotional spam. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While admittedly a lot lighter in content then VMWare's page how does Aqua Connect sound more like "self-promotional spam" versus other companies' wikipedia article such as VMWare, Citrix, Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CupOfJava (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Weak - with some cleanup, I do believe this article could live. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly self-promotional spam. Haakon (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — A few issues that I want to clear up here. It's been pretty frustrating to have some users continuously call my account a "single issue user". Clearly, that is not true, as I have edited numerous articles. In my history, you will see that one of my first edits, "Skellie", was taken issue with by some editors. I quickly fixed that. "Aqua Connect" was my first attempt at creating an article from scratch. Admittedly, it needed some work and help since it was my first attempt at writing an article from creation, and I asked many many times for help in the Talk Page and history page for assistance to make the article Wiki-approved. Only a few editors really helped, and many of the ones who voted to delete it or took up an issue with it offered no advice and made no attempts to help rewrite it. I stumbled along the company in my research at my University for my dissertation. A lot of University and college students start their research at Wikipedia, and I thought it was odd that the company who created the first technology of its kind was not on here. With that said, I wrote the article. I have since moved on from the project that Aqua Connect was a part of, but I would love for some people to help add to, and work on the article. I vote "keep" for many reasons. First, I am not a "single purpose account", ha ha, which should be clear now. Second, in my research I found that the company created the first ever Mac terminal server- that is pretty significant in the IT and tech world. Third, I put a lot of effort into this article and would like to see it not go to waste. Thanks all. MacJarvis (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) — CupOfJava (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As of yesterday you had made 156 edits (this includes your 11 deleted edits). Out of those 156, 146 relate directly to Aqua Connect. Only ten of your edits don't. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are here would you mind explaining the sock puppet accounts (User:Dani5703 and User:JoMoMac) that appeared solely to restore your article after it was originally deleted four times for being spam? I'm assuming you know nothing about those accounts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't even know what "sock puppet accounts" are. Regarding the many edits of "Aqua Connect", of course there are more edits to that article- I created it! And since editors had suggestions for fixing it, I had to continuously edit the page. That is what people here wanted me to do, and isn't that what is supposed to be done on Wikipedia?! Luckily, I did not have to edit my other contributions regarding bands and IT devices, because I was not the creator of those articles, and my submissions were not questioned. When I was asked to help fix the "Aqua Connect" article, I did so, which is what is supposed to be done. You can see that other people have edited this article as well, not just myself. This article is not even that important to me, it's more a matter of principle now. Do some research, and you will find that the company and their technology are notable. In my research, I found that it was the only company in the Mac virtualization/terminal server field missing from Wikipedia, even though they pioneered a lot of it. I don't understand why you are attacking me here. Loosen the strap on your tin-foil hat and actually help contribute to a notable and highly referenced article. MacJarvis (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the previously mentioned sock puppet accounts, which other people have edited this article? I can see User:66.134.162.202 which is obviously yourself based on this edit. Then a variety of anonymous IP accounts like User:68.5.246.7 which make Aqua Connect related edits, disappear for months and then coming back again to make Aqua Connect related edits. And the rest of the edits are minor, either vandalising the article, nominating it for speedy deletion as spam, nominating for AFD, or minor tidying edits. Can you point to a single edit, aside from your own that has added anything to the article?

Also can you back up the claim that "they pioneered a lot of it" with a single reliable source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this keeps getting more and more entertaining. First of all, I am not the random IP addresses. That IP address also edited articles on "Val Verde" and "Mach O"- I don't even know what those things are! Val verde sounds like a salsa to me, and Mach O might be the car from Speed Racer. I edit what I know about... my research, my school, my professors, music. I'm thinking you have not actually read the article at this point. Even for Wikipedia standards, the article has more references than normal! I'm in academia, references are important, I know that! Let's start with reference number 1, which if you follow the link you will find a quote from John Welch on Datamation that reads "However, for me, the biggest announcement was from a new company, Aqua Connect. They have the first iteration of a product that I have wanted on Mac OS X, literally, since Mac OS X came out, and that is a terminal server." ^[3]. OK, now the case study and article on Microsoft's own website. Take a look at both, references number 12 and 13. If you actually read them, it talks about how the company licensed RDP to create the FIRST Mac terminal server ^[4]^[5] . What else do you need here? How is that not credible? It's from MICROSOFT! Notability and credibility, check! At this point, I'm pretty sure that your personal vendetta against this article is an indictment that you may work for a competing company to them. Either that or you didn't like their product or something. Microsoft is pretty credible in my book. MacJarvis (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You never edited the article as User:66.134.162.202? Really? Then what could this edit be about then? And why did you remove the unsigned tag from the edit here? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you have to be kidding. I did not write anything about Val Verde. Anyways, I'm tired of you. AlistairMcMillan pretty much ruined Wikipedia for me. Honestly, where do I bring up an issue with a Wiki editor? I want to file a complaint, and I'm pretty sure this person has a vendetta against this company. This editor should be brought up for suspension and his account should be investigated for corporate affiliation. Also, CupOfJoe is right, you know absolutely ZERO about technology, as proved by your comments. So why are you so interested in this article when you don't even understand it?!? OH YA... no response to the Microsoft articles huh? That's because you know you were wrong. You PROVED YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE ARTICLE OR LOOK AT THE REFERENCES! MacJarvis (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please settle down. You're not helping your case by responding to very poignant questions in this manner. Be civil. Haakon (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TANGENT I'd just like to say that accusing people of working for your competitors when they nominate your article for deletion is the Godwin's law of WP:AFD. Which company am I being accused of working for here? Is it Microsoft this week or is it Apple? I can never keep track. VMWare maybe? Citrix? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the heck that IP Address is or who is MacJarvis but it seems AlistairMcMillan could use a simple course in computers because a whois search on that IP tells me that its owned by Covad who is a DSL provide and like most DSL providers their IP addresses for their customers change from time to time. Why can't anyone on here do some fact finding before responding? Almost everyone on here is an idiot because common sense goes out the window. Bottom line is that Both you (AlistairMcMillan) and Haakon need to read the Wikipedia foundation's rules and site rules to see clearly that not only does this article fit with in the framework established but also both of you are violating Wikipedia's guidelines under AGF ^[6]. If you are going to accuse someone of bad faith then PROVE it. Don't make suggestions with out evidence. 68.5.246.7 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Pardon me I did not login in before signing this edit. CupOfJava (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. AlistairMcMillan is asking very valid questions. Haakon (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. I answered your questions. I provided proof that the company pioneered the technology. I referenced two articles from Microsoft themselves. Haakon, it's clear that AlistairMcMillan did not read the article. That person is asking for references and proof that is clearly in the article. I don't know about the other edits, what do you want me to say? I answered every question possible, provided references (that are still being ignored by Alistair), and proved my credibility. False claims that can not be back up are not proof. I don't understand why you don't see my valid points Haakon. This is becoming a ganging up incident, and it's very disappointing. MacJarvis (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the issue should be about the article. And I have addressed those points. I don't work for the company, and I have no interest in their success whatsoever. I just believe that the technology should be included in Wikipedia, and their efforts should not be ignored. I apologize for getting upset, but I felt that my personal character was being attacked wrongfully. It is unfair to ignore the fact that Allistair has not responded to any of my proof, ignores it, and continues to attack my credibility. MacJarvis (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me start by saying all this started when I decided to start adding more references to the article and then someone decides the whole article is worthless. I will point out below why this article is not only worth something but also follows Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. What I am upset about is that I have been doing minor edits both on Wikipedia and Wikibooks for sometime now and this is the first time that when I have added references to an article to make it not only more relevant but improve the quality that I have had my additions cause an article that I feel is important to be up for deletion because some one says it is not good enough WITH OUT giving any specific reasons. So now I am going to do what no one else on here has done and logically explain why this article meets the criteria to be a Wikipedia article but also why it is an important article.

