< 1 October	3 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin e miller[edit]

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

Lengthy article lacking references that makes claims of notability; however, unable to find GHits or GNEWS to support claims except for the book and him being a pastor. Article appears to have been copied and pasted from an existing source. May fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this article be kept, it should be moved so that its title conforms with article naming standards on Wikipedia. Also, the copy/paste assertion appears to have been a function of length - numerous grammatical and other stylistic errors in the original text lead me to suspect that it was an original composition (or, at the very least, copy/pasted from a source less than conversant in English grammar, spelling, and style). I offer no opinion concerning the subject's notability. Ray^Talk 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also agree that the name must be changed if the article is kept. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. The only "source" in the article is a promo page for his book, and the only ghits I found were that page and his page in LinkedIn, where he is described as an Army chaplain. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find a thing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is questionable. Not enough sources/references to support. Cannot find much info on Goggle. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poklen[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline or any other guidelines to inclusion in Wikipedia. Only two sources are given, urbandictionary and a blog, neither of which are remotely reliable. A Google News search didn't uncover anything either.

Wikipedia isn't for things made up in a day, or for an essay about random social circles backed up by zero solid data. tedder (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, by one of the contributors to the article, makes a fairly solid case for deletion per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G - self-confessed original research and not verifiable. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original author has made a note on the discussion page asking other contributors to give sources verifiable by any party that is interested, but sadly there are no legible sources that can be provided, and such is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahizwan 88 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an observation or a delete !vote? Certainly it appears sources haven't been found. tedder (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncle G said it all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable references provided except a blog / cannot find any relaible on except from The Urban Dictionary [1]. Author admitted that facts are based on personal opinions which totally fails Wikipedia's guidelines. This article belongs in a blog or a personal website and not on Wikipedia. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidshare networks[edit]

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

Delete - I find plenty of WP:RS for RapidShare (which has its own article). But nothing for this separate company called Rapidshare networks which operates a site RapidShare.net that relies on the website of RapidShare. It seems easy to confuse the two, but this article is about the relatively unknown one and as far as I can tell there are no reliable sources documenting notability. To add further to the confusion I have found another website called rsfind.com which seems to be a very similar copy of rapidshare.net as well: [2] And I also found another website called rapidsharedata.com which seems to be a very similar copy of rapidshare.net as well: [3] All 3 of these sites seem to be mirrors of each other and all play on the confusion with the real rapidshare.com. Additionally all 3 of the sites do not have contact addresses on their websites. They just utilize an e-mail form. So it is quite likely that all 3 websites are the same operation and are engaged in attempting to build traffic through confusion with the company Rapidshare. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources covering this. However, I did find eveidence that this may be part of a spamming campaign. The same text as this article also appears posted here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am not sure this is a completely separate site, and could not be included in the main article. That article describes a considerable dispute about what the actual authentic site is. It would seem best to combine the articles, unless someone can find a definitive third party account to justify separating them. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is pretty clear to me that it is an entirely separate operation that is attempting to play on confusion with the primary website. If you take a look at the domain registration of the actual website (rapidshare.com) the European company that operates it is very forthcoming with complete registration details: [4]. However if you look at the domain registration for the one in this article (rapidshare.net) it is a hidden anonymous domain registration (which is much less common for notable companies that have operating offices, etc.) based out of Canada: [5]. The other mirrors of the site also have anonymous/fake contact details: [6] and [7]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A merge is not appropriate. The two entities are not related. Rapidshare is a file hosting service. Rapidshare.net (Rapisdshare Networks) just indexes the file son Rapidshare. It's like saying Google is related to Microsoft because Google has indexed files on Microsoft's web site. Unless there is evidence to support them being related operations, a merge would not make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a very good analogy Whpq. But to take it one step further it would be as if Google ran a website called Microsoft.net and indexed the files on Microsoft.com! I agree a merge is definitely not appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Seems clear to me that merger is inappropriate. Tim Song (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Tower Falls[edit]

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

Declined speedy, however I can find no reliable third-party sources for this band, so in my view they fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this band sufficient to pass WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Gongshow ^⊕ 05:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reliable sources to establish notability. The university press doesn't cut it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Tower Falls will be signed to a record label in the coming months. If the page is deleted now, but more credible sources are found, can the Bell Tower Falls page be re-created? Thanks! Bloodwire2004 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)John KiernanBloodwire2004 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, an article can be recreated when there are reliable sources to establish notability. Note that just being signed to a record label would not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find. If reliable sources cover this band in the future recreate the article then. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jino kang[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Contested prod. I can't find any third-party source for this person sufficient to pass WP:BIO. 0 relevant Gnews hit. Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article does not pass WP:RS, and therefore also fails WP:BIO per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources relevant to writing a bio. Kevin (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't delete this article, this Master is for real. I've trained under Master Jino Kang for over 5 years and he's taught Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do for over 25 years. He's the son of Grandmaster Myung S. Kang who was one of the founders of the original International Hapkido Federation under Jae Nam Myung. He has operated his school and federation in San Francisco, California for over 20 years ( http://www.hapkidousa.com ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there are no independent sources that assert notability. Making claims is one thing, backing them up is another, and that's why this article has problems with notability. ArcAngel (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please do not delete this article. My family has been training with Master Jino Kang for 7+ years at his San Francisco studio. We have been studying Hapkido martial arts. (user:actual student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.240.225 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[General trolling/attack message removed] --HAPBJJ04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentReply to above. Please calm down and please control you emotions. We are discussing here in a proper manner, not shouting or yelling. Next time you comment, do not write in capital letters as it is unpleasant to read and we feel like if we were attacked. Thanks! Jolenine (Talk, My Contribs) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing worth keeping, looks like spam and individual promotion with no sources to back those claims up. The legalese spam posted here by possibly the creator of the article further hurts its credibility in my point of view. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are assertions of notability in the article, those assertions are not discussed in reliable sources. Actually I can not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 18 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Motown Republic Artists[edit]

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

Redundant. We already have List of Cash Money Records artists and other similar lists for each Universal Motown label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where is the separate list for Republic? I have no objection to this being split by label into separate lists, but if Republic doesn't have dedicated lists, this shouldn't be deleted, but can be retitled and trimmed. Motown has a better list elsewhere.--Michig (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new list should be made for Republic, then. I'll get on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time - same for AFD below. JForget 23:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 18 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Music Group artists[edit]

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

"Universal Music Group" is not a label, but rather an aggregation of labels. None of these artists is signed to Universal Music Group proper, but one of its actual labels — Universal, Mercury, MCA, what have you. Therefore, this list is incomplete, misleading and redundant, as other lists such as List of Mercury Records artists already exist to cover all of the Universal Music Group labels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that listing by label would be better. UMG has a lot of labels [8] and ownership has changed over the years. Perhaps the information here could be split off to seperate articles before deletion.--Michig (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Michig's content, all of the Universal labels have their own "List of x artists" already. There's nothing worth splitting off. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially stupid question Would it be possible/worthwhile to turn this into some sort of "UMG owns a lot of labels and here's their artist lists" disambiguation page? Not being very knowledgeable about the music business I couldn't have told you no one signs to UMG proper, and I'd like to think I'm not the only one out there. Unless of course that'd be hopelessly complex because of mergers or something. BryanG (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As if By Magic[edit]

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

Future non-notable single, fails WP:NSONGS. There's only one source for it, but more links should be added to assert its notability. PROD was taken down when the reference was added. Maybe later, when the single becomes a charted single or something, the article may be written again. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 15:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is getting better now. A few more links and it should be OK with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. However, Notability is still an issue here. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Musique had an interview with La Roux, by mail. Every messages have been verified by La Roux's manager : Tony Beard. The information is now on Ukmix, Buzzjack, and DigitalSpy. What's wrong?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caillat9 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Mr. Unsigned above, those are not reliable sources, and they say nothing besides "it's a single". Come back when there's more to say. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time. JForget 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information provided doesn't pass WP:RS. Sure, it's got a concrete release date, but the song didn't even chart. And of course, it can't chart right now, because it's not yet released. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ray Chandler[edit]

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

Limited notability, most likely notable only for the murder, seems to be a one event case. I have tried to look for extra sources to build on the article, but I could find nothing in Google Books, or Google News. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Re-listed for final time in order to have more discussion/consensus. JForget 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By our current standards, this is not notable. A rather routine single murder, with the customary debate about the applicability of the death penalty. I'd be prepared to argue that our standards should be relaxed a little, but not that this should be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments presented in favor of keeping the article do not address the issue of notability. Therefore, consensus supports deletion here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of Plymouth[edit]

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

The article and the search results indicate no notability of this event, if it in fact exists. Sandstein 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obviously non-notable, no significant coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no idea what the article is about, and have little interest in finding out. But Plymouth is the sort of place where alternative cultures thrive (the normal ones are so far away) and I think this has something to say about the town. Give it time, it might get re-written to be comprehensible and spark off a collection of similar articles. We can't just go round nominating things we are not interested in, or I'd afd everything about golf, for a start.--Brunnian (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much improved. I was only able to learn that this was about a dancing competition from the categories. If kept, it should become something like King of Plymouth (dance competition). If the competition is annual (as claimed), I would have expected a list of winners, and for at least some to be notable enough in other contexts to warrnat an article of theri own. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having read over it quickly, I just cannot find any consensus at all for deletion. MuZemike 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Salvatore Harmon[edit]

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

No sources at all, and totally fails WP:NPOV. Questionable notability. U-Mos (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From article creator user:Creatcher

This article was nominated for deletion out of a debate on the unreferenced material that was added by a vandal on September 24th 2009. After having my attempts to undo the vandalism reverted several times by user U-Mos I tried to open a discussion with the user (on their talk page) who was reverting everything I did to remove the vandalism. At this point the user nominated the article for deletion because I disagreed that his revisions were unreferenced and potentially libel.

This wiki article has been actively maintained since May of 2007 and has gone through several revisions. It conforms to the standards for biographies for living persons. I feel that the user U-Mos is simply attacking the article out of spite over the subject of the potential revisions. U-Mos reverted the article 3 times in under a few hours before nominating it for deletion. In fact, based on the talk page for the user U-Mos it is apparent that they regularly have this issue.Creather (talk) 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Update September 28 2009

I have added verifiable references to much of the content of this wiki article. The accusation of 'questionable notability' seems a bit much considering a simple search for the artist's name reveals and extensive amount of material.Creather (talk) 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I object on the strongest terms any suggestion that I nominated this article out of spite, or that I have some kind of pattern of unconstructive behaviour (yes, I have been blocked for 24 hours in the recent past for breaking 3RR, but I have learnt from that mistake). This nomination came because of the quality of the article, regardless of the edits I had made to it before (which were absolutely not three reverts, but a revert and two further edits on the same text in an effort to find a compromise). Creatcher: this place is for discussing whether the article should remain or not. You've added some sources, excellent. That's the way to go about getting this kept. There's still the issue of NPOV, and there is still questionable notability (google results does not mean notability. Has he been covered in mainstream publications/news outside the recent Thom Yorke video? I don't know. Perhaps he is notable, but the article doesn't make it seem so.). Please discuss that here and leave the issues you clearly have with me at the door, or on my talk page if you so desire. U-Mos (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article claims that Mr. Harmon's work has been reviewed "most recently in the LA Times, TimeOut London, Chicago Tribune, Flux Magazine, Signal to Noise, Wire Magazine, New York Times, Pop Matters, All About Jazz, Downbeat, Jazztimes, Point of Departure, Foxy Digitalis, among others." The LA Times review appears here, byline Howard Reich of the Chicago Tribune. A search in Proquest brought up the Tribune review, but nothing for the LA Times. I also did not get any results Raymond Salvatore Harmon (All three words, not in quotes) in the New York Times, either through Proquest or at the NYT website. The other publications are not available via database, so I was unable to verify them one way or the other (A cursory google search with Mr. Harmon's name and the name of the publications mostly brough up noise and wikipedia mirrors, but I didn't have time to search thoroughly enough to conclude whether the sources exist or not). His work is reviewed by Foxy Digitalis, but my CD is reviewed there too, so in terms of establishing notability, I'd be wary.

I'm on the fence, re: notability. If the article survives, if definitely needs POV work and shoring up of its references. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts Even a simple google search reveals an incredible amount of references to Harmon's work. His films have shown internationally at dozens of film festivals, he has been the director of several cultural organizations, his writing has been published in academic journals and he has lectured extensively at universities. How much more "notability' is required for a wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after further research. I've been searching google for "Raymond Salvatore Harmon" (in quotes), and in the first six pages, I've found, in addition to his personal website, the WP article in question, his myspace & facebook pages, and a whole slew of pages with uploaded videos of work he's done (none useful for establishing notability, if I understand the guidelines correctly), the following:
- This interview on Bad Lit. It calls itself "the journal of underground film," but it's a blog (though apparently a respected one).
- A show listing in Free Williamsburg, also a blog, but of the "local free underground rag" type.
- A piece on him from Center Stage Chicago. This article the has identical list of works he's supposed to have been reviewed in that I tried to verify above. Where the list appeared first, I didn't attempt to check. Here's C.S. Chicago's about page.
- An interview in PEEL Magazine. PEEL was founded in 2003 [http://www.pe3l.com/?page_id=2 "as a 1/2 size black-and-white zine documenting street art with a focus on stickers."
- a press release from Inspire Fine Art for a shoe he did in 2007, on the Frugal Fun website.
- An article about one of his exhibitions in Art Slant. Their about page is here.
- http://www.independentexposure.com/filmmaker/893/Raymond_Salvatore_Harmon.html A page about him from Independent Exposure 08] The write-up is there, but he does not appear to have won any awards.
- Three search results for his name from the San Francisco Weekly website. All three are hits for his names in film listings. No additional content.

I searched again for his name (full name, without quotes), in Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest databases to which I have access, and besides the Chicago Tribune article mentioned above, found nothing. As an underground artist, he's obviously much more likely to appear in small, nichey, online publications than established mainstream ones, but I personally found him almost exclusively in the former, and never in the latter. Without wishing to disparage his work, I feel I can say that based on my research that while he has a large presense online, he fails to appear in sources which establish his notability. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions

So in order for a person to be notable they have to appear in a search of a commercially owned press search engine like Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest? What about the Harmon article in PAJ, published by MIT press? Or reviews of his work in magazines like Time Out, Signal to Noise, Wire Magazine, All About Jazz, Chicago Tribune and many others? Surely publications that can be bought at a Barnes and Nobles qualifies as more than "underground media"? The PAJ article alone establishes notability based on the wiki requirements.

To quote the wiki page:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

Of which the references sited above (PEEL magazine, PAJ, Internet Movie Database etc) qualify Harmon under these terms. Creatcher (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person's response to additional questions: I wouldn't say someone has to appear in one of the databases to be notable, but since they contain known and established newspapers, magazines, and scholarly journals, I find them a useful tool. I can be confident that the information I find in them comes from reliable sources. I didn't mean to condemn Harmon, just to report that I didn't find him in any of the databases I searched. Obviously, they're not perfect or all-inclusive, since they don't have PAJ, Down Beat, or Wire Magazine. If they had, I would have been able to verify his appearance in them.

The sources I did find via google search I felt were not sufficiently reliable to determine Harmon's notability, based on my understanding of WP's reliable sources page and its reliable source examples page. It's entirely possible that I was being too harsh on them, and I welcome others' interpretations.

For the three examples you ask specifically about, in my own opinion, I do not consider the Peel source reliable, since it's a website based on a 'zine. I consider PAJ a reliable source as an academic journal published by MIT. However, since Harmon is the author of the article I think it's problematic for determining notability. I don't feel confident making a judgment of imdb. The reliable source examples page says "certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable," but my experience here seems to indicate it's reliable for verifying facts, but not for establishing notability. I could be mistaken about that.

I apologize if my previous post sounded like I was attacking, insulting, or dismissing Harmon or any editor here. It was not my intent. My only intent was to present the results of my research for others to interpret, and to provide my interpretation of the same. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments No offense was taken but I do feel that the entire reason this article was nominated for deletion in the first place has more to do with Harmon's recent Thom Yorke/Banksy prank music video (and it's having offended some wiki users) than any real concern over the quality of this article.

As well as contributing an article to issue 91 of the PAJ Harmon is discussed as part of the editors article on esoterism in the art world in the same issue. The other issue is that at the moment any google search for Harmon yield's an enormous amount of links to reviews of the Banksy/Yorke video piece - which tends to bury any constructive links to actual reviews of his work/interviews/etc. There is certainly more than enough online data to establish notability, one just has to dig a bit deeper than the first 100 returns of a google search.

Beyond the many articles relating to Harmon's work there are also several major film festivals who have screened Harmon's films and list them online. Notably the Copenhagen International Documentary Film Festival which screen Harmon's work in 2007 and 2008. Harmon was also interviewed in a recent issue of Time Out London (2009 Summer Festival guide) in relation to his directorship of the Equinox Festival.

Again, though the article could use more input in terms of references I strongly feel that there is more than enough evidence available to establish notability for Harmon and his work. He meets all the basic criteria outlined in the wiki qualifications for notability from several different perspectives. Individual interpretation of the criteria for notability aside the letter of the rules outlined are met in full.Creatcher (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Marin[edit]

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

No indication that this poet is notable. It's not hard to publish a book, and being nominated by your publisher for an award probably isn't hard either, unless your publisher hates you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May have local notability, but insufficient notability overall. Kevin (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasserstrom[edit]

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

Contested Prod, Fails WP:COMPANY Google News reveals no coverage of this company RP459 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an old company, which argues in its favor, but the article does not assert notability aside from its existence.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long established national company, The basic facts are verified by the its own web page, and with a search, under the proper heading ,"Wasserstrom Company", Google News Archive gives a good number of sources [9], including the Washington Post, and an award. (Note however the GNews now includes Display advertisements in its coverage, so the actual hits must be looked at every one of them, not merely counted). Even were the good GNews sources not there, a search for RS in print sources is needed before concluding it is unsourceable. I remind people about WP:BEFORE, which ought to be required. I changed the article title to the actual name. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Typically we don't use the subject's own webpage to verify and, in this case, ratify its notability. That aside, this appears to be a notable company, and I see very little to suggest that this article is a veiled attempt at promotion. More important, there are reliable sources, albeit spread out, that reference the company in a notable way. No prejudice to the nom at the time of nomination, but I think it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no offense taken I never mind if something I nominated stays because someone found something I did not... RP459 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captain Beefheart. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Blakely[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who played for a short time in a band that went on to become well known. His brief participation should be discussed in the articles on the band itself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Rothorpe (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Captain Beefheart. What little content the article has would easily fit in the Captain Beefheart article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed above. Crafty (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge, entirely non-notable. Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. Those commenting on the article's talk page are arguing "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plugless Power[edit]

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

non notable electric vehicle. Ygosons (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments on this AfD topic on the article discussion page - Talk:Plugless_Power. - Pbgiv (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No argument to keep given in two weeks. Deleting this BLP as uncontested requested deletion. NW (Talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bortolotti[edit]

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

While it is possible that the projects Bortolotti produced are notable, that notability does not flow to him. I see no sources that have sufficient depth to write a well rounded biography. Kevin (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alaney2k (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asilient anomie[edit]

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

Essay like article that has strong overtones of original research and synthesis. I am unable to locate any reliable sources referring to this concept. Crafty (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Title is a total protologism. Content is original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google shows no hits whatsoever for the term "asilient anomie" except the Wikipedia article. In fact there is no such word as "asilient". Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therapy (The Alchemist song)[edit]

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

Contested prod. No indication that this meets notability guidelines. Billboard shows only one song by this artist has charted, and this isn't it. RadioFan (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Unlikely search term, so a redirect doesn't make much sense to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - Not seeing evidence of notability. Redirects are cheap and may help readers, but on the other hand, Niteshift may be right that the complexity of this particular title may not make it all that useful. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term; no point redirecting. Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Contested prod on basis "dePROD, reason (never played in pro league) invalid (aston villa is pro)" However soccerbase or any other source fails to mention any appearance for Aston Villa. this article confirms he only ever played non-league. one article in a local paper does not pass WP:GNG and he fails WP:ATHLETE ClubOranje^T 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^T 05:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~But there may be~~ There is borderline notability. ~~This link claims professional and International matches played, but it is far from a useable reliable source~~. The system works :-) --Triwbe (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Gary Fitzpatrick who played in one league match for Leicester City in the 1989–90 season. It's unclear whether this is the same player as the one in the article here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Birmingham Mail article linked above states that he was once on Leicester's books and went on to VS Rugby.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As does this. That also makes two reliable in-depth independent sources about him, which I'd suggest means he passes the GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter half of the career of the guy on this page matches with the details of the guy in the linked articles and the stats page, so I believe it is the same guy and the bit on this page about him having started his career with Villa is in error -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Youth caps aren't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE anyway Spiderone 08:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per new evidence Spiderone 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new evidence shows he looks to meet WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable football players, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to this page [10] He has played competition football vs Sheffield United it has Gary Fitzpatrick as making his debut against Sheffield United in competition. But it doesn't state which game or date he played know, so it's very weak. We could always email the website for an answer. But it could be someone else with the same name for all I know. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a fully pro league and also passes GNG by virtue of two linked articles above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles linked above show that the player is the same person who played in the league for Leicester, so passes WP:ATHLETE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep footballer passes WP:ATHLETE having played at a fully-professional level. --Jimbo^[online] 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Princesses 2[edit]

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

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

Seemingly non-notable compilation albums, lacking reliable, significant, and non-trivial coverage by my search. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant non-trivial coverage for either album. Gongshow ^⊕ 05:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not even a note about who even releases these. For all we know, this is some kid burning these discs on their PC at home. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One search answers that question. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Allow me to insert foot into mouth... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for these albums. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sozmusician[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soz (rapper)

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

Non-notable musician. No sources by reliable secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guideline or any of the musician criteria. Only significant edits are from a single purpose account suggesting a possible conflict of interest. Optigan13 (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are albums by the artist:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a couple of thoughts:

I suspect the creator of these articles meant to use the title Soz (musician), not Sozmusician. If you're searching for information about him, that's a more likely search term.
I think that Sozmusician probably could have been speedied under ((db-g4)) based on the previous deletion (which I've added a link to, above). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Data Archive[edit]

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

No notability. "Tube Data Archive" has lots of mirrors, which don't work as "independent from the subject" and a non-notable association which gave them an award. Neither the association or the award are considered notable, and the association isn't really a reliable source. Other coverage is sorely lacking, and the required standard under WP:GNG isn't met here. Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it's the most complete resource on the subject (trust me, I ran one of its mirrors once). But I must admit that once the technology was abandoned outside the U.S. (and even there is quite a specialty) all current knowledge is hosted on hobbyist sites and reviewed by hobbyists, so formally even Frank's is "not notable". Frank won't get an MTV award but who really cares? NVO (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 September 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 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great idea, and I like it, but a dozen mirrors does nto meet notability, it just has a dozen mirrors. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mugurdy Search Engine[edit]

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

non notable search engine website. Johnfamson (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; it is as notable as - if not more than - a number of the search engines listed on Web_search_engine. The article is very toned down and neutral, and was created for inclusion on Web_search_engine as per EdJohnston (talk)'s comments. Plenderj (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. We need third-party, published, reliable sources. Can you give a link to the comments you are talking about? Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding the comments, see the history page for Web search engine 19:44, 17 September 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (19,656 bytes) (Rm Mugurdy. Please create a Wikipedia article on this product before adding an entry for it here) (undo). Regarding third party sources, there have been some articles written in Irish print media e.g. Half page Irish Examiner 4th of September Page 27, The Sunday Business Post, The Sunday Times. We are making these available online as we speak and these will be cited in the article presently Plenderj (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am adding the references to print media now on Mugurdy Search Engine Plenderj (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Relisted for final time in order to achieve consensus. JForget 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article on Silicon Republic appears to be a press release. Business and Leadership is a duplicate of the PR. There is one article that we might be able to use, but it indicates that it might actually get going. Engine is still in beta. I don't see any notability yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep The Sunday Business Post article seems usable, and together with the others indicates notability--but possibly we should userify it until the actual release? DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A userfy wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps - but the SBP article you point out still outlines the fact that it's beta. That's where I go delete here, DGG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can scan the printed newspaper articles in question, but don't know if I'd be allowed to host them online... perhaps I could email them to someone to verify?--Plenderj (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rocky V. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 09:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a single film character that doesn't assert notability. All of the information is already covered within Rocky V. TTN (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect it back to the film then, which if i'm not mistaken, is how the last afd was decided. I'm not sure if it was even necessary to bring it here. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted from a redirect twice, and I doubt that anyone insistent on keeping it is going to respect an AfD that old. TTN (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Unreferenced and no claim of notability. Possible search term, however; redirect is appropriate. Also, delete non-free image. --EEMIV (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough info out there (not even counting LexisNexis, which would really make this a no-brainer).[11][12] It's going to be a while before a boxing/rocky/morrison/GA writing editor comes along, but there is no deadline. Some editors may not be old enough, but Tommy Gunn and Morrison were a big deal 20 years ago. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocky V. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tommy Gunn (disambiguation), which should be given a link to Rocky V for the character. Powers ^T 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the notability policy. Notability is established by coverage in multiple WP:RSes, and I have added two the the one that already existed. There are others as well. Deleting or redirecting this would basically be a miscarriage of policy. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources. How significant is the coverage in the listed books? Powers ^T 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paragraphs. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to prevent recreation. Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Gibraltar-related articles[edit]