Let us start with the Wikipedia guidelines. According to the Wikipedia guidelines on "Notability (organizations and companies)"^[7] Aqua Connect should be included for the reason that it is a Notable (over 900,000 articles on the internet (do a simple google search to find them)) and is a company. It is also notable since it is the only legal company that is allowed to both develop and distribute a Terminal Server for the Mac platform according to Apple's own employees in their Enterprise and Government Unit. In addition Aqua Connect's Terminal Server has been featured by Apple's Enterprise division both in article form and webcast form, (several articles and several webcasts), example, (but not exhaustive reference), is found here ^[8]. In addition Aqua Connect is used in many schools via a program set up by another company known as "Ashbourne Technology Group", (read it an article and could not find the original article but here is a similar one ^[9]). Ashbourne is a Sun Microsystems partner and currently supplies over 10,000 schools with computer access via Windows and Mac Terminal Servers around the world. Last time I heard about these guys they had something like 2,000,000 individual users on their system. Mac Practice is one of only 3 medical software products available for the Mac platform and is by far the largest with something like 40% of the Mac medical market. They are listed as a partner of Aqua Connect and I know my doctor uses both products. In the U.S. Government area Aqua Connect is the only the Terminal Server product certified by NIST for use on the Mac platform. NIST is one of the largest standards used by the U.S. Government and it's contractors. Most agencies and contractors can ONLY use products on the NIST certification list. Aqua Connect is not only notable for those reasons but is one of the key reasons the U.S. D.O.J. has allowed Microsoft to continue with out further fines. According to a filing found on DOJ's website ^[10], Aqua Connect is only one of a handful of companies that has licensed Microsoft's patents and technologies showing the DOJ that Microsoft is trying to comply with the government's mandates. Aqua Connect also is one of the first Terminal Server companies to introduce 3D acceleration (OpenGL in this case) to Microsoft's RDP protocol ^[11], since then other vendors such as Wyse has followed suite but in the area of Adobe Flash acceleration and other vendors such as Sun Microsystem's Sun Ray will also feature some form of acceleration. Keep in mind I did all this research just for this stupid argument via Google and about 1.5 hours of my time. I have learned a lot more about them since then. My argument is simple, if you are in the Mac Enterprise or Government space then there is a 50/50 chance you have heard, played or tested with Aqua Connect's Terminal Server. If you are not then of course you would think it to be a waste of time. However keep in mind Aqua Connect's product offerings are geared SOLELY at the Mac OS X platform and mainly for the Enterprise and Government space so as a "general" article maybe Aqua Connect is not as relevant as something like a wind farm but it is like the relevance of Ashland Inc (makers of Valvoline) to someone in the auto business.

In closing I have spent most of my wikipedia editing life as a simple anonymous editor and seeing the absolute poor handling of this article by a specific person just in infuriates me to no end that is why I decided to just get off the side lines and make a stand. I offered to bring the discussion up on the side in the discussion section and I offered to talk about it and come to some terms but some people on here feel that if it doesn't fit their little world they should just delete it. I feel that all knowledge no matter how small should be in here in a manner that is both logical and intelligent so that it may be preserved and will boost wikipedia's use to the world and not to some segments of the world. You never know what is useful or not and unless you are an expert or heavily involved in a field or area then a subject or subject matter might seem trivial or pointless while it maybe a huge break through or important piece of information. CupOfJava (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — CupOfJava (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT - I would like to point out that this should be about the article and not about individual users. I personally am not a social person and thus I don't like people. So I don't like any of you but don't take it personally. I how ever believe we should stay on topic which is about an article's merit. Simply put this article should stay for the above reasons. It should also stay because it is making news every day as well, like here ^[12], and yes I do read his site and blogs often because I think he is spot on about 75% of the time which is a lot in my opinion on tech related news. CupOfJava (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I found this article from the RDP comparison page. It was very helpful. I do think it could use a bit more detail, though. It feels a little short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfer0644 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "helpful" is not a keep reason. Haakon (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant to say useful.
    - Even "useful" is not a reason; the question is whether or not the subject of the article fulfills the General notability guideline. Haakon (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little summary[edit]

September 21, 2008

23:18 Aqua Connect created by User:MacJarvis (first edit)

September 22, 2008

00:41 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Steven Walling.
01:19 Aqua "c"onnect created by User:MacJarvis (clone of deleted "Aqua Connect" article, note that Connect starts with a small C for this one)
04:29 Aqua "c"onnect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg
20:33 Aqua Connect re-created by User:Dani5703 (first of two total edits)
21:05 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Stifle.
23:28 Aqua Connect re-created by User:Dani5703 (second and last edit)
23:38 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg

September 23, 2008

04:46 Aqua Connect re-created by User:JoMoMac (first of three total edits)
05:51 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg
05:52 User:JoMoMac blocked indefinitely for re-creating a spam page
07:13 Aqua Connect protected to prevent re-creation by User:Kimchi.sg until October 23

September 24, 2008

16:25 Aqua "c"onnect article re-created by User:CMLeister (no other edits, and please note lower case C again)
16:27 Aqua "c"onnect deleted by User:NawlinWiki

September 26, 2009

16:39 Deletion review started by User:66.134.162.202 (obviously MacJarvis as he/she clearly states they wrote the deleted article)

October 2, 2008

05:17 Aqua Connect restored by User:Chick Bowen

Quite insistent for an uninvolved party.

Please examine the articles talk page, the deleted articles talk page and the deletion review. It is plainly clear that the only people that care about this article are User:MacJarvis (who also edits as User:66.134.162.202) and User:CupOfJava (who also edits as User:68.5.246.7), both of whom are clearly single issue editors who have one goal here. I'm assuming that MacJarvis and CupOfJava are different people based on their IP addresses, but it is amusing who they both added similar huge comments to this discussion unlike everyone else and both added references to the article using the REF tag even though there is no References section to display them in a usable fashion.

And I wouldn't be pushing this anywhere near as much if they would just come out and admit they are involved with this software, instead of bullshitting us with their "I'm just an interested user" crap. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:55, 2 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 delete. JForget 00:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hersh[edit]

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

I have not been able to verify any of the external links in the article. Google searches for Marc Hersh are largely devoid of any verifiable sources, and I believe this article violates WP:BIO Tpk5010 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does violate WP:BIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.219 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost completely empty article, no assertion of anything nearing notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vandalized and altered, must be replaced. An administrator removed the correct history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.3.20 (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:BIO, fails to cite anything. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was unable to find any verifiable information last night after reverting some vandalism and even if there was, the subject is not noteworthy. RaseaC (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 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 redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#Lucie Jones. History retained due to availability of sources there. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Jones[edit]