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

Too small of a list to be useful. All of these are already linked from Gibraltar and/or Category:Gibraltar. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar/publicwatchlist is much more comprehensive and updated frequently. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 22:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The project watchlist is not a WP article, but part of a WP project. The value of lists (and probably the only one), compared to categories, is that they can contain redlinks, and this one contains none. If kept, rename to List of Gibraltar-related articles, but probably better not to have it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine per WP:CLN, just needs some editing love; although I wish MediaWiki could just generate these automatically from cats. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not appropriate per WP:CLN due to its broad scope and also because the topic is a self reference. This is the proper topic for a category as it organizes material but without an encyclopedic analysis of it. The biggest difference between lists and categories are that lists are encyclopedia articles while categories are not. This "article" is more like an index than an article, so the contents should be categorized instead of listified. The only way this article would be appropriate is if the topic of the article, the "index of gibralter-related articles" itself was notable, and the collection of our gibralter-related articles has not been commented upon in reliable third, party sources. Them From Space 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What if it were trivially renamed to "Index of Gibraltar-related topics"? No self-ref then. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good faith contribution, but information completely duplicated by the category. But I'm sure contributions would be welcomed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need yet another way to categorise our articles. We have categories, we have lists, have have navigational templates - we don't need alphabetical indices. The navigational tempate for this topic knocks this index for six, by the way. Fences&Windows 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eckard Rabe[edit]

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

WP:BLP failing wp:bio: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. $P i k i w y n$ ^talk 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a lousy article, but the subject is apparently notable enough. There are enough Google News hits to evidence notability, even though the best sources appear likely to be print/offline. The online sources, thin as they may be, indicate the subject passes WP:ENT, and we don't delete articles just because finding the sources needed to expand beyond stub-length is hard work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix this stub about this "soapie" star; see [13]. 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dibidogs[edit]

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

Yet to be broadcast Finnish children's animation. I cannot find any reliable sources to support claims of notability. Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:CRYSTAL. Crafty (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because I can't find any substantial content online (even in Finnish), but I would like to see the user who created it get a chance to be unblocked and try to work on the article in his user space. Even if it can't go back into mainspace right away, it might be able to form the basis for a future improved article once the cartoon series goes live. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a consensus forms to endorse deletion I would support the closing administrator userfying the article. However, it should be noted that the article creator has been indeffed. Crafty (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as one would expect so far ahead of release there are no independent sources to establish notability. Most of the Ghits link to a "Youtube game" of the same name, and take one to a short animated clip which has only had about 40 views. I'm not sure about userfying because of the COI issue. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the author Dibidogs (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a promotional/group account, they cannot comment here; I have offered to copy here any comment they care to leave on their talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked on Google and I cannot find anything that matches the article. Warrah (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsbeuter[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) 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I (it was originally a nuisance-redirect to ncurses by User:Mac, which was easier to convert to a stub than delete) Tedickey (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Only 1 directory listing of just the name in a list in one book at Google Book search. Some Google hits, but hard to determine which might be reliable and independent sources. Nothing much at Google News Archive. Edison (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems non-notable to me. Haakon (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bip IRC Proxy[edit]

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

Not notable. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign anywhere this meets GNG, A search for any RS/sig coverage comes up empty. Triplestop x3 20:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the clear lack of notability as evidenced by a complete lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications! JBsupreme (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This is part of Quiet_Internet_Pager from Quiet Internet Pager. Forums are located here, QIP Forums You will most likely need to use Google Translate to view it, but it is out there, and several articles reference this software including The Gameguard Wikipedia entry. --Apb91781 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) — Apb91781 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and expand. Enough sources, actively used software, prominent in it's own category:[14][15][16][17]. Nominator is not familiar with chat/messenger related topic and fails to provide compelling reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and so what makes you the expert? The basis for determining notability on Wikipedia is non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications (hint: BLOGS DON'T COUNT) -- this subject lacks said coverage hence the article can and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the Hartwell blog, if he is indeed an expert; otherwise merge as Apb suggests. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on IP comment basis, and fact that article shouldn't be nominated just because its unsourced. That doesn't mean unsourceable. --Milowent (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find enough material to validate the features and functionality of the software so that the article would satisfy WP:V, however I am not able to find enough material outside of the Hartwell blog for the purposes of WP:N. My own preference for a short borderline stub article such as this would be to merge it into a larger Comparison or parent article, but as of this moment I'm not really sure that we have a proper target article where it could be merged. Two possible options would be Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bouncers or even possibly BNC (software). I'm thinking given some of the similar issues with regards to other IRC-bouncer software articles it may in fact be best to create a "Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bouncers" comparison article where these can be merged and redirected. The later "BNC (software)" article is probably best left as an overview of the subject of the concept of a network connection "bouncer". --Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - G7. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Out Fit In Be Heard![edit]

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

Non-notable theater production by non-notable author per WP:GNG, unreferenced, no trace of it can be found online, possible WP:HOAX, prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - creator has now blanked the page twice, and it's tagged for G7 speedy. MuffledThud (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dargaville[edit]

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

Notability is at least unclear; searches turn up lots of library holdings and publications by him but almost nothing to suggest any third party interest. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, writing plenty of books doesn't alone make someone notable, and we need third-party coverage. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been a "professor" at a Chinese University and I'm darn sure I'm not notable yet. No indication of any commentary on this supposedly prolific creative individual. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO due to lack of coverage in WP:RS, etc. Verbal chat 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy wp:bio,no third-party sources: he isn't notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence that topic meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Purported 'references' are vague to the point of being useless (generally lacking specific dates for periodicals, and authors to tell which are by him & which are about him). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh please. Moreschi (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not meeting WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Greenberg[edit]

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

Delete - Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. The majority of the sources originally cited are citations to the article subject's own webpage. I have searched and not found any WP:RS that confirm any sort of WP:N claims. I have attempted to prune the article per WP:BLP and there does not appear to be much in terms of notability. A position as a director reporting to someone famous does not constitute notability. Additionally the bulk of the citations that are not self-citations do not establish any type of notability for the article's subject. They instead focus on establishing notability of other people that work with the article's subject. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His book has only three citations in Google scholar and a handful more in Google books. His position at NYPL does not confer notability and he fails WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thanks DGG (see below) for doing some extra digging. Actually, I have just checked WorldCat, through a subscription version, and the book is in 501 libraries worldwide. With that many holdings, I think this is a weak keep based on meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Not a clear keep because of the low citation impact of the book (3 citations on GS), but certainly a weak keep.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete probably not quite notable yet. It's quite possible for the head of a major department at a great library to be notable, but it certainly isn't automatic. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another academic bio created way too early. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The assistant director position is tempting (but it's only assistant). Overall, however, it doesn't seem to reach major influence in academic work (yet). LotLE×talk 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A bit more sourcing has been added, both publications and administrative roles. That plus some stylistic cleanup lets me discern greater notability than I could see at first pass. This tips it to the keep side. LotLE×talk 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In relation to below comment by Tenmei, the argument seems to run foul of the fact that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The notability of David Ferriero seems well argued below, but having a notable person say highly positive things about another person does not of itself confer notability on the latter person. Measuring Greenberg himself against WP:PROF and other notability standards seems to come up a bit short of WP notability standards (unless I have missed some other claim to notability or overlooked a relevant standard). LotLE×talk 17:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LotLE -- Aha, the shortcut to WP:NOTINHERITED was a welcome gesture. It helps me begin to parse this more finely. The word "measuring" was particularly good. I hadn't quite recognized that I was conflating two measuring standards which needed to be assessed separately. Let me think about this. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My reasons for creating this article were not simplistic in the manner suggested by David Eppstein and Eric Yurken. These two critics conclude that this article must fail because it's not written about a hypothetical someone else. Like ConcernedVancouverite, they appear to have mind some sort of theoretical check-off list which has nothing to do with what I've actually written about Josh Greenberg. Who can wonder that I'm more comfortable with the nuanced reasons for deletion which are posted by the others in this thread -- "not quite notable yet" and "doesn't seem to reach major influence in academic work (yet)."

Fundamentally, the subject of this article is notable solely because David Ferriero identifies Josh Greenberg as notable. That's the bottom-line which caused me to draft this article. This stub has been prepared for others like me who wonder who is Joshua Greenberg and what is Ferriero talking about when he mentions him.

Ferriero's asserted opinion becomes -- ipse dixit -- good and sufficient rationale for retaining this article. In other words, I'm arguing that Greenberg is notable even if Ferriero's assessment were a bare assertion fallacy in another context. In Ferriero's area of expertise, his opinion has stand-alone credibility for the purposes of assessing this stub for notability.

Ferriero explains that Greenberg was hired to "not only shape the digital library but think about where our users are and ways of getting NYPL in their faces." -- Oder, Norman. "NYPL Reorganization Coming," Library Journal (October 1, 2007). Vol. 132, Issue 16, p. 12.

equals ------>

Ferriero asserts that something about Greenberg is sufficiently notable for the stub article to exist.

Ferriero explains that his greatest achievement was luring Greenberg away from George Mason University and retaining him at NYPL for a year and a half. -- WebWise Conference on Libraries and Museums in the Digital World, Ferriero comments in panel discussion moderated by digitization expert from the MacArthur Foundation, streaming video, February 26-27, 2009; Hagel, John et al. (2005). The Only Sustainable Edge: Why Business Strategy Depends on Productive Friction and Dynamic Specialization, p. 11.

equals ------>

Ferriero says Greenberg is notable for reasons Ferriero seems to assume are self-evident.

I don't understand nor can I explain what Ferriero means when he assigns some kind of pivotal quality to Greenberg. In my view, the two statements above are enough to satisfy WP:Notability.

As you may know, Ferriero has been nominated to become the 10th Archivist of the United States. This is apples and oranges in terms of the general topic of libraries and librarians and a host of other relevant issues. Nevertheless, the nomination does enhance the weight to be accorded Ferriero when he asserts an opinion in the area of his expertise, i.e., that Greenberg is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia.

Talk:Joshua Greenberg has more in common with an inelegant game of Go rather than an engaged and thoughtful exchange of views. My failure to be persuasive in that venue was frustrating. This non-standard explanation attempts to make a similar argument in different words. This stub article should be retained.

I agree and accept that articles about living people need to be held to the highest standards. It is plain to me that the votes to delete this article are only intended to further these high standards. In such a dispute, everyone wins -- even if the end result happens to be that this article will be deleted until a better foundation can be developed. --Tenmei (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject's notability seems primarily based on his being an author of a book. If one could find some reviews of the book that might help determine the outcome, but at present, it should be deleted. -- kosboot (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As for the book, it is in 410 libraries according to WorldCat. I can find 2 reviews so far, Booklist v. 104 no. 13 (Mar. 1 2008) & Leonardo v 42, Number 1, February 2009. On the basis of that, changing to a weak keep. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The fact that the book have been subject to critical review means that we can writen an article about the book. This does not automatically imply that the author is noteable. Taemyr (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book does not create itself. By the same logic, Einstein would not be notable. Only his papers would be, since he could not “inherit” the notability of his papers. C’mon!--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Tea[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Some news sources exist, but they appear to be passing mentions, press-releases or paid placements. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are news articles on GNews - including Boston Globe, The Register Guard, and others. Some are brief mentions, some may be longer articles (now pay, unfortunately.) Still seems to meet the notability criteria IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the sourcing requirements of WP:CORP. The two sources available are pretty thin or semi-unavailable. The Globe article is locked behind a firewall and can't be used for verification, and the Register-Guard article is mostly about the growth of the parent company, not the brand of tea. There simply are not enough comprehensive sources to get decent verification of facts about the subject. Steven Walling 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nom being locked behind a paywall isn't a barrier to being used for a reference. My objection to using such things as a reference is that they are third party vanity. Common sense says that vanity pieces don't establish notability. If we accept that as notable then everything with 15 minutes of fame lives forever on Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's not a barrier to it being used as a reference, the policy states that's it's "by no means necessary". But when it's one of the only two available sources verifying notability of a subject, I think it's editorially fair to require something that we can all access as part of the fact checking process. Otherwise it's pretty much worthless. Steven Walling 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Excerpts from Boston Globe Article for review. The entire article is 251 words long, and is a product review. I won't post the whole thing in the interest of copyright, but here's a small sample for the group to consider: "Yogi Tea." Mar. 6, 1997. The Boston Globe

HIT OF THE WEEK: This energizing though caffeine-free beverage isn't really tea...it's an exotic blend of spices and herbs, packaged loose."

"This may sound time-consuming....The process is delightful, the results sublime."

"Our favorite is Original Yogi Tea, available at health food stores and natural supermarkets. Its ingredients are based on the teachings of Ayurveda, Indian holistic medicine."

"As Yogi Tea simmers on the stove, it emits a luscious fragrance that lingers for hours, part of why we love preparing it."

"Yogi Bhajan's Yogi Tea, 3 oz., about $3.50 in natural food stores, $1.99 at Trader Joe's. Box of 16 teabags, $2.99, at Cambridge Natural Foods and Bread & Circus." Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there are articles mentioning it in the LA Times, also behind a paywall, as well as other newspapers. I'm generally hesitant to use any one of these as proof - since it is difficult to know if the article merely mentioned the tea or was about it - but it did receive publicity in two national newspapers (the Globe and the LA Times.) I'm not counting anything appearing in a trade mag. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are news articles on this topic. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above, and three more here. While it has currently several issues, it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I thought this was notable, but the press mentions don't appear to be substantive so notability can't be proven by current Wikipedia standards. This content would be better redirected to the as-yet-unwritten article about the parent company Golden Temple, LLC (or whatever it should be named). The company is definitely notable with tons of reliable third-party news articles. Katr67 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G7. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ishaq[edit]

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

(Speedy turned down) I don't see anything here establishing notability - A-Space won an award from Time, not Ahmad. This is a resume. JaGa^talk 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this really could have been speedied; but this person is definitely not notable at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable --Karljoos (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, project manager is not a notable position. Hairhorn (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hurd[edit]

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

An autobiography of former Student Body President of Texas A&M University. In my opinion the article doesn't meet the notability criteria for people. Article was speedily deleted, recreated again, nominated as ((db-bio)). Creator, User:WilliamHurd, contested the nomination with this rationale: I have posted a biography of Will Hurd. The reason it was nominated for speedy deletion states that the article is about the person himself, and not his accomplishements. However, the majority of the article talks about his involvement in the Bonfire at Texans A&M University and his courageous work with counterrorism, etc which are all properly cited from newspaper articles and publications. I motion to keep this article. I think we need more opinions here. Vejvančický (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiography is strongly discouraged but not actually prohibited; however it makes us look extra hard at the claims of notability, and what we find here is that refs 1 to 5 are about his time as Student Body President at University ten years ago, when he helped answer the phones at the opening of a carpool service, and made several statements to the press after the bonfire disaster. Being in the media as a spokesman is not notability. His "courageous work with counterrorism" is not actually cited: the reference no. 5 beside it is another bonfire interview. The last reference is his campaign website as a candidate for Congress; that is not an independent source and anyway WP:POLITICIAN expressly provides that being a candidate does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find the significant coverage required by WP:GNG Chzz ► 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of real notability. When the only possible significant coverage is in self-published sources, there's no notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the second recent attempt at promoting Hurd. WP:POLITICIAN is not met. His involvement in the bonfire was serving as a spokesperson who was on TV. WP:ONEVENT.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powhatan-Toney[edit]

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

Appears to be a rather... creative article about this guy's family, which does not meet the criteria for a "Tribe" (Initial name was "Powhatan Tribe").

Googling < "Powhatan-Toney" Tribe > turns up about 40 hits, all look to be WP mirrors, other Wikis, or social networking by article's creator. No news hits, no book hits.

I considered speedying, but wanted more eyes on it. See discussion on talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Powhatan-Toney - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also searched for references for this group online and in scholarly books about the Southeastern tribes, specifically about the Powhatan Confederacy, and no independent mentions of the "Powhatan-Toney tribe" appear. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Delete - I also searched, and found nothing like a reliable source establishing the existence of such a group. You'd think he'd at least have a website or homepage somewhere for his org., if he is online. The only thing that is anything like verifiable (so far) is the Powhatan-Toney Cemetary. If more refs do turn up, I might reconsider.. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been involved in the scholarly study of Native American groups and languages for over 30 years and have never heard of this group or seen any reference to that name. It seems to be the editor's family history. (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - I am a direct descendant of the Toney family of Toney, Alabama. After I showed my grandfather the article on Toney, Alabama, he disagreed with the claim that the residents of Toney were part Powhatan (that claim was added by the same person who wrote this article). While my grandfather isn't descended from the Toney family himself, he has lived in Toney for many years, and my grandmother (who is descended from the Toney family) was born and raised there. No one in my family has ever mentioned anything about Powhatan relatives, only that we have Cherokee ancestors. If there is a Powhatan-Toney tribe, then it is so obscure that even other descendents of the Toney family don't know about it. Calathan (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. In the meantime I searched "Harris Toney", and found this in a newspaper article that mentions him but does not seem to verify anything whatsoever having to do with native peoples. http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/122164297041060.xml&coll=1 Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from this quarter, too. I'm thinking we need to go through the 'pedia and clean up a bunch of stuff that's been added in relation to this group of articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles that have not been deleted:

Delete I've not looked at the Redstone Arsenel article, but the other two articles contain legitimate content; I've chopped out the Powhatan-Toney bits from them. The phrase "Powhatan-Toney" is not a fabrication by this author (although for all I know, the story written in this article is); there's an actual cemetery in Madison County, Alabama (where both Toney and Triana are located) called the "Powhatan-Toney Cemetery"; see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Powhatan-Toney Cemetery for proof. Nevertheless, there's no evidence for this story being actual truth, and even if it is, there aren't the sources to support it, so there's no good reason to let this text remain a Wikipedia article. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Matrix (franchise). (That's the new name of The Matrix (series), apparently.) Sandstein 05:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influences and interpretations of The Matrix[edit]

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

largely unreferenced, seemingly original research, unencyclopedic fancruft. looks like an essay. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep temporarily while it's rewritten to make it more concise and keep only those parts that are or can be referenced, and then Merge the result into a section of The Matrix (series).
This article was originally a section of The Matrix (series) which got split off into its own article, a move I was never in favour of. (Especially since it ended up with a silly and slightly pretentious title!) It's always a challenge to keep up when two or more articles contain duplicate information, but I used to try and make sure that both that section and The Matrix were properly referenced (I remember editing them at the same time to make sure they both contained the correct references to the DVD featurettes and the South Bank Show anime documentary). But I stopped following it when it got split off. At present, The Matrix article's "Influences and interpretations" section, though not perfect, is more concise and better referenced - should that be a starting point for future changes?
I'd like to note that a big problem with several Matrix-related articles (not just this one) is that every time there's a list of religions and philosophies people think the films reference, those lists gradually keep getting longer and longer and more and more uncited. Those bits in particular are the parts that really need to be referenced... by someone much more knowledgeable in philosophy than me. :) --Nick R^Talk 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a rewrite to remove any nonsourced information/OR. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing administrator isn't a magic article rewriting machine, note. If you want something fixed here, ((sofixit)) applies. Uncle G (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stated my opinion, not an intention to clean up other people's messes. After all, why bother discussing it if you feel strongly enough to fix it yourself. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're OK with deletion if no one performs this rewrite for you? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the The Matrix (series), which now looks bereft of anything interesting and is much too short. What was the motivation to split it out? I'm going to assume it is a fork over some editing dispute. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back or keep. Either way of arranging the information is OK, but removing the information is not. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would seem that many of the editors voting for "keep" would agree that the information on this page is inconcise and unenyclopedic, and would need a hefty rewrite to remove any unsourced information and original research. I'd have thought therefore that they would agree that this article should not exist in its current form. I don't expect anyone would be willing to rewrite this article as it would be too daunting a task. Hence my proposal for deletion. Then perhaps the information could be added concisely to the The Matrix (franchise) page bit by bit, and if it warrants another break-out article then it would eventually evolve naturally into that article. DGG mentions that "Either way of arranging the information is OK, but removing the information is not". But what "information" is actually contained on this page that meets wikipedia policy? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Matrix (series) as others have suggested. There is good--and notable--material here that could reasonably fit in the main Matrix article, though, yes, much of it could be more concise. Shanata (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge sounds good to me too, but I'd be OK with keeping if the article gets rewritten as others have proposed. Either way, I'm against deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Idler[edit]

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

not notable, unverified, appears to be trivial Scoop100 (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article on de wiki seems referenced; it would be nice if the en translation could be verified and referenced as well. Unfortunately all the sources I can find are in German (which I don't read). PS. The article was created by me in 2006 with a comment "stub translated from de wiki (by a friend)". At this point I have no idea who that friend was :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there's enough literature about him out there, as evidenced by google books (including at least one full monograph, though that one's from 1942 and might not be entirely reliable); unfortunately none of the books listed on google have readable previews, but it's clear there's substantial coverage. BTW, the item cited on the de-wiki article is unfortunately only a historical novel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search linked above shows that there is a street in Augsburg named after the subject, which, although not in itself conferring notability, gives a good indication that there are likely to be sources. That is confirmed by a search designed to eliminate the street from the results, which shows that there is coverage of the subject in many books about the history of aviation. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the refs found. The nom could have found and added them too, per WP:BEFORE, and saved the trouble of an AfD. They should have been added by the author, but if not ist is secondarily the responsibility of anyone who sees the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AOL#Controversies. Merge at editorial discretion from the history. Sandstein 06:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Ferrari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable only for one event, per WP:BLP1E JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. Mr. Ferrari is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. He received brief prominence for attempting to get his AOL service cancelled. He blogged on it, and it was picked up in the media. But that was that. This article was nominated for deletion shortly after it was created in 2006, and the outcome was "no consensus." I think the passage of time has indicated clearly that WP:BLP1E applies: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. It's certainly worthy of mention in the "controversies" section in the AOL article. But as nom points out, subject is not notable outside of this one event. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AOL#Controversies (and possibly merge, though he is covered there anyway). It's clear the subject fails WP:BLP1E, as he is only famous for a particular event and doesn't have any long-term notability. In fact he was covered in an article titled "Web celebs: where are they now?". Hut 8.5 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xl Notes[edit]

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

Non-notable app and sources don't establish notability. Nothing on Google or Google News about it. To paraphrase the author: "This is a new software so it didn't get coverage yet". Laurent (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this was written any more as a promo piece I would've suggested a speedy for spam. A plugin for Excel just doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the references it provides (a helpdesk post, a totally irrelevant instruction guide, and another totally irrelevant info page), coupled with the fact that Google turns up no further useful refs (rather unlike a notable piece of software) all seem to support this. SMC (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with deletion. I thought this add-in was notable because I use it extensively and thought it would be interesting to others. Should I resubmit it later, after notable sources appear or this subject is completely unnotable? Qery12 (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on whether it gets noteworthy coverage by third-party sources; what I meant by my above comment is that this seems unlikely to happen for a Microsoft Office plugin. Certainly as the article is now, those current references don't help establish notability, and nothing I can locate on the 'net appears to support its notability either. If it were to become notable for some reason (software awards, major news pieces, etc.) then I think it would be fine to recreate the article. SMC (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knock Out Kaine NW (Talk) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knock out kaine[edit]