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

Article was moved too swiftly into main space by WP:AFC reviewer. Article does not yet pass WP:Notability. Individual is not yet signed under a label, and at this time is only notable as a reality show contestant. Lacking reliable sources verifing importance and lasting notablity to justify own article at this time. Calmer Waters 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This artist does not yet meet notability requirements. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undefined — Fails WP:BIO, totally unverified claims. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#Lucie Jones where a biography already exists. No independent notability. I42 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series. It's reasonable that people will search for her, but the series article is the appropriate place for now.--Michig (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note a look at the history shows continued dispute with recreating the redirect vs. creation of this article Calmer Waters 08:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as protected redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#Lucie Jones until such a point as Lucie shows independent notability. Nancy ^talk 08:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as protected redirect per Nancy rational. Just looked under policy for protection and this would fall under content disputes and would allow discussion at talk page at time when article may meet inclusion on its own merits. Calmer Waters 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#Lucie Jones, and protect the redirect. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate a redirect and fully protect it, along with ALL of the X Factor contestant redirects. This is getting stupid now. Also, Hassan19 has been warned about creating these articles, and he is the one nominating them at AFD. I think a block may be in order. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. The redirect is enough werldwayd (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series. RaseaC (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well written article that is worthy for Wikipedia. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The question is not whether the article is well written or "worthy". The question is whether or not the subject, Lucie Jones, is notable under our criteria. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Am I looking at the wrong article? I see plenty of independent coverage. Worst case, merge and redirect. Too much work to just throw away because people don't like reality show contestants. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If deletionists want to know why the suck, here is a post to read (comments). Good luck!!!--Kozuch (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a reason for your !vote? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Suggesting to delete the page just shows pure laziness on all of your part. At worse, displace the content over to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), then redirect. On a similar note, I don't see how John & Edward currently qualify as better notability-wise. Remember that WP:N is a guideline, not a law, otherwise 90% of all articles on Wikipedia should be scraped by that ideology. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a reason for your !vote? Whether or not we're lazy is moot. The relative quality of other articles is moot. Is this subject notable? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the page history, and the page histories of other pages for X Factor series 6 contestant bios, you will see that there is no laziness involved in bringing this to AfD. As you rightly note, there is an existing biography page for all the X Factor finalists with redirect pages to it for all the individual artists. A single editor (as an IP and Hassaan19) has taken it upon themself - without attempting to reach any kind of consensus on the talk page - to split off individual bios rather than develop the group page. When challenged, this user demands the article be taken to AfD (despite that not being the correct venue) - so here we are. Again. Accusing the nominator of laziness looks to me like a violation of WP:NPA. I42 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These AfDs are just getting ridiculous. If you take away the people that are just voting 'delete' without backing up their argument with any sort of policy or proper opinion this vote should be snowballed. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing the nominator? I'm accusing everyone here who voted for deletion that it's taking the lazy way out, and that rather you should be moving or merging (in part) the content and follow up with a redirect. It's essentially the same comment I gave AnemoneProjectors a month and a half ago at the time there was edit warring between him and ip over at Joe McElderry's page, which he respected.
The only part of WP:N that this article appears to fail is WP:NTEMP (i.e. known for one event), but so far I would say the Music career section on her page already challenges that notion just as much as John & Edward. Otherwise, I could also criticize WP:FAILN for not having been properly followed, asides from notifying one author. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im am sorry if you feel I did this as being lazy. Actually, I did this to resolve any issues with the idea of making this a redirect, as stated in the edit summary when placing this as a Afd nomination. Merging the information and making a redirect would not have prevented possible further issues with it being changed right back to an article, hense the need for discussion. I have seen instances where a nomination has been placed for deletion and points have been raised validating that the article should be kept. Instances where further sourcing and notability have been established. I would hope everyone here would be open to the points raised by all editors when coming to a final conclusion on how to address this article. Calmer Waters 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for me. Lucie's hardly had the same amount of press coverage as the likes of Jedward or some of the other contestants. If you compare Lucie's elimination controversy with Laura White's last year, or Maria Lawson's in Series 2, it's practically nothing. And the fact that her elimination caused controversy is probably one of the only reasons she's slightly more notable than some of the other contestants. She hasn't done anything outside of the show yet, so I think it should be deleted. --MissusCitrus (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I am the creator of the article, and it took me three hours to create a well written article. People think Lucie is not notable outside the show, only notable for the elimination controversy, however that would be wrong. The Music career section explains very much about what is happening now, and I would add info and a reference if there is something in the press that tells us what she is up to. People are expecting Lucie to have a record deal in order to keep this article, but since she is contracted to The X Factor until March, she cannot sign anything for now. At the moment she is doing gigs and performing at local places. I am going to agree...with Whitebrightlight, lo Katai, Kozuch and Peregrine Fisher, who opt to save the article from being deleted, because she does seem notable outside of the series, so I would suggest discussing this after the series is finished. Hassaan19 (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, of the music career section is fancruft and not notable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - She is notable, was over the newspapers for five weeks, and, if John and Edward can get an article for the EXACT SAME thing, then this should be kept. Pic Editor960 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was all over the newspapers as part of the ongoing X factor coverage / publicity. That does not provide independent notability. I42 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Demanding Lucie Jones to be notable independently of the X Factor would be like demanding Obama be notable independent of his political career. The X Factor is what she is notable for. No one is notable independent of the thing they are notable for, and asking for such a thing is nonsense. Lucie Jones is known by over 10 million Britons, performs at gigs and has a single that has reached number 1 in the UK music charts. She is clearly notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Certainly she is known by more people than a great many obscure figures who have pages dedicated to them on here. I would suggest that those who argue otherwise are motivated by snobbery regarding reality TV shows such as the X Factor. 79.70.157.200 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest you read WP:N. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between independent and non-independent notability is important. If someone has no independent notability we do not erase them from Wikipedia, we cover them in the article on that one thing they are notable for . This individual is covered in the article on the X Factor, in the group bio page, and the Lucie Jones page was a redirect to that existing bio. No-one here is suggesting that those be deleted - only the separate, independent, page. I42 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She quite clearly meets the "significant coverage" criteria (se above point about 10 million people knowing who she is), and the independence criteria is being misused by many on this page. The guidelines define non-independence as "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc". Lucie Jones is not notable from self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiography, or press releases. She is notable for her television appearances and for her coverage in the mainstream press. The independence criteria does not require her to be notable for something other than the X Factor. 79.70.157.200 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see why you thought the policy was being misused if that was the relevant one, but it's not. The relevant policy is WP:BIO1E ("Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them".) and guideline WP:BIO1E ("When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate".) See the links for the full context. We are talking about independent notability, not coverage independent of the subject, which is what you are quoting. I42 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Lucie Jones is a non notable contestant who achieved no wider fame or significance outside of X Factor where she was eliminated midway. If the contestants still in the competition aren't worthy of separate entries, Jones who has no notable achievements outside of the competition should not be entered separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmois (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is a good article. Will the world really be a worse place if she has an article or not. Reli source

CommentIt could be a fantastic article but if it contravenes our policies (which would make WP a worse place) then it doesn't warrent inclusion. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:09, 5 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 delete. JForget 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John de Groot[edit]

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

Irredeemably promotional and unable to be rewritten in a neutral form. Despite his "vast legal career" and being the "reigning local champion" goat racer (?) he is marginally notable at best, if all the article padding is removed. The article is basically advertising for a legal firm. Wikipedia is not free advertising. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: earlier PROD denied. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nomination ContinueWithCaution (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - the references aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Flowery prose notwithstanding, invidual seems to fail WP:N. Also note a lot of coats laying about... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The passage about goat racing is interesting. How do you race a goat? Do you ride it? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No legitimate basis for deletion provided. Article may need minor depeacocking, but there's no argument that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, as a simple Google News search demonstrates, or that the subject doesn't qualify for his professional writing or as the author of a notable, slightly wacky book (which is usually more readily accepted as evidence of notability than writing a serious one, regrettably). According to his website, he's retired from a relatively high-ranking academic position which appears to satisfy WP:PROF, although that's not mentioned in the article. There's clearly more going on here than is apparent on the surface. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "There's clearly more going on here than is apparent on the surface" Please clarify. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mr de Groot's promotion of goat-racing has inspired significant coverage in two cast-iron reliable sources on the opposite side of the world.[64][65] I'm no great fan of the formula that means that two "human interest" articles in reliable sources equates to notability, but the subject would appear to pass that test. And yes, Johnny, it appears that the goats do have jockeys. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff, fluff and flim-flam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 2 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 keep. JForget 00:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