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

A duplicate of Knock Out Kaine which is currently being considered for deletion at AfD. CSDA7 declined. Being brought here through the drudgery of process. Other AfD nomination is here. If the two can be brought together in some beautiful union, all the better. Crafty (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have just stayed a speedy delete. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulda, Woulda, Prada baby. The declining admin ruled that notability was asserted and thus it is. Crafty (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the duplicate and close this confusing AfD.--Vejvančický (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't. Admin declined speedy on the basis of notability asserted. Crafty (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoaxes are vandalism, and this article's claim that an 8 year old rapper whose public career began in 1999 collaborated with dead Elvis two decades before, is an obvious hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Midwest[edit]

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

Completing IP nomination, deletion rationale on talk page follows:

No indication that the Elvis connection actually exists. Unlikely, given that Tech N9ne 1) was born a mere 8 years before and 2) is in a genre that Elvis never touched. No notable google hits either. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Hairhorn (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Everready (The Religion) as per standard practice. No indication found in gsearch that this song meets WP:MUSIC, but it's a valid search term so help the reader out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, stuff about Elvis is obviously untrue, I don't for one second believe that shortly before his death he was collaborating with a 5-year-old rapper -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Elvis died in 1977, if you're gonna make up fake wiki content, at least check Elvis' wiki page. Of course its a fake entry (though the song does exist, may well be a single, and may well reference Elvis), as this artist was only born in 1971. --Milowent (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close without result. AfD doesn't consider redirects; redirects for discussion belong here. No prejudice against discussion at RFD. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

KLM (Human Computer Interaction)[edit]

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

The only link to this r/d page was the disambiguation link of the article about KLM the airline, which can be changed to a direct link to Keystroke-Level Model, making this r/d page totally unneccessary. People seeking information about Keystroke-Level Model are more likely to type in KLM and find the link right at the top of the article about KLM the airline. Hence I'm AfDing it. Blodance (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoW Gollum[edit]

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

Non-notable World of Warcraft private server. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 11:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:MADEUP WP:ADVERTISING all in one. Purge it, WOW servers aren't notable and spamming wiki is terrible. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Makes zero claims to notability and reliable sources to establish either notability or validity of information will never be found. Should probably be moved to user page as compassionate recognition of typing effort and standard beginner help templates added. 69.128.47.243 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete It's not advertising actually. The server has been closed, and no longer exists, however its lore is notable. Thats my opinion, and it wasn't a sick project done by some random kids. I believe such lores are good for any young people to read. DimitriChaplain (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of lores for young readers. Wikipedia articles need to be on subjects whose notability can be confirmed in independent reliable sources and put together using sourced information. Unless there are newspaper articles, books, television broadcasts, or other such about this WoW server, it does not meet these community consensus standards. 69.128.47.243 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your opinion DimitriChaplain and thanks for your comment (anon IP). It may be a nice idea to have it as something to read for younger kids however long stories of lore like that doesn't belong on Wikipedia - the article fails WP:PLOT as it tells nearly the entirety of the fictional lore that was on this private server. It could be rewritten but still it's not notable. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 15:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aggressively non-notable. Haakon (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a problem. Leaving notability aside (as I do whenever possible), an open wiki's word isn't good for much. An article needs to answer a certain question if it's to be of use: "Says who?"
This is not a trivial issue. Check out how fraudulent charities tried to use us to profit from the Boxing Day tsunami. Better yet, don't.
This article doesn't give a proper answer, and I think it can't. So yes, delete. Hope that helps.--Kiz o r 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dr. Meh 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus round[edit]

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

Article is full of original research and contains no references. The article is not inclusive of all aspects of a "bonus round" and the topic does not specifically need its own article since all game show-related articles describe bonus rounds specific to that show within their own articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this article does not meet the criteria for notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, non-notable, destined to be nothing more than an amalgamated description of the bonus rounds in various game shows. Propaniac (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Still not the greatest topic, but the article has been improved enough that I'd just as soon keep it. Propaniac (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources can be added (to at least some parts of the article) and the article can be renovated. This article talks about the general aspect of the game and what it involves, not specific "end games" or "bonus rounds" (whose objectives vary from show to show and are described in their own game show-related articles). At the very least, it can be merged with the general game show article. The list that was included previously with this article was justifiably removed, as it could indeed be endless; although a shorter list to give readers a general idea of what bonus rounds are and how they vary would be useful, this can be maintained through patrol. I'll keep you posted as I add sources, and see if that satisfies the process. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Update — Well, I've added a couple of sources. I did remove some statements I viewed as original research, kept some explanatory statements and placed inline citations. By all means, this is not a complete revision as I see it, but its a start to making this a more noteworthy article. Again, failing a keep verdict, I'd suggest merging it with a redirect, and then putting the concepts in the main game show article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - Unsourced does not mean deleted. It means there should be sources added. I think this is clearly a notable topic, as it's a key element in a significant number of Game Shows and Games in general to the point where it often is a defining element. TheHYPO (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mostly original research. Notable enough to be included if the show has a bonus round, but under a subsection in that show's article, not as an article itself.--LAAFan^sign _review 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — To clarify, this article is abot the concept of bonus rounds. Yes, each article about a given game show has details about that show's bonus round if notable or otherwise pertinent to the article, but there still needs to be an article explaining what a bonus round is. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
  - Comment — Is there still a necessity for a separate article? If the article is being/has been improved, can this info be condensed and merged into the game show article and redirected? Sottolacqua (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment — See Milowent's comments for the response, which I agree with. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh, barbarian 11:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Briguy52748: "To clarify, this article is abot the concept of bonus rounds. Yes, each article about a given game show has details about that show's bonus round if notable or otherwise pertinent to the article, but there still needs to be an article explaining what a bonus round is." --Milowent (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge this into general game show coverage or the articles for the specific game shows. Not every aspect or subtobic of a notable subject needs an independent article. This is obviously a judgment call, because I agree that the Overtime (sports) article is absolutely deserving of its independence. There are several grounds for making a distinction, such as the news notability of prominent sporting contests with lengthy overtimes. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in brokering competing camps on the Quiz bowl article. You cannot imagine how many articles deal with the concept of bonus rounds, so that's why I think a separate article is worthwhile organizationally. --Milowent (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with addition of sources. The article now discusses the concept in an encyclopedic fashion, with sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Game Show. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hughes Hilton III[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable. Tylorjohnson111 (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a 15-year old descendant of Conrad Hilton and Barron Hilton, younger brother of Paris Hilton. Yeah, I know, it's frustrating that every member of British royalty and nobility gets their own worshipful article, but being the heir of a wealthy person is not in notable. Leave the kid alone. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Nothing much at Google News Archive unless he shows up with some nickname. He is still a student, so he might become notable in a few years, given the advantages of wealth and connections. Edison (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant third-party coverage at this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories, and, by that, I think it's clear that this would've been turned into a redirect. Any admin who wants to may scrub the history.. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 10:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moon landing hoax accusations[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic mish-mash of WP:OR and personal opinion. Crafty (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories. This personal essay shouldn't even be kept in the history, but it may be a valid search term for the existing article. Quantpole (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Pure essay/rant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polarion Software[edit]

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

This article by a WP:SPA reads as advertorial and the references do not actually support the notability of the subject, only generic text about its markets. The only information actually about the company is self-sourced. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haakon (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Advertising --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an international computer software company focused on providing application lifecycle management (ALM) and requirements management solutions for systems and software development. The also company offers training and consulting services in these areas. They don't learn, do they? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polarion ALM[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. Haakon (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, directory entry with no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Jacovidou[edit]

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

She has participated in some music contests but this is not enough to make her notable. Almost no coverage in Sweden's biggest newspapers such as DN, SvD, Aftonbladet and Expressen (I only found this [18]), only in some local newspapers. This has been proposed for deletion in sv-wp sv:Wikipedia:Sidor föreslagna för radering/Alexandra Jacovidou. The crucial issue there has been whether her participating in the Turkish Cesme Song Contest makes her notable, which some claim it does. Cesme Song Contest doesn't seem to be a very important contest and has no article in Wikipedia, but one article claim it has 60 million viewer which I think is a fake number. 60 million would be more viewers than what American Idol has and in addition Turkey has only got 71.5 million inhabitants. Still if it's true this wouldn't make her notable in my opinion (we don't have articles on every participant in American Idol for example). My immmortal (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is the first time I've seen a nom longer than the article, haha. She doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Lara 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the article, her claim to fame rests mainly on representing Sweden in Cesme Song Contest, which doesn't have an article (also not in svwp) - the rest is simply slightly-below-the-top positions in talent search event and future plans. (Would have to go from plan/dreams to reality to be notable.) By the way, her svwp article is currently up for AfD at sv:Wikipedia:Sidor föreslagna för radering/Alexandra Jacovidou, with the voters currently rather evenly split. Tomas e (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER.Thetruthonly (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant spam/advertising: G11 NW (Talk) 01:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perkpipe[edit]

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

A non-notable company that should be Speedy deleted; however, author and sockpuppet continue to removed CSD and maintenance tags form article. Company lacks GHits and GNEWS to support article. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Fails WP:COMPANY Crafty (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction mechanism[edit]

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

Apparent neologism, based on a single conference paper (here). Not a term of use in economics. Article creator was asked to discuss, but didn't respond. I thought perhaps the article could be saved as a computer science reference, but that discussion didn't pick up. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the nomination states the case well. A neologism with no obvious currency. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable neologism. Crafty (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the author won't explain I'll support this, get rid of nonsense till it can be qualified more.--WngLdr34 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh, barbarian 09:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lihn's law[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lihn's law

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

Appears to be neologism, based on a single, recent, unpublished working paper (here). The paper itself does not appear to use the term "Lihn's law", and a Google search and a Google Scholar search don't turn up anything except Wikipedia. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at Google Books, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar for "Lihn's Law." You don't get an encyclopedia article about a "law" you've discovered just because you ~~published an~~ write an unpublished article about it. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Edison. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. I did not know that I am writing this article for encyclopedia quality. I just thought the existing network effect laws are very flawed (pretty wrong) and the community should know that there is a different power law based on solid stochastic calculus. Anyway, if you guys don't like it, feel free to delete it. No argument about it. I don't make a living off writing papers. -- SteveLihn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelihn (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the name of the power law, people are using the discover's last name to call the law. Otherwise, how else should it be called? "N^3/2 power law"? Anyway, again feel free to delete it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelihn (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Homer Elledge[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Being executed does not show automatic notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced and while routine news coverage alone may not establish notability at least some of the sources cited, for example [19], go beyond routine news coverage into serious social commentary. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited the article so that it is more clear what was noteworthy about this case. The material was in the already cited sources but was simply not brought out in the article itself. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found and added a couple of new sources for the article. One is just another local news article so it doesn't help with notability but it has a nice summary of events that will help with expanding the article (which I will get to in the next few days if nobody beats me to it). The other is a true crimes book by Ann Rule that devotes an entire chapter (more than 35 pages) to Elledge and provides quite a bit of detail on his life. I suspect that the existence of the book (which constitutes a reliable secondary source that is not a news report) plus the extensive news coverage should conclusively resolve the notability debate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be enough coverage. The notability isnt primarily the murder, but the trial DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG Crafty (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Killed two women: one was apparently not considered murder (just hitting in the head with a hammer until she was dead (?!)). Extensive coverage in a book ("Last Dance, Last Chance: And Other True Cases (Ann Rule's Crime Files, Vol. 8)" Coverage in another book "Murdering myths: the story behind the death penalty" by Judith Webb Kay. Typical newspaper coverage of a murder trial and the eventual execution does not argue much for keeping. What was unusual was his efforts to speed the execution along and prevent any appeals. Seems like "suicide by murdering someone and not appealing." Edison (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thompson (musician)[edit]

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

no real notability shown. releases and airplay not good enough for wp:music, lacks independent reliable sources (Full Effect Magazine is dead and there is no evidence it is reliable). restored prod deletion. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:MusicStevezimmy (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How? lacks coverage in multiple non-trivial published works, no charting, no gold or better, no coverage of touring, no albums on major label or one of the more important indie labels, not part of two or more independently notable ensembles, not a prominent representative, no major awards or major music competition, hasn't performed music for a work of media that is notable, no national rotation, not the subject of a national broadcast. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability from WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:50, 24 September 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 03:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Abductive (reasoning) 07:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Dutton (composer)[edit]

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

Notability is in question Jrod2 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is not solely verifiable through wiki links. All references are verifiable and correct - IMDB, discogs, ISBN number in relation to books published and www.impactmusic.net the composer's website. I therefore cannot understand on what basis the article is being considered for deletion. (unsigned comments by Bernard23129).

comments: The original editor Bernard23129 who left the comments above just contacted me with this IP address 212.56.88.111 (UK). Nothing wrong with one writing about oneself and creating a personal article at Wikipedia, but what other contributors have to decide is if self-publishing and a few Discogs credits are sufficient proof of notability. Jrod2 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a member of the band The Apostles (Acid Jazz), has written several books and has been credited on TV soundtracks. I have added a list of books to the article and adjusted the references to support the text. Cjc13 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IF the subject can prove with an interview (with a reputable magazine or online music site} or a top BillBoard ranking composition, a Grammy nomination {is there one for The Apostles (Acid Jazz)?) or a publishing award {because the subject is also a writer) then I don't see the point in keeping this article at all. If WP is to list anyone and everyone who has written a book and or wrote a song, play music with friends, taught music at elementary or high school, etc, etc, then this would be a very pretty non-encyclopedic site. Jrod2 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Note: Jrod2 is the nominator --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has released an album under the name The Apostles which has been reissued in 2008, his books are published by established publishers and he has written scores for TV in both the UK and USA, so he clearly is not a trivial performer/writer. Cjc13 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments: Does anybody know the notability requirement for a loose-leaf/paperback writer? Also the band "The Apostles" is under AfD because of the same issues under WP:N. I don't see any nominations or top charting records either. I am not really "deletionist" but I would like to see at least one mediocre article written about this subject by a reputable journalist of a major publication. Since the editors feel that this person is a subject of relevance in the arts they shouldn't have a problem finding sources. Jrod2 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me, it looks like everything Dutton does qualifies him as a yeoman, a hard worker, but not as a famous person. The TV show compositions haven't garnered one award, the stack of instruction books hasn't been given rave notices or scored in sales, and the work as a musician, though helping the Acid Jazz label gain some initial traction, hasn't brought Dutton's name to the fore. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 29 September 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 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added to the article the reissue of the Apostles album and his recent work with Guthrie Govan. Cjc13 (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote is still "delete" as it continues to appear that Dutton is a hard working guy who so far has not had fame visit him. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame or importance (see WP:N). "Articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event" (see WP:N). This is already the case at Guthrie Govan. But still, this article clearly does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion. Jrod2 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Council on International Relations[edit]

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

A dozen Google hits; zero discussion in outside sources. Not notable, even if they claim that "among the contributor`s of EUCIR is also Fidel Castro, former president of Cuba" (as if that's something to brag about, but never mind now). Biruitorul ^Talk 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The key here is not whether the organisation exists, or what it's done, but whether it's recognised by independent neutral sources as having done it, and whether those sources go on to indicate the organisation is considered notable by its peers or by some significant community somewhere. The article doesn't provide any references that would let us say that such recognition exists, so delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of yahoo hits.

"Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.

Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number."

For the recognition of the organization, given the level and the accompliishments of its members - see ECFR Council seems quite well recognized.

Don't delete.

Put that in quotes, and Yahoo gives 7 hits. Still pretty unimpressive. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, advertisement. Sandstein 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you search for the entire phrase "European Council on International Relations" with quotes (otherwise you get pages which contain any single one of those words), you get 16 hits on Google. Every one of those hits is a wiki mirror, their own website, or a press release. Google news gets none. Notability just isn't there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scott (journalist)[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Additionally, the article reads like a resume, and needs a fundamental rewrite (not much to salvage). ƒ(Δ)² 08:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the journalists here on Wikipedia possibly don't need a page on their own but Steve Scott, especially since presenting Night Watch, has become much more of a household figure. Aditya, do you have a personal grind against British journalists or something? You've nominated loads of them in the last 24 hours. Did you get a job rejection from ITN? ;-) lol. --193.200.176.30 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list of ITN journalists, mostly created by people with potential conflicts of interest, and nearly all written in a resume/POV style. I left about 50% of them (those that had a decent claim to notability). The ones I nominated, however, have absolutely no claim to notability. You say Steve Scott is a household name. He has no reliable sources covering him. I don't live in the UK either, so I can't judge how well known he is unless sources are provided. He may, of course, be notable. I've tried searching for sources, but I've found none. Though if you can find sources then it's perfectly possible to salvage the article. (He should satisfy WP:CREATIVE if his claim to notability is as a journalist, else WP:N). PS Why don't you log in? =P ƒ(Δ)² 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hold on. I know who you are. I found out. =D You can post from your account you know. It doesn't really matter much. ƒ(Δ)² 10:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newsreader on a nationally broadcast news bulletin and presenter of a nationally broadcast TV show with his name in the title. RMHED. 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very familiar face on British TV. Significant Web coverage not easy to come by (found this, this and this), but at the end of the day, he's a very well-known national TV presenter in the UK, which makes him notable.--Michig (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very frustrating, to say the least. The first link is not a reliable source. The second one has a picture of him dancing with some female news reader in some fund raising event. Third is an interview by a regional newspaper where he talks about the World Cup. Do you think that makes him notable? Do you propose to write an article from that one interview, and one picture of him dancing? How do you intend to make it verifiable? How do you intend to make sure he is notable? This AfD seems to be headed on the obvious course. (Bunch of people save it, saying he's notable. No one rewrites it, because there are no sources to rewrite it with. I remove all the unsourced claims on the article, stub it, and then re-AfD it.) ƒ(Δ)² 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "Significant Web coverage not easy to come by", and I'm not putting those forward as reliable sources, but there are still only five major national TV channels in the UK, and this man has regularly presented programmes on these channels to millions of viewers for several years. The article can be reduced to a stub if WP:V is an issue (it shouldn't be - most of the content is verifiable even if it's not easy to find significant coverage), but someone as well-known as him should have an article.--Michig (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage doesn't have to be with web sources. It can be with offline content too. But there has to be some sort of coverage. ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This verifies that he presented 141 live football matches on Channel 5. Coverage found here. This verifies that he was ITN's Africa correspondent, this verifies that he was Channel 5's main live sports presenter for 4 years, and there's this from Western Daily Press. So where's the issue with WP:V?--Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) None establish notability. Presenting 141 football matches, for example, and being an African correspondent doesn't satisfy notability either. I get the feeling you haven't read WP:CREATIVE, as the links you're pointing out are totally irrelevant. ƒ(Δ)² 09:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links are not at all irrelevant as one of your concerns was verifiability and these adequately address WP:V. Perhaps you could try assuming good faith - WP:CREATIVE is a guideline only and yes I have read it, thanks. The fact that Steve Scott is more famous than many journalists who would pass WP:CREATIVE means that he is notable.--Michig (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not relative. I agree WP:CREATIVE is only a guideline, but so is WP:N, WP:(whatever), they all are guidelines. Notability is hard to judge by word of mouth. Just saying he's famous is not going to cut it. You're going to have to prove it. And please, do so through policy. IAR does not apply here. ƒ(Δ)² 11:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:V is a policy, not a guideline, as is WP:IAR. I can't imagine any television presenter who has presented thousands of national UK prime time terrestrial TV programmes not being notable enough for an article here, whether or not we have a specific guideline that spells that out, but you're entitled to your opinion. Let's see what others think, as it seems like neither of us is going to change the other's mind on this.--Michig (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ƒ(Δ)² 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided He seems to be notable enough, but article really has no sources saying so.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should say Keep, and tag the article as needing references. Emeraude (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that an article without sources is worthless, regardless of how important the subject may be. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added sources to the article.--Michig (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although AfD is not cleanup, cleanup has now been done, rendering the nomination largely moot. Sandstein 05:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the expedition of Alexander the Great into Asia[edit]

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

I think this is wholly redundant to Wars of Alexander the Great. I know AfD is "not for cleanup", but it's worth noting that the article is completely unsourced and lacks basic formatting. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its not wholly redundant because it a useful formatting of information, though it would look much nicer in some type of table, see, e.g., Caesar's_Civil_War#Chronology - not sure how common it is to have separate chronology articles, though. --Milowent (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is a clean up issue rather than an item to discuss for deletion. Some people find chronological lists useful. I don't think the dates or battles are seriously going to be contested - and if they are, this is one subject where we all know that scholarly sources can be found! And the subject matter is clearly notable. If there are issues with the article, people can sort them out. SilkTork *^YES! 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ If it were simply a matter of making a narrative to go along with the chronology, then it would be a legitimate cleanup. Interesting as this is, it has not one bit of citation to a reliable and verifiable source. I suspect that this is probably original synthesis, with the author calculating where the Macedonians would likely have been at a particular point in time, based on the dates of battles in other locations. After more than a month, it's clear to me that there never was a source for this chronology, and I doubt that a month-by-month guess has been attempted. It's a good mental exercise to do this type of calculation, but having it masquerade as an article that people would refer to and rely upon is another thing entirely. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the dates are an original synthesis, because there are ancient resources and scholarly writings about where Alexander and his troops were at any one time, e.g. ,[20], [21] For all we know, this chronology was lifted from one of those sources. A chronology for this kind of expedition is a good idea (which is why books on alexander have them), the question is whether this one is so poor that we should delete it? That seems wrong. --Milowent (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to regret this, but if consensus is to delete, i'd request userification so I can fix it up and probably insert into some other Alexander article. --Milowent (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy You know, I think it's a great idea to try to increase the knowledge that we have of ancient history. And while the "citations and footnotes are boring" approach is okay for, say, an article about last week's episode of The Simpsons, there's no place for that in an encyclopedia article about Alexander the Great. I don't think you'll regret asking this to be userfied. Even if it took you only a minute or two to cite the two sources above, you spent more time on that then the author did. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this is still listed here, I'll treat it as a proper AFD listing and give my AFD vote. The topic is clearly notable and the article simply needs cleaning up. I've just dropped in 4 easy to follow chronology cites - that's without anyone having to actually read a book or anything serious like that. You just have to look at the dates in the tables and match them to the dates in the article. A chronology of the major events of Alexander's campaign is fairly standard stuff, and is exactly what an encyclopedia should have. I suppose Anonymous Dissident is simply making a point that this article should be tidied up, though I feel that bringing it to AFD - while potentially achieving that clean up - is perhaps a rather overly strong way of going about it. Alexander's campaign is probably one of the best documented pre-20th century campaigns. SilkTork *^YES! 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Rock Charts[edit]

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

This is a Billboard magazine chart that is literally only several weeks old. There is hardly enough information here to justify a separate list (as of this writing I see a grand total of three items). Article's title is also incorrect (plural "Charts" is wrong, there is only one "Rock Songs" chart). - eo (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early for a separate list, misleading title not warranting a redirect. Added the similarly misleading List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Rock Charts, the content of which has been merged to Rock Songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TPH. There's no guideline (that I know of) that says anything against have such short lists, but common sense says such a list is not necessary or helpful. Delete it for now, and when a sizable number of artists achieve this position, the list can be recreated at the correct title. Tim meh (review me) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not just original synthesis, but bad original synthesis. Since it is a brand new chart, there was every opportunity to make this more than an indiscriminate list by adding some basic information about what song that Green Day or Alice in Chains had reached #1 on the new chart with. The lack of a link to the Billboard chart doesn't help the cause. Even at that, I don't see the value of a list of artists in alphabetical order. The format is too boring for anyone to want to keep it current. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Another admin may have considered this a slight borderline case. I decided to delete because upon reading through, really, the entire tone of the article was quite promotional and meant solely for that purpose; and given that there was also no evidence of notability through Google searches (per comments in this AfD), the topic itself was not worth retrieving. For the record, if there was potential notability, I would likely have stubified/rewritten the article. JamieS93 04:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLNet[edit]

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

Overtly promotional entry about an organisation (bordering on CSD G12) operating within one Canadian province - clearly failing the inclusion guideline for organisations that requires (for non-profits) "[t]he scope of their activities is national or international in scale." I can find no in-depth coverage of the organisation online, most ghits don't refer to this organisation at all: the subject fails the general notability guideline too. The article has no references, merely links to their website, followed by the telephone number of the director (who is the editor who created the article, a clear conflict of interest and the reason for the article's promotional nature) and a "helpdesk" number. – Toon 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization is government-run and only operates inside British Columbia. It has received no significant, independent coverage outside its own province, as evidenced by a Google News search and a Google web search. Tim meh (review me) 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. The article is entirely promotional in nature, and only intended to promote this agency. I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen government spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IChill Relaxation Shot[edit]