I believe it technically qualifies for speedy deletion, but that would be extremely hard to argue. There is no actual content. The lead simply says "this TV show is expected to be scheduled sometime in 2010" without a source. The following few lines talk entirely about The Real Housewives of... franchise. The body talks exclusively about an incident which already has not one, not two, but three articles covering it. I would suggest merging this discussion with those three AfDs, for the sake of actually finding a solution, rather than simply having four collossal, seven day long discussions that achieve nothing. WFCforLife (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Keep and remove section regarding the gatecrash incident. Gage (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I do believe that with some editing this article does in fact belong on wikipedia. It does contain proper citations. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Pop tower is not a reliable source. The Washington Post is the GOSSIP COLUMN, and even that contains the phrase "Why won't Bravo confirm what seems so obvious?" Source three is a FORUM POST. Given the sourcing record so far, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that source four is in any way related to this article. WFCforLife (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent Real Housewives article until more information about the show itself rather than the Salahis crashing the White House state dinner surfaces. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above user. This planned show has not notability, the only reason it's getting attention right now is because that couple that crashed the White House state dinner tried to get on the show (and failed). TJ Spyke 03:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. We shouldn't be keeping an article if it's gonna stay in coat rack status for an unknown, infinite period of time. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Undoubtedly this article is coming; either wait for a little bit better sourcing or ignore it for a few days/weeks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring all rules means that we do whatever is best for the encyclopaedia in spite of the rules. Are you saying that reporting the incident in four articles is worth ignoring the rules? And if we strip out the incident (again), are you saying that a user benefits more from coming here than they would from going to a subsection of The Real Housewives of...? WFCforLife (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really sure how anyone could argue for anything but a keep vote. This doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL because its already been well-established that the show is coming. Like it or not (I personally despise the "Real Housewives" shows), the notability is clear. A stub with only the lead of this article would technically satisfy notability standards, let alone the added layer of notability this article gains from the gatecrash incident. That being said, I authored much of the content about the gatecrash incident before I realized it had its own article. I'm going to shorten much of that content and include a link to the main article. Once that's done, however, there's no reason for deletion. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't know how anyone could not want to keep it? How about the fact that there is nothing in the article about the SHOW. It's nothing but an article on those 2 morons who snuck into the White House. You take out the info not related to the show and you reduce the article to a 2 sentence stub. TJ Spyke 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The show will premiere in May 2010, Bravo has confirmed in multiple places that it's coming and most of the desire to delete this page is related to an emotional desire to sh!+ on the Salahis than any rational reason to delete this page.scooteristi (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to bad faith comment Which part of "I would like to have a conversation in one place to actually find a solution to the current mess" amounts to an "emotional desire to shi!+ on the Salahis"? WFCforLife (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)fo[reply]
Comment- Wow ! This is the fourth article on the Salahis and their gatecrashing, which is now up for deletion, all at the same time !. This has got to be a new Wikipedia record ! Tovojolo (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and improved sources scooteristi (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I recommend culling out all the Salahi stuff and shaving this down to a stub. It's not even certain whether Salahi will be on the show; even if she is, the gatecrash information should be reduced to a single sentence with a link to the gatecrash article. As it is, this article is a WP:COATRACK and that must change. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been confirmed that they will NOT be on the show. They auditioned for it but did not make it on. TJ Spyke 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is a television show, and does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because the show is definitely coming. However, the gatecrash incident should be removed. Tpk5010 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Take out the gatecrash and the article is reduced to 2 sentences. The only CONFIRMED info is that this show will exist, and that can be covered in the main "Real Housewives" article. TJ Spyke 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Per the discussion above, I have removed the gatecrash incident from the article, and have classified it as a stub. Tpk5010 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think the edit was made in good faith, I don't think this was an appropriate action, nor do I think the comment or two above indicated there was a full-blown consensus for such an action. I've restored it for now, but made a post in the article's talk page for any further discussion. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Scooteristi (again)--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- His sole reason is "the show will exist", that is not enough to avoid deletion or merger. TJ Spyke 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the show is still planned. --Vizcarra (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the show has been officially confirmed by reliable sources, as it appears to have been, and if the show will meet our notability criteria when it premieres, which it likely will, then there is no reason not to have an article at this time. Agree that the gatecrashing incident should probably go, since it is well covered elsewhere, but a link to the article is justifiable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:35, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abjects[edit]

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

Delete. Interesting, but notability is not inherited, even by chat networks used by racists. The sourcing in this article boils down to primary sources published by the chat network operators and a tangential court case. JBsupreme (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the interesting parts are in Hal Turner. Miami33139 (talk) 05:59, 23 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) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Web content without signifigant notability, imho. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only thing possibly of note is the lawsuit, but I don't see how that even qualifies as a significant event. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Technical details about the website are outside the scope of Wikipedia. The lawsuit is covered at Hal Turner, and the Abjects article goes into too much depth on it anyway. Getting rid of those two things, there is nothing left to the article. — æk ^Talk 11:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College of Technology London[edit]

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

Non-notable private college, article only consists of directory information and dubious claims. Grim²³ ★ 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Typically, articles on dubious colleges are kept and edited to reflect the fact that people shouldn't attend. A user expects Wikipedia to tell them if something is legit. Does this college fail WP:V? Abductive (reasoning) 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is an associated with University of Wales it is genuine and notable enough. I removed the spam and clarified the relationship somewhat at sourced it to the U. Wales. -- some further checking is needed to establish just which of its degrees are in partnership with them, and to add some basic information about enrollment, and faculty, and the like. We absolutely do not deal with articles on "dubious colleges" so they "are kept and edited to reflect the fact that people shouldn't attend." It should not be the case that "a user expects Wikipedia to tell them if something is legit." We present the factual sourced information, and the readers are responsible for drawing the conclusions. There's a key difference between those two approaches. Certainly we write accurately about the nature of the accreditation, and I hope we get it right--but Wikipedia can not be considered as an actually reliable source for that or anything else. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you cash money that people use Wikipedia all the time to figure out if a college is legit and if they should attend. I think you misunderstood what I was saying, which is that we don't delete colleges even if they are diploma mills or unaccredited. In fact, we rarely delete colleges even if they aren't notable, due to an established (partly by you) consensus that users expect that Wikipedia will cover even the most obscure college. Abductive (reasoning) 06:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many people use it wrong, in many ways, though they ought to realize that most of our college articles are written in large part by enthusiastic students and alumni. In any case, this one seems to be genuine--though I admit to a little puzzlement about the role of U. Wales. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 24 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) 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG. I note that at this time the article seems free of any dubious claims or unwanted directory content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strange college, why the partnership with Wales? My Keep goes with what Abductive was saying. Article definitely could do with expanding though if there are some good sources DRosin (talk) 11:19, 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. There is consensus that we do not need a standalone article but none of the merge targets exist and the material to be merged is unsourced original research so creating a new article as a merge target still doesn't address the notability or sourcing issue. The best policy based argument is that this is unsourced so although there is a preponderance of merge arguments here, the best policy based ones are the ones arguing deletion on the absence of sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bemani Python 2[edit]

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

Not notable. Initially, there were no references or Google hits, and was PRODed. Author added a link, but link does not support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have since learned that this device also goes by "Bemani Playstation 2". There appears to be more Google hits under that name, but still no signficant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have researched on some of Konami's japanese sits about Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA and SuperNOVA 2 with no success of a single word about htis system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silrox9 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you also saying the subject is not notable? Because if you are, we can wrap this up pretty quickly... Singularity42 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact this systeme exists, but yes,unfortunatly while we have reference of it exiting, if these links aren't notable, then i'm afraid i can't find better. --Silrox9 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, it probably still isn't a bad idea to have this discussion continue for a bit, in case other editors think the link is enough to support notability, or have found better references. Singularity42 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in curiosity, would have a photo taken by someone real life class as notability? Or does this have to be 1st part information? --Silrox9 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the general test for notability, from WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. So we are looking for significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Hope that helps. Singularity42 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. Thanks for that, if i come accros information i'll be sure to post it. Silrox9 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are more than several iterations of Bemani hardware, most of them have only been used in one or two machines. I suggest Konami arcade engines or Hardware of Bemani games to increase notability by inclusion. æron phone home 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This hardware has been used in more than one machine, most notably DDR superNOVa, SN2, Dancing Stage Fusion, Drummania V-V3 and Guitar Freaks V-V3. Silrox9 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant info as a new section in List of Bemani series, which is the only article I saw. --Teancum (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If someone were to figure out the Japanese spelling I'm sure we could come up with more hits. SharkD Talk 03:23, 27 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) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suppose a merge would be OK. SharkD Talk 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into a Konami arcade engines or Hardware of Bemani games article, per AeronPeryton. This would allow future expansion as more engines are created and more information is located. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree making an merged article about Konami machines as then all relevant data would be availible in one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silrox9 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename, As the suggested Hardware of Bemani games. That could actually be an interesting article to expand and there'd be very solid ancestral notability given most were precursors to the current-day popular music genre hardware, or the currents being 100% ripoffs. imo that would be notable anyway, but the fact that it's now "historical" as a result? Amusing. Theoretically there could be a later article on comparisons of hardware from "Wmusic" games and "Jmusic", similar to the split RPG articles? Ha. Major stretch, but still... possible. jp.Wikipedia might be quite helpful on that. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:32, 5 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 delete. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pro and anti-warez arguments[edit]

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

This article has been around for a few years with tags on it indicating that it is a poor article. Very few sources have been provided, and the majority of the arguments appear to have simply been placed unverified, probably as original opinions of the editors that have made the edit. The debate itself is something that is unencylopedic, and is something that cannot, and will not, become neutral. Furthermore, the concept of "pro-warez" doesn't seem logical in the first place. It could be understood that someone could be "anti-non-free-software" but being "pro warez" is similar to being "pro carjacking" or "pro murder." I feel that, and history has proven that, this article will remain biased, opinionated, and uncited, and this indicates that this article has little value to Wikipedia as a whole. Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic and inflammatory analogies between the copyright infringement of software and violent crime are extremely unhelpful. However, the article's currently largely unsourced state, existing for years, is problematic. In the absence of serious improvement in references, delete per WP:NOR. Andrea105 (talk) 00:46, 23 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) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR / WP:SYN. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article as it stands is WP:OR. Furthermore, the article is irredeemably unencyclopedic -- a list of opinions like this one is bound to diverge into an unintegrated hodgepodge of points of view. — æk ^Talk 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - pointless opinion piece which cannot be redeemed: there's no shortage of places you can go if you want to read people's opinions or contribute your own. Wikipedia is not the place. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:58, 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 merge to Philadelphia dialect. Black Kite 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia slang[edit]

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

The page is a glossary of slang terms, prohibited per WP:NAD. TheTrueSora 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This article is not "about" Philadelphia slang, it is a list of Philadelphia slang. Nothing I have found in attempting to research the items in this article suggests there is such a thing as "Philadelphia slang". Yes, there are slang terms that are more common in and around Philly. However, there are no reliable sources that discuss this as a notable phenomenon. All of the sources currently cited are of individual uses of the slang term used in a way consistent with the supplied definition, not cites saying "Term is Philadelphia slang for definition." It's WP:NAD and WP:OR rolled into one. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Likely sources: Salvucci, Claudio R. The Philadelphia Dialect Dictionary. Bucks County, PA: Evolution Pub, 1996., Dennis Stanley Lebofsky, The lexicon of the Philadelphia metropolitan area 1970. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I don't have that one close at hand... "dialect" is not "slang". Dialect would be pronunciations: Philadelphians saying "wooder" for "water" and, well, "fiwadelfyan" for "Philadelphian". "Slang" is non-standard word usage, as (poorly) documented in the article. Without reliable sources, every Philadelphian (and a number of tourists and such) dropping by the page adds a term they heard somewhere in or around Philadelphia. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dialect covers differences in vocabulary as well as pronunciation (British English and American English, both dialects, being an obvious pair of examples). And since the sources DGG mentions are a dictionary and a lexicon, I'd expect them to focus more on vocabulary than pronounciation. Edit: somehow I failed to read the rest of the AfD before leaving this comment. Ignore me, and ~~probably~~ redirect to Philadelphia dialect. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with additions of sources found by DGG and possible change of title; dialect includes both unique words and pronounciations. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, change the title of the article, remove all of the content and add completely new content (based on one source) then keep the completely new article that is tangentially related to the current one? What are we keeping from the current article? The idea that people in Philadelphia speak differently than people elsewhere. Yes, by all means, start an article called "Philadelphia dialect" (or some such) if you think you have sources and content for it. As for the current slang dictionary... I find nothing to keep. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your view. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 24 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) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The distinct article Philadelphia dialect exists, and has a section on lexicon which includes all relevant material from this article. — æk ^Talk 11:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Philadelphia dialect. Thank you User:Æk for pointing that out. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since none of the "sources" in this article actually say anything about the topic, what would we merge? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the bits with appropriate sourcing to Philadelphia dialect#Lexicon. Note, though, that many of the cited references mention the lexical items only in passing, and therefore don't constitute appropriate sources. Cnilep (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's really no argument here, it's a clear violation of WP:NAD. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Keep or Merge - All these terms are distinct to Philadelphia and its culture and are certainly notable Callmarcus (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and none of the items are sourced as being Philadelphia slang. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 2 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 Delete. One incident does not normally make someone notable for wikipedia. Should reliable sources be found that indicates that this person is notable for multiple notable events, there is should be no prejudice against recreation—suitably cited and supported. -- Avi (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Washington[edit]

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

Only claim to notability was winning a game show Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems less than notable. - Schrandit (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey, we already have an article about Quincy, Washington, "a city in Grant County, Washington, United States". The population was 5,044 at the 2000 census. Mandsford (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple assertions of notability, and not just the one. The article has a bunch of references and external links that need be incorporated into the article as inline citations... and that seems a call for regular editing through WP:Cleanup, but not for deletion. I will grant that his name, plus inclusion of "contest" or "winner" or "Election" in searches give a great number of false positives... but is the degree of difficulty in sorting through all the permutations a reason to not do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Weak Keep - I think the external links/references (or some of them at any rate) just push the subject over the general notability guideline. Of course, the links need a lot of cleanup (as does the rest of the article), but that's no reason to delete. I might even do a bit of it myself if the article's kept and time permits, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep seems like it is very much less than notable, but if the article is cleaned up and inline citations made then it could be good DRosin (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. The notability seems to arise from only one event.--Pink Bull 20:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I hardly think the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Notable only for a single event. If we had a WP article for every person who's ever won a game show, we would have a mess on our hands. SnottyWong talk 00:36, 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 Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illyria (musical)[edit]

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

unreferenced non notable musical theatre production WuhWuzDat 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources: [66], [67], [68], and [69] - just to link to a few. Singularity42 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the NY Times link I just added is now saying you need to be a member to review it. Not sure why, since I'm not a member and was able to read it. I think if you link to it from Google you can access it. I Googled Illyria "peter mills" -Wikipedia, and it was the second link. Singularity42 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably First Click Free at work. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the writer has recieved awards for his musicals. Singularity42 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Singularity42. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 22 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) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References provided by Singularity42 establish notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in WP:RS described above establishes notability. Andrea105 (talk) 18:08, 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. The references found are to articles in the group's newsletter and to assistance from some of its members; they do not amount to the significant coverage of the group from independent sources required to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Speleological Group[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either the group's own website (not independent) or application forms (see WP:PSTS for that). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this group. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 22 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) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doing a little google finagling, I was able to find several obscure citations referencing publications by this group as a geographical authority within this niche subject. As such, I assert that the group itself is notable. Additionally, I've found a survey archive from the University of Bristol that references assistance from this group. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing a newsletter, or being quoted by another club as having explored a cave once, is not tantamount to notability. See WP:GNG: a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One's own newsletter is not an independent source, and mentions of a few articles published there do not constitute "significant coverage". - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references cited above do indeed show it is an obscure society, producing very minor publications indeed. They are furthermore just presence in a list, not significant coverage. I tend to be pretty flexible on this sort of topic, but existence is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 10:42, 6 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sawmill (software)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to an award this software was up for in 2009. I've found a number of reviews of this software, some of which are comparisons with similar tools like Analog, AWStats, etc. One that shows up in a Google search is a PC Magazine review from 2001, which also establishes that the software has been around for a while. Shall I add a link to this review to Sawmill's stub and remove the deletion notice? ◉ ghoti 18:06, 23 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) 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a a software package for the statistical analysis and reporting of log files, with dynamic contextual filtering, 'live' data zooming, user interface customization, and custom calculated reports is probably more fun than a barrel of monkeys, right? Besides, this was was selected as a runner-up in the 2009 Streaming Media European Readers' Choice Awards, and you've surely heard of that trade award, even if it didn't actually win it, right? Non-notable sysadmin software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can find no second piece of reliable source coverage, but am inclined to WP:IAR in this case due to its inclusion in awstat's comparison page, suggesting it is perceived as a nontrivial competitor. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything sourced here is a molehill of trivia. This is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The requirement for trivial sources is due to WP's requirements for notability. Since this is specialized software, the sources are necessarily less main-stream. The topic of this article is just as relevant as many of the others on the List of web analytics software. Do we remove them all? BBClone, Mint, etc? ◉ ghoti 22:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Cybercobra (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, and also WP:LOCALFAME. Nevertheless, the division between general and specialized knowledge is sometimes blurry, since the concept of "general" is subjective. ◉ ghoti 08:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just as relevant as the other web analytics software mentions. They are all smaller packages and get reviewed less often, but they still have a market share in this category of software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaStone (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) — StellaStone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Box (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. A Google search reveals no writeup in reliable sources, and no charted music. Seems to only appear on Youtube, MP3 sites, social networking sites, etc. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Astronaut (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this musician; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:18, 22 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) 00:31, 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 redirect to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. JForget 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Bad[edit]