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

Nonnotable energy drink product -- mentioned in passing in a couple of news articles, but nothing here that really indicates any notability. Prod tag removed w/o explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable b/c one of first relaxation products introduced in 2 oz shot form, early market entrant Njmaki (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the first relaxation products in such a form does not necessarily make it notable. Notability depends on whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm going to have to go with ~~keep~~ weak keep, though, after seeing the sources linked in the article (this is significant coverage), in addition to this one that I found. Timmeh (review me) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those appear to be press releases, not independent news coverage. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about the second one. It does seem like a press release. The first isn't a press release, though. The quote, "the company claims that..." shows it's independent. I'll change my argument to be weakly in favor of keeping the article; I still think the subject is notable enough for one, though. Timmeh (review me) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has been updated several times since being marked for deletion & how includes more significant references, notably the Washington Post & ABC news. Please help this article by canceling its deletion request and increasing its depth & objectivity.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Obligatory pessimal vote here. =) I see one link that talks about the product, and there's the link to the Good Morning America video, which I unfortunately can't watch due to system restrictions. Beyond that, you have a press release, and a passing mention in an article about Drank, where the brand iChill only appears exactly one time in a passing mention. The GMA vid and the link as posted by Timmeh, however, might be its salvation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads as advertorial and the sources are lacking. Add to that the fact that it's the work of a WP:SPA and I write it off as an attempt at promotion, not a valid attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ADVERTISING right here WngLdr34 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References in article do not establish notability and not every consumer product is inherently notable. Unless someone uses a can of this stuff to commit a political assassination, there is little need of an article. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian Schools worldwide[edit]

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

The vast majority of these aren't notable, as seen by the external links. The rest have their own relevant categories (Category:Universities in Armenia, Category:Armenian-American private schools, etc). Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful and informative list. I would prefer the external links to be replaced by red links but that is a cleaning job that can be carried out as an editorial matter. It is incorrect to say that 'The vast majority of these aren't notable'; certainly the high schools and colleges will be notable. The external links don't show that the institutions are not notable they simply mean that a page has yet to be written. TerriersFan (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't even know there were Armenian schools in the U.S. This is indeed an interesting and informative list, and surely, given the vast number of lists on Wikipedia, some of questionable value, this hardly will tarnish Wikipedia if it is kept. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we are not a directory. Sure it is useful, but so is a phonebook. I'm not sure what encyclopedic significance this has as there doesn't appear to be any analysis of the collective body of schools. This is an appropriate topic for a category, but not an article. Them From Space 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - lists do not undertake detailed analysis; that is the role of an article. If you wish to dispose of all`lists then please make a policy proposal but, pending a change of policy, that is not a deletion reason. Lists and categories have complimentary, but different, roles. For example,the red links serve a useful role in identifying the need for article creation. 149.254.218.87 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can and do overlap, but there are certain cases where we may have a list and not a category on a topic, and other cases where we may have a category and not a list. They do not mirror each other, if they would the difference between the two would be pointless. Them From Space 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and worthwhile. More flexibility in how we title and write up this type of article would be good, but that's a discussion for another forum. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I am not sure how useful it is for institutions in Armenia itslef to be included here. Possibly Schools for the Armenian diaspora would be better. It should be noted that the Armenians are a people scattered all over the Midlde East, sharing a religious heritage as much as an ethnicity. Many never were citizens of the present country of Armenia, nor were their ancestors. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose since "Price Middle School sits on the site that was once Price High School." make an article for the HS and a link from this one. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rework per DGG or failing that merge/redirect to Atlanta Public Schools#Middle schools. Simply saying "Non-notable middle school" doesn't cut it. Before nomination alternatives need to be considered. What search for sources was carried out? What consideration was given to merging the verifiable facts to the district page? And we have DGG's imaginative solution to consider etc. TerriersFan (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Broaden scope. Nominator makes a very weak case... I see a lot of sources in a raw news results search. At least some appear to not just be reports of graduates and other non-unique articles papers run about schools, but reports of novel and potentially notable things that have occurred at the school. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework per DGG or merge and redirect per TerriersFan. May or may not be worthy of an independent article, but we should keep the information somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's more likely that this will get mentioned in the Atlanta Public Schools article before anyone ever gets around to writing an article about Price High School. I don't at all see the logic behind the suggestion that we should leave this up until someone can create an article about a totally different subject. If you want to create an article about Price High School in Atlanta, I've gone to some extra effort here, but all that you have to do is click on the red link in this paragraph, start with the words "Price High School was a high school in Atlanta..." and then throw in some details. See, now you don't need to worry about whether the article about a middle school is deleted. Hey, no need to thank me, just doing my part. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atlanta Public Schools#Middle schools. Creating pages for defunct high schools is not in the purview of AfD, and nothing prevents that from happening at any time. Abductive (reasoning) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#A7 and WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable (possible hoax) group of gathering men. Damiens.rf 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (db-group). Benefit of the doubt says it's not a hoax, but just a bunch of guys - a loose fraternity. They get together and drink bad beer and whiskey. OK, great. Sounds like they have fun. But it's rare that having fun by way of intoxication is notable. In fact, the article fails to assert notability, ergo the speedy. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Out Kaine[edit]

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

A non-notable, unsigned band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Deleted twice today via CSDA7 but the author insists on re-creating it. Crafty (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Melchoir (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Clubmarx (talk)
Delete per nom. another 'nobody' band. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note article creator also made a dupe article using lowercase spelling found here: Knock out kaine. That article, like the one listed here, is also a CSDA7. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. He's been repeatedly removing the CSDA7 tag from that article as well. I've issued him with a final warning about it. Crafty (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he couldn't have removed the CSDA7 tag again... his edit summary said "spelling error." An IP editor wouldn't lie, would they? :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 13:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger him. Reported to AIV for vandalism following final warning. Crafty (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add account User:Johnny123-987‎ to your report... sockpuppets begone. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI request filed. Crafty (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. The award the band won seems trivial. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Duplicate was declined for speedy. Parallel AfD exists here ftw!. Crafty (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demodoxalogy[edit]

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

Meaning the study of public opinion. I think it is undeniable that as English word this is a neologism. It would of course be easy to move the article and change it to a description of the Società Italiana Di Demodoxalogia (Italian Society of Demodoxalogy) but in that case we run into the question of notability. There are no independent references and it:Demodoxalogia does not seem much better. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only what User:RHaworth said, but this article is a clutter of confusion. My eyes hurt.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat here what already inserted in the discussion of voice: I do not know if you have already read:

i am not an expert on wikipedia and i do not express very well in english, so i hope not to have done something wrong in the procedure: i removed the proposed deletion and here i explain the reasons, ok? so, 'Demodoxalogy' is not a neologism: currently is not reported correctly in dictionaries because of the historical facts about the discipline, but it is used since 1940 (in italian, english, french...) as reported by F. A. Perini-Bembo, an early and leading experts in these studies, in the congress of the prestiogious SIPS Italian Society for the Advancement of Science in 1954. should be precisely one of the greatest interest of the encyclopaedia in the subject! Demodoxalogy is a little known approach to the study of public opinion (journalism and information...) for these reasons: it begins to be defined in 1928, at the time of the fascism in italy, and is developed in Italy and not in USA (center of communication studies). In a document of UNESCO (1954), the 'Center of demodossalogia' (Public Opinion Centre) at University of Rome 'Sapienza' is mentioned among the leading institutions in Italy and Europe for training of journalists. SIDD (italian association of demodoxalogy) is currently the only nonprofit organization (little but notable) that brings together scholars and takes care of the recent renewed interest in demodoxalogy.Br1z in conclusion: I just have shown at the Wikipedia community that there would be this article to translate into english, if i'm wrong, sorry!Br1z (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I can't make sense of it and there is no evidence of any significant currency for the term. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks, but article in in Italian (in my opinion, it is not so confused) there are many references to publications (those of SIPS are also in some American libraries). If it is sufficient that the word 'demodoxalogy' now is not in the English vocabulary, then ok: I repeat, there are historical reasons why the rules exist, but there are also texts/books about demodoxalogy translated into English... According to UNESCO (the UN) does not seem so irrelevant in the :document(page 17/19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br1z (talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Br1z (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until more stuff translated from Italian, and, if still failing as a stand-alone article, merge with Public_opinion --Arkelweis (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suspect that this is a WP:NEO in English, based on transliteration of an established Italian term. If so, it probably needs to be merged somewhere, but I have not investigated. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see it is actually a separate field. In the cite above from Unesco, Unesco translates it as "public opinion" (p.17). I don;t know what books might have been translated into English, as worldcat does not contain this word in any title. There are 9 entries with the Itallian word as "demodossalogia" and none under "Demodoxalogia" -- none of them have English translations. There's an article Erik Vroons "Communication Studies in Europe: A Sketch of the Situation around 1955 " in International Communication Gazette [22] in which I find only 1 mention of this, footnote 44: :"In Perugia, in 1939, the Centre of Demodoxalogy was established. Orano, Piccioni, Perini- Bembo and other scholars all played a leading role in this. They witnessed the acceptance of journalism as the science and art of public opinion. It was therefore thought that the history of journalism should not be confounded with the history of the press. Journalism was to be considered a social-psychological phenomenon, distinguished from the instrumental notion of journalism." DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of Harry Potter[edit]

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

This has snowballed from "detailed, sourced description of notable HP parodies" to "Big, indiscriminate list with no criteria for inclusion and far too many primary sources." There is absolutely no criterion for what constitutes a notable HP parody, nor is there any effort to try and trim this sprawling list. My main concern is the indiscriminate nature of it all; while some parodies can be viewed as authentic commentary on the series (e.g. the Michael Gerber book), such parodies constitute maybe 10% of this list and could easily be shuffled off elsewhere without such a monstrosity of a list. Previous AFD here resulted in no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Harry Potter Doc Quintana (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't mean merge the whole thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely I do. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge an indiscriminating list including heaps of nonnotable junk besides some more notable parodies into an article about the subject of the parodies. Edison (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not discriminating enough, you can always fix it. I do not feel strongly enough about this article to do more than comment about it at an afd. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This type of thing seems to be the main interest of many WPers. No worse than many pop-culture type articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prune and rewrite; failing that, merge to Harry Potter fandom on the face of it, such a topic would probably be notable because, as the cultural institution of late-80s and early-90s kids, it's bound to be subject to parody, and those parodies are occasionally Notable-with-a-capital-N, such as Barry Trotter or Potter Puppet Pals. However, the nomination is quite right that it's not, currently, an objective look at parodies, and is more of a sprawling list akin to an IPC article. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:SOFIXIT applies here, not deletion. There's no denying that parodies of Harry Potter is a notable subject, and that the article contains material worth saving. Ray^Talk 13:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is clear that there are enough notable parodies for this to be a valid article topic, and the article includes well-sourced information on them. The presence of weak material in an otherwise solid article is absolutely not cause for the article to be deleted, but rather for the matter to be discussed on the talk page and the article to be cleaned up. Baby, bathwater, etc. Ben Kidwell (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Prune and merge~~ Speedy Keep: Looking once more at the article, the article is very well written, very notable, and very well deserves inclusion in the encyclopedia. Sorry 10K Hammer, but not sure why this is even on AfD. As per Ray, if you really see any problem with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I prune it, the slobbering fanboys will just build it up again and we'll be stuck in this loop forever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think restarting this loop makes no sense given the consensus in favor for the article. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be edited to remove unreferenced stuff made up in school one day. It could be semiprotected, which would keep at least IP and brand new editors from adding inappropriate content. Edison (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not for fixing editing problems. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiksoul[edit]

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

Although an article of "Mastiksoul" also appears on the French Wikipedia (fr:Mastiksoul), I wasn't able to find any references that show he meets the notability criteria for musicians. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources look to be mostly in Portuguese. A Google News search for him turns up an awful lot of hits and they don't appear to be press releases although many be event announcements. This article seems to indicate he's more than the run of the mill DJ. It may need somebody with some proficiency in Portuguese to dig up sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source above definitely makes this one comply with WP:RS. Hús ö nd 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hex Bombs[edit]