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

"2 Bad" is a track from Michael Jackson's HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I album. However, it fails the notability guideline for songs, as it has received little indepth coverage in reliable sources. I propose that the article be redirected to the HIStory album and salted, as efforts to maintain the redirect of this unnotable song article have been continually reverted. Pyrrhus16 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALTHOUGH! "2 Bad" is featured on the short film by Jackson "Ghosts" and was edited and cropped into a film song. Another example that this SHOULD meet the the notability guideline for songs is the fact that track #11 on HIStory is Tabloid Junkie which has its own page with coverage yet no sources. Besides "2 Bad" is a growing article, and Wikipedia is a free ENCYCLOPEDIA, it would only be fair for every song that's high in popularity to have an article! So, I suggest that the redirect to HIStory should be STOPPED! and this article be kept, there's over 1 million users on Wiki and BILLIONS of people visit this site, we should help them with all the information on whatever they need.--72.9.20.77 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Secondly, there is more coverage in reliable sources for "Tabloid Junkie" than there is for "2 Bad". Thirdly, nobody is stopping the millions from finding information about this song. However, they can find it in the appropriate place; the album article. Pyrrhus16 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect: although there are a few mentions when searching "2 Bad by Michael Jackson" at Excite, there are just as many hits for "One Chord Song by Keith Urban" which was never released except as a hidden song on the Golden Road album. Furthermore, I'm a Michael Jackson fan as well as a few friends I've asked, and they've never heard of it either. It deserves a mention in the encyclopedia, but I don't think it deserves its own article as it doesn't appear to be one of MJ's hits or anything. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. For a song to meet WP:NSONGS, there must exist "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I can not find such coverage for this song in any WP:RS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:28, 22 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) 00:31, 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. JForget 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McCann[edit]

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

Non notable member of the Irish Green Party in Waterford. Has stood for local and national office on 5 separate occasions but failed to be elected ever to any office, see here. He is best known locally in Waterford city for being a "serial objector" to local developments and as such has received some local coverage but no national coverage. Fails WP:Politician. Snappy (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's unknown outside Waterford, and the end of the article comes across as hatchet job. Fences&Windows 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - It's not a hoax, he's a real person, just not a notable one. Snappy (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my vote still stands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 3 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 delete. The general consensus here is that this person is barely notable at most. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Osborn[edit]

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

14 film scores in an unreferenced article created by the eponymous Jason Osborn looks to me like self puffery of a non notable jobbing composer. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Dog poster 21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per WP:BARE. I did several searches and found some reliable sources -- a Times listing [70] and one at filmscoremonthly.com, and a bulletin. I'm not certain if he ranks. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete - There are resonable sources, but one is just passing mention in a list. Almost, almost, makes the notability guideline, but the conflict of interest issue with the article's creator put me off, so delete, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:12, 28 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) 00:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite this being listed for a reasonable time, no references have appeared in the article despite the eponymous creator having performed some work in it. This looks to me to be very much like an attempt to post a resumé on Wikipedia. If this person becomes notable one day then an article which is not a litany of show and film names will doubtless be created. It simply seems to me that he is not, yet, notable, but is seeking to establish notability with an article in Wikipedia. Whether he has worked in those films and shows is not the point. The point is notability coupled with verifiability. References are mandatory. This is an encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:30, 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. since there's no sources there's nothing to merge Wizardman 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwget[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to wget, since this is a GUI for wget --SF007 (talk) 14:32, 22 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) 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wget. Ray^Talk 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wget along with KGet --Pboyd04 (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a single claimed third party source exists to merge. Notability as a stand-alone article requires multiple third party sources. To merge, I'd like to see at least one third party source, otherwise we could be documenting some two hour basement project by a ten year old. We don't know anything reliable about this software to document. Miami33139 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT MERGE this has nothing to do with wget, other than wget is a piece of software that this software uses. Third-party software should not merge into the first party's article... it would be the same as if XTreeGold were merged into the MSDOS article, because XTreeGold was a shell on top of DOS. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete unless third-party sources are found. (Disclaimer: I haven't looked.) It already has more of a mention in wget than it merits, since it uses wget as an implementation detail. 76.66.194.154's comparison to a merge of XTreeGold into MSDOS might sound overdramatic, but the situation's very similar. —Korath (Talk) 03:42, 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 Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixetell[edit]

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

Promotion for a non-notable software product. Sources given are not significant. Article has been written by a series of SPAs. Haakon (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment - Information in this article is accurate and can be verified. This is a new type of communication/collaboration product. Please assist with cleanup if anything is inaccurate or not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Links to product reviews by respected publications (i.e. VentureBeat/New York Times, etc.) were provided for accuracy. Press coverage so far has been positive with only one negative comment which was included in this article. Assistance / feedback is requested to insure this article remains available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.48.172 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — 69.168.48.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete This story is from a reliable source and of sufficient depth. This story is from a reliable source, but wavers between the CEO himself and his company, so its depth is borderline. I could find no third piece of reliable source coverage. Given how promotional the WP article in question is, I lean towards Delete. Notability borderline (its satisfaction of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is on the border), but the article basically needs to be started over even in the event it is found to be notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources now in article to indicate notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reworked article with citations for verification, removed marketing spin, added history, added security detail, removed promotional external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopatterson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — Nopatterson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I don't know that you really did all that. The article is still heavily promotional, and you are a new in a series of single-purpose users writing this article. Haakon (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits about 12 hours ago. Please let me know what else you think it needs to be cleaned up. As I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia (I'll mostly be contributing about mobile topics), I'd like to learn more about postings, etc. I tried to make the article much less promotional than the edits that were made. Einar75 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2009 (PST)

Keep It is disturbing the way this was written by COI spam accounts. The article is now at a state showing notability. I also moved some showoff external links to a section on uncited references to try and neutralize the advertising style presentation. Miami33139 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Article still reads very promotional to me. LoudHowie (talk) 15:21, 26 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) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources meet WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 18:05, 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 no consensus. This is a rather difficult situation. Many folks agree that the subject is not sufficiently notable, and a few of the keep votes at the end of the discussion don't really refute these arguments well. However, IP69.226.103.13's concerns hold weight, and given that there are a few arguments for retention provided by established editors, it's probably reasonable to close this as NC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay P. Serdev[edit]

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

Non notable surgeon in my field Droliver (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the awards. Joe Chill (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at those "awards"? The only reference to them is his own website. No disrespect to Dr. Serdev, but he is not a notable figure in my fieldDroliver (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have, as yet, formed no opinion about the notability of the subject, but I'm a bit worried about the repeated use of the phrase "in my field" as if it implied some sort of specialist knowledge by the nominator of the potential notability of the subject. I see no reason to suppose that a plastic surgeon in Alabama would have any better idea of the notability of a plastic surgeon in Bulgaria than the average Wikipedia editor. I (as an Englishman) couldn't name any Bulgarian or Alabaman practising in my profession, but that doesn't mean that none of them are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply Phil, I would argue that someone practicing in a relatively small field like mine would provide better context on what being notable in that field actually means. Our major peer reviewed journals are international in scope, and many surgeons in Europe, asia, and south america are clearly notable. This is not one such instance which should be clear by reviewing the CV of this physician. Keeping Wikipedia uncluttered from vanity bios of physicians in my area is something I take an interest in. Droliver (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete 10 articles only in medline, which does seem to cover at least the major Bulgarian journals. --no way of linking directly to a NCBI search, but the Scirus link is [71] There seem to also be a few citation of it [72] but his method is clearly not quite as important as the article makes him out to be, or there would be many more. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The International Journal cited in the article makes the technique out to be important. Why does your own original research into the notability of the technique trump a peer-reviewed journal? Your OR and Droliver's personal pronouncement of non-notability should not be criteria for deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Bulgaria Cosmetic and Plastic surgery are two separate medical specialties. The field of Dr. Serdev is Cosmetic surgery (he is the National Consultant in the Ministry of Health), not Plastic surgery so it is understandable that he is not a notable sugreon in Droliver's field (who as i can see is a Plastic surgeon in the US). I have found some sources of information and scholars that I saw were required and I have added them as citations. Some of them are from Bulgarian sources and are written in Bulgarian, but I don't think this will be a problem since there are web translators. I will search further and in case I find anything helpful and useful for this discussion, i will post it. Creative69 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 25 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) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and per nom. The voices of people who have genuine expertise in their fields are, in my view, most welcome at wikipedia. Ray^Talk 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable in nominator's field?! This is wikipedia, can you identify yourself fully, your field, and provide independent, verifiable, reliable resources that you are an authority for notability in your field? what? Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he hasn't provided this information already it would be rude to ask and much worse than rude to try to find out on our own. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's right, the information is not available, and it is not relevant to the discussion. I can't come to AfD and say this should be deleted because I'm an authority in my field and I say he's not notable. That's no such AfD criterion that an editor can self-declare their expertise and get an article deleted on that basis. This AfD should be closed. I have no intention of looking up any information on the user: the information would be irrelevant to this discussion and this article. It's not a deletion criterion: self-proclaimed expertise of wikipedia editor. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no reason why an editor should not declare expertise in an area. Whether others are persuaded by the declaration is another matter. The advice of experts is welcome to WP. Xxanthippe (talk).
      - That a person is not notable according to a wikipedia editor is NOT a criterion for deletion. Notability is NOT established by the individual self-declaration of any wikipedia editor. It doesn't matter whether he's an expert in his field, all of his edits must meet the same criteria for inclusion in wikipedia articles as any other editor's. This includes his deletion criteria: they are set by community consensus. If the surgeon is not notable, it is because the reliable evidence from acceptable sources says he is not. It is not because a wikipedia editor declares himself the decider of notability. The community consensus has already made a decision about how notability is decided in an encyclopedia, by reliable sources. Now, are the sources reliable? Yes, the international journal citing this surgeon is a peer-reviewed journal. This editor is not a peer-reviewed journal. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep nominator's pronouncement without references and DGG's OR should not trump peer reviewed journal's declaration of notability. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the results of the linked searches above demonstrate a lack of sufficient source material to establish notability. I also tried those searches without the middle initial, with similar results. There are of course sources -- his own journal articles, etc. -- but these do not add up to notability according to our usual standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I searched in Google to find more information and under the phrases "serdev", "serdev suture lift", "serdev suture suspension" appear a great number of clinics that use the techniques described. To me personally this is quite an accomplishment. Creative69 ( talk ) 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But does that make the man, or the method WP:Notable? Would every person that contributed a suture method be Notable. Would every suture method be Notable. I am sure that every method can be found in a peer-reviewed journal or text, but how does 1 method, or creator of that method, become more notable than any other? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established by the section on professional recognition. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the references given in that section fail WP:RS and/or fail to demonstrate what is being claimed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note He seems best published by "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SURGERY" (Nikolay P. Serdev, MD, Ph D, Managing Editor) apparently the organ of a couple of international bodies including the "International Academy of Cosmetic Surgery" ( http://www.iacsorg.com/index.php website does not function for me). You can become accredited by the IABS if, among other things you have the right experience in "Ginecology" [73] and get your application and cash in by August 2004. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The "International Academy of Cosmetic Surgery/Surgeons" does not appear to have any standing with the Royal College of Surgeons, although its president is also the president of the European Association of Aesthetic Surgery [74] (based in the same cottage). While based in the UK, the UK body is the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), the international body the IPRAS. The president is registered with GMC with a licence to practice from 19 November 2009, but is not registered with BAPRAS and is not in the specialist registers at the GMC. Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Comments of some plastic surgeons above do not accept the free development of the scientific thought. See Declaration of Tokyo, 2000. Except BAPRAS and IPRAS there exist other scientific societies in fields beyond plastic surgery, beyond plastic treatment of conditions acquired as a result of trauma, disease, degeneration or ageing. Cosmetic surgery is not linked to plastic surgery only. It is multidisciplinary, based on tremendous number of surgical and non surgical techniques created by non plastic surgeons as well. Cosmetic surgery is for beautification and maintaining of healthy persons. Plastic surgery as per definition is a treatment of illness - "Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery is a specialty concerned with acute and non-acute conditions which may be congenital or acquired as a result of trauma, disease, degeneration or ageing in patients of both sexes and all ages. Its aim is the restoration or improvement of function and the normalisation of appearance and well-being." Publications in cosmetic surgery should and can not be linked to plastic surgery journals only. talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
"Keep". Professor Serdev is a cosmetic surgeon, who makes clear the distinction between his field of non-invasive or keyhole beautification surgery and that of plastic surgery which is founded on a reconstructive techniques [75]. He is indeed entitled to be described as notable sharing the lecture podium at numerous international congresses alonside other notable and respected plastic and cosmetic surgeons. This can be varified on a simple Google check with special reference to cosmetic surgical societies in Central and South America where his distinguished reputation is particularly well established [76] [77]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needleye (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needleye (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "plastic surgeons do not accept free development of scientific thought" OMFG. This is a silly discussion. It's clear to anyone willing to actually research this doctor that there is nothing particularly notable to anything claimed by this surgeon. It's all marketing and fluff without substance no matter what he chooses to call it. This AFD isn't an assualt on someone's character, it's pointing out that is nothing exceptional about him in the context of a contemporary surgeon. Droliver (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep". It must be remembered that "Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research)." The knowledge about Professor Serdev does indeed exist and is referenced and readily identified on the www. To those in the field of his discipline of (non-plastic) cosmetic surgery, he his indeed notable and innovative. Rather than seeking to edit this article it appears that, through this forum, some opposing surgeons may be acting inappropriately to suppress the existing knowlege of this surgeon and public access to it through Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarman (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 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 keep. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ziya Saylan[edit]

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

Non notable figure within my field Droliver (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you address the 45 or so Google News hits? And there are a couple of Google Books hits that use the word "popularized" for two different(?) surgeries. Abductive (reasoning) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Did you acutually look at those google hits you're pointing to for notability? There is nothing of substance to any of those google hits, most consisting of quotes in pop culture articles. This is not a noted academic or significant contributor to my field by any standard.Droliver (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to do that analysis, source by source, as part of your nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep At least the following references on the implants seem substantial: [78] , [79] [80], [81] . Material noticed by the lay press can be notable also--this is not an academic but a general encyclopedia. What is interesting is the almost complete lack of refs. after 2004, so it must not have actually been very successful. PubMed shows 9 article in mainstream English language journals--on other topics than these implants. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 24 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) 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in WP:RS meeting WP:GNG described above. Andrea105 (talk) 18:03, 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. JForget 00:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was also previously moved to E. Marmsoler --JForget 00:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marmsoler[edit]

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

Cannot find any online sources (the one source in the article is a dead link). All ghits are mirrors. Missing first name, and only "possibly living". The subject seems notable, but lacking evidence that he actually exists, we can't be sure. (Edit: google query was marmsoler luge -wiki.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Should be in the "Living people" category because there's no way he's over 90, but tossing the link into the Wayback Machine confirms that the link verified his existence as does another results page for the tournament. Whether WP:ATHLETE covers every participant at European Championships I'm not certain, but I'd argue that it covers the medal winners at the minimum. A better course of action here would have been to leave a note on the user's talk page asking him to provide confirmation, rather than nomming for deletion. Cheers, CP 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am only going on the information I had at the time. The FIL does not have the information on their site so I had to look to alternative sources as a result. Even though they did not compete at the World Level, they were successful at the European level. Chris (talk) 18:01, 22 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) 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Assertion of notability is enough to warrant a keep despite a lack of verification, since it appears that there could be sources out there. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per above reasons, weak. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation for complete lack of sources. I don't doubt existence, but notability claims notwithstanding there is no reason to have a 'biography' that merely is an inference from some results tables.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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. Black Kite 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ars Supernova[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Band with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Most sources appear to be local "scene"-type media, blogs, etc., that do not meet WP:RS, and other references do not indicate why band is notable for its music. Albums appear self-published, no tours, etc. Also appears to attempt to assert notability as a philanthropic group, but fails notability guidelines in that regard as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's explanation, which are my findings as well. Sources seem limited to a local newspaper, an write-up in a university paper, and a few blogs. Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:35, 22 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) 00:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find anything that establishes how they meet WP:BAND. Nuttah (talk) 10:17, 6 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 keep. JForget 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 Australia Limited[edit]

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

Delete per WP:COMPANY. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and how about doing the article's writer the courtesy of a nomination statement in English ? Looking here I can see quite a lot of news articles on the group and about 180+ articles in google news archives that at least mention them. perhaps the article is under the wrong name (should be CO2 Group) but I cannot see what the problem is. Appears to be ample reliable, independant sources talking about the company - Peripitus (Talk) 11:48, 24 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) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of coverage. [82]. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, article just needs some work. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:23, 3 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 delete. Wizardman 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AXAH[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of this software product - Altenmann >t 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 20#AXAH DRV. Previously a redirect to AHAH, deleted out of process by the AfD nom, listed at DRV, restored, unredirected, and now here at AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment AHAH has not a single word about AXAH. - Altenmann >t 07:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete, this is a neologism about existing 30-year-old technology masquerading as a new idea. Ronabop (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to AHAH, and I don't think it's entirely fair to call it a neologism, working in the web dev field I have heard this term used for some years now (although to be honest any AHAH or AXAH approach is much more likely to just be referred to, inaccurately, as "AJAX") --Stormie (talk) 05:08, 24 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) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It can't be merged or redirected to AHAH, because that article was itself deleted as a result of AfD. JIP | Talk 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any coverage of this term in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN No sources in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:13, 3 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 redirect to Scream (film series). JForget 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scream 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom on behalf of User:Micwa Skier Dude (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF, this page should be removed until filming has taken place. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note page history, this has been redirected off-and-on to Scream (film series)#Scream 4 (2010). To closing admin, depending on result of discussion, this would be a logical redirect (w/protect?). Skier Dude (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scream (film series) as a WP:CBALL and viable search term. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Williamson has stated he has finished the script for 4 and will be doing 5, and that they have the three principals and Craven is returning. None of this stops this page from being section redirected until cameras roll. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I want to say that I would like it to be redirected and not deleted. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:NFF. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can I go ahead and redirect this? What are we waiting for? Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should have just been redirected in the first place (as it clearly fails WP:NFF) and protection requested rather than AfD'd but now that it has, I guess it needs to be closed by an admin. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I filed this AfD I had it in mind to just delete it, then I thought well it would be better to redirect. So now I have to wait for admin approval to redirect? Sounds like I really messed this up. :-\ --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Not really. Consensus seems fairly unanimous as to what should happen. It's nice to have a discussion sometimes... Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Sources show the film is going to be released by 2011, but it's not even in production yet. No point in letting an article sit with rumors for a year or so; and there's also no point in deleting an article that will eventually qualify to have its own article. I think redirecting is best. Geeky Randy (talk) 01:55, 5 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 delete. There is a clear enough consensus here. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Scott[edit]

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

Person is not notable--at least if you believe, like I do, that a Grandmaster/mistress of a Rosicrucean order is not automatically notable. I do not know when the "long walks on the beach" information was added, and that nonsense alone is not enough to delete the article of course: the non-notability of the subject is. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable puff piece. Newt ^(winkle) 07:18, 22 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) 00:02, 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 Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends In Village Development Bangladesh[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organisation except for an entry in Google Books. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 00:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "FIVDB" rather than the full name you may have more luck. pablo_hablo. 09:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get 66 Google Books hits for the article title, not just one, and many of them appear to have significant coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 24 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) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 01:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [83], [84], [85], and [86]. There is a lot of snippet views for both the name and FIVDB that look like significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources described above. Andrea105 (talk) 18:01, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bether-online[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreleased video game. The only sources given are the company's own website, and a site which describes itself as "Supporting small indie games developers", making it a possibly biased, and therefore unreliable source. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:43, 23 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) 00:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an absense of coverage, significant or otherwise. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 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 merge to Don't Stop Believin'. Black Kite 17:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stop Believin' (Glee song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Stop Believin' (Glee song)

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

Delete. There is sufficient information about this cover at Don't Stop Believin'#In popular culture, and typically, cover songs do not get their own article unless it is absolutely necessary. Don't Stop Believin' is not large enough of an article to require splitting of any kind. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Weak Merge - Cover song which does not require it's own article. --Pboyd04 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So User:Pokerdance, it is ok to fight for keeping articles such as "Fashion" which was never released nor charted yet delete something that was sucesfull in four national charts. I understand why, as the article is not large enough but there are a lot of notable aspects on this page which have been put to use.• вяαdcяo chat 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokerdance? Both you and User:Legolas2186 refer to me as a sockpuppet of this user for no apparent reason, and I am getting really sick of it. I am not a sockpuppet of any user, and if both of you continue with your incivility, I may have to seek administrative action. This is outright disrespectful behavior. But this is not the place to discuss. If you wish to continue with your sockpuppet allegations (which may I add are completely false), take it up on my talk page, not here.

And I have no editing history at Fashion (Heidi Montag song), and I don't get why you would care to bring that up. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Chase wc ⁹¹ 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real reason for the page. A cover of Journey's song from one episode of a TV show deserves its own page? Doubtful at best... Doc9871 (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly fails WP:MUSIC. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chart peaks and week-ending download totals are already included in the "Don't Stop Believin" article. No need to split off this version with a separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 10:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Don't Stop Believin - Wp policy states that cover versions of songs don't get their own article. See Wp:Articles for deletion/Hero (X Factor release) and Wp:Articles for deletion/You've Got The Love for other examples. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: There is no reason to keep this page--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know of any policy for cover songs being ineligible, rather it happens often. This version of the song by far passes the chart requirements of WP:NSONG; just because it was on a TV show doesn't make it ineligible. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The cover is notable and should be kept, but it doesn't deserve its own article and should be merged to Don't Stop Believin'. See the discussion re: Run (Leona Lewis song), the arguments for which hold good for this one. lone_twin (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge - This cover has received a fair amount of press attention, and as such is noteworthy; however, covers are not worthy of their own articles as mentioned above. This should me merged with the main entry. It should be noted that under wp:music it meets criteria 1, 2, and 3, only one of which is needed. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 11:13, 3 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.