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

Junk band article, fails WP:BAND. Only thing that they boast is a handful of albums and a battle of the bands competition (not notable in itself, see WP:GARAGE). Ipatrol (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is not a "[j]unk band article" because it does contain some coverage in reliable sources. These three articles from Mlive.com, the local paper, provide significant coverage about this band, but this is only local coverage. If the band received coverage from a different newspaper, even if it were local, I would vote keep. However, the lack of coverage in other publications indicates that this band is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At least 2 other print magazines have covered this band, this one is linked in the article and this review which is reprinted at the band's website. I am the article creator by the way. Clownpounder (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the links Clownpounder points to are 1,blog post (not a wp:rs) and 2,a reproduction of an extremely short reviews from a source of questionable reliability ("News Satire You Can Trust"). Lacks enough coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sydney Media Society[edit]

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

I searched by every permutation of Sydney University and University of Sydney I could, as well as by the two clubs that merged in 2004 (when this article was created) to create this apparently non-notable student club, and found nothing to suggest notability. It seems to have gone through an old VfD in 2005 with the result of no consensus. Its websites as listed seem to be down, but they have a Facebook page. Abductive (reasoning) 21:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this club is notable; or merge with University of Sydney. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable student club that doesn't pass WP:ORG. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Also worth noting that the article was originally written by the society's president[23]. --Derek Andrews (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kung-Fu Killers: Top 10 weapons of kung-fu[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this documentary. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
idea with things like this (that exist but probably aren't notable enough for inclusion) could we do something like this; maybe delete, and put in an external redirect to somewhere like IMDB? --Arkelweis (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, an article with absolutely no sources about a documentary that might have been shown on television sometime and might or might not be on DVD somewhere, we just don't know when, or where, or what it was about. At least there were no "spoilers". At most, this article lets me know that there was something that had this title. The lack of any information should be a clue as to the show's lack of notability. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. the issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be BOLD and just do it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester University Music Society[edit]

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

I can't find any reviews, albums or anything else to establish notability for this student club. I tried searching by "Manchester University" "Music Society" and University of Manchester Music Society and found nothing. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either University_of_Manchester#Clubs_and_societies or University_of_Manchester_Students'_Union#Societies. Will need severe cropping, but the refs available should be sufficient to support a few lines about this society. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no refs. It has only 38 Google hits as Manchester University Music Society and 15 Google hits by University of Manchester Music Society. Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Some people are far to ready to decide that university student societies are NN, despite some having a long history, in this case "only" 30 years. It should certainly not be deleted out of hand. The merge suggestion is a viable possibility, but may result in the loss of useful information. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having the Wikipedia article deleted will not result in the deletion of the Society, and people can always look up any "useful" information on the university's website. Abductive (reasoning) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Robots[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable website with no mentions by any reliable sources Bfigura ^(talk) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADVERTISING at its finest, weasel words abound, I don't think at this time it could be salvaged. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarwl[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) 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strap trap[edit]

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

No references to establish notability. Originator probably WP:COI Derek Andrews (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this product. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even within the questionably-notable content area of sewing notions I can find no evidence this product is prominent, historically significant, or newsworthy. I would be interested though purely as a matter of curiousity in seeing some RS for the article's claim of "a growing readinesss for women to discuss this world wide annoying problem." Ben Kidwell (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bella McFarland[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking any GNEWS and with no GHITS of substance. Appears to fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It is passing strange to find a published author with no reviews popping in Gnews whatsoever, but this one appears to have managed it. Her books are carried in Worldcat and some number of public libraries, however, so I really do find it strange that the sources aren't materializing. Ray^Talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

300 Bars and Runnin'[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit vs. The Game feud
Delete. A non-charting song that fails WP:NSONGS. No reliable sources to prove notability.I can see an influx of angry fans on the horizon, so I'd like to remind the closing admin that this is a discussion, not a majority vote. Dale 11:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't think that we used that template as a preventative. Admins can usually sort out the improper !votes without too much trouble.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dalejenkins, if I were you, I would refrain from using that template until there are SPAs showing up in significant numbers. I'd also refrain from "reminding the closing admin" of the blindingly obvious, and if you absolutely have to, don't use bold type. Assuming bad faith on the part of debate participants is also not a very good idea. In fact, just state your case briefly and neutrally and leave it at that.
Delete because I can't find enough sources to justify an article, I can't see an appropriate merge target and I can't see any value in a redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hip-hop feud. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit vs. The Game feud[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300 Bars and Runnin'
Delete. An article on a zelebrity feud. The article is largley unsourced and what is sourced is citing dead links, blogs, YouTube, forums and fansites - this fails WP:RS. There are also WP:N concerns; the argument does not appear to have a long-term affect and does every celebrity spat deserve its own article? If there is any notable infomation, it could be mentioned in The Game (rapper) and G-Unit. I can see an influx of angry fans on the horizon, so I'd like to remind the closing admin that this is a discussion, not a majority vote. Dale 11:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into hip-hop feud, that article is looking thin however this material is important in hip-hop's (relativity) short history. I can get The Source as a better magazine source rather than blogs as that would fit as a proper source. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yll Hoxha[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. All refs are passing mentions at best. Contested PROD. Spiderone 08:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player in one of the best clubs in Finland! Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The player being professional is irrelevant in terms of WP:ATHLETE and playing for "one of the best clubs in Finland" is equally useless in this case. Spiderone 17:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is useless. Being a professional is more notable than being in the club with youth contract, and playing in one of the best clubs is also no-useless because the top clubs play in the European international club competitions which are more notable. --SM (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like he is someone "who ha[s] competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is still up for debate Spiderone 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep playing in a notable top-level European league Eldumpo (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the league is "notable top-level" is POV. Also, just because the league is "notable" doesn't mean that the players are. Notability for clubs and leagues are generally more lenient. For example, Sutton United is a notable club in a notable league but none of the players are worthy of a page. I would be willing to settle for a redirect if anyone can agree. Spiderone 08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Professional player in one of the best clubs in Finland. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the club or the league is irrelevant as neither is fully-pro. The player himself doesn't seem to be notable as there are only passing mentions and the usual bog-standard player profiles that any player could get. Spiderone 07:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing at a fully professional level. WP:ATH does not require every team/player in the league he competes to be fully pro. DavidDublin (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems notable enough to be in the Finnish version of Wikipedia, but is no where near notable enough to be included in the English version. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jari Sara[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sara appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player in the top tier. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! Giant Snowman 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a professional player in the Finnish top league. And yes, he has got significant coverage. Some example links: [24][25][26][27][28]. ,,n (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add these links to the article and improve it? Listing links on an AfD isn't the same as those same links being put on an article to improve it and prove notability. Giant Snowman 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep professional player in a notable European league who has received web coverage via profile. Have added some more detail to article. Eldumpo (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The player being professional is irrelevant since the league isn't. The source isn't enough I feel as WP:GNG states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." since I question the quality and the reliability of the source. Spiderone 08:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the player being professional is all that matters. Where does WP:ATH even mention League. The guy is a fully professional football player. End of debate. Pro golfers/tennis players etc regularly compete with amateurs in Open competitions. Amateur teams compete in the FA Cup - does that make Ryan Giggs non-notable?DavidDublin (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing at a fully professional level. WP:ATH does not require every team/player in the league he competes to be fully pro. DavidDublin (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems certainly notable enough to be in the Finnish version of Wikipedia, but is no where near notable enough to be included in the English version. Govvy (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fellman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fellman hasn't achieved anything notable enough to pass WP:GNG and fails WP:ATHLETE for playing in a semi-pro league Spiderone 08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played in the Finnish top league[29]. ,,n (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Finnish league isn't fully professional Spiderone 06:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finnish top league and youth international. --SM (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like he is someone "who ha[s] competed at the fully professional level of a sport", as the article on the league says that it's fully professional. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You're confusing "highest level" with "professional football". The Veikkausliiga isn't fully pro. Spiderone 08:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a professional league and a member of the EPFL (European Professional Football Leagues)[30]. ,,n (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That means absolutely nothing. The Welsh and Irish Premier Leagues are on there too and neither of those are professional. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I don't see how this athlete passes WP:GNG either since there are no sources that give him more than a passing mention. Spiderone 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, playing in a notable European top-level league Eldumpo (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this league more notable than any other semi-pro league? This player has received about as much media coverage as a Conference South player so I don't see which notability guideline this player passes. Spiderone 07:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing at a fully professional level. WP:ATH does not require every team/player in the league he competes to be fully pro. DavidDublin (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be a fully professional level of football if it has non-professional players in it.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is getting paid. How can Wimbledon be a professional tournament when non-professional players play in it. How can the Irish Golf Open be a professional tournament when non-professional players play in it. If this guy is getting paid then he is a professional football player, i.e. his "level" is professional. End of debate. DavidDublin (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So any player who is paid money by his club would satisfy WP:ATHLETE, right down to the level of guys in the Kent League who get about £50 a week retainer? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. They would be part time as opposed to fully professional. The Finnish League is the top 30 in Europe. Their top team has competed in the European Champions League Group Stages, the biggest club competition in the world. And the best you can do is compare this to the Kent League ?? DavidDublin (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:Notability Govvy (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Hilander[edit]

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

PROD removed. I think this [31] was the closest he got to being notable Spiderone 08:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Playing in a match between two part-time teams in the first round of a lowly European comp isn't enough. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! Giant Snowman 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like he is someone "who ha[s] competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You're confusing "highest level" with "professional football". The Veikkausliiga isn't fully pro. Spiderone 08:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he would of played in that European game he would of effectively passed level 2 WP:Athlete. By competing in the Toto Cup that is the highest level you can reach in armature football. However he failed to compete so fails that. Notability aside, no citations means no notability. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No citations is a reason to clean up the article, not to delete it. The inter toto cup was not an amateur competition.DavidDublin (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing at a fully professional level. WP:ATH does not require every team/player in the league he competes to be fully pro. DavidDublin (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Lindberg[edit]

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

PROD removed. Even if he has played at the highest level in Finland he still doesn't pass WP:ATH Spiderone 08:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! Giant Snowman 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played in the Finnish top league. ,,n (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If playing in the top league is enough then we're going to have people from the highest level of Vatican City and Djibouti on here. Spiderone 06:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like he is someone "who ha[s] competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Where's the evidence that this is not a fully professional league? This guy passes the WP:ATHLETE criteria, and I don't care if Djiboutians pass the standard in large numbers. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Why does Wikipedia need more unsourced stubs? Spiderone 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citation, external links given to prove he has pass notability requirements. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing at a fully professional level. WP:ATH makes does not require every team/player in the league he competes to be fully pro. These articles need to be cleaned up, not deleted. DavidDublin (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Miyagi (blogger)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO, I'm unconvinced by the last AfD, 3 years have now passed to give him a chance to get more coverage. simply being a blogger for a newspaper does not automatically grant notability. can't find much coverage of him [32] except [33]. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could be merged into the main blog article if anything, but he isn't notable as there are no citations for all of the things in the article. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable bio. Nothing here establishes notability, nor did I turn anything up. Could be a language issue, but then, this is en-wiki, so if we can't find sources in english, there's not much we can do. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable bio. No sources. Stextc (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Notability is questionable. 3 years have passed, and still NO references/sources to support. As WP:BLP states, "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Thus this article should be removed immediately. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 01:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kaijalainen[edit]

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

PROD removed. This player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG despite apparently being professional himself. Spiderone 07:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! Giant Snowman 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played in the Finnish top league and got some coverage in significant sources ([34][35][36]). ,,n (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add these links to the article and improve it? Listing links on an AfD isn't the same as those same links being put on an article to improve it and prove notability. Giant Snowman 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like he is someone "who ha[s] competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which the nominator admits. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he fails as the league isn't fully pro until a source says it is Spiderone 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no citation or any information in the article. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in a notable European top-level league and has attracted web profiles. Have added appropriate references to the article. Eldumpo (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web profiles often go down as trivial mentions as you don't have to be notable or even to have made an appearance to receive one. I believe the WP:GNG guidelines say that they must have more than just passing mentions and run-of-the-mill stuff. Spiderone 07:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a passing mention - it's a profile of him. Eldumpo (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but any Joe Bloggs can have a profile about themselves Spiderone 07:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing at a fully professional level. WP:ATH makes does not require every team/player in the league he competes to be fully pro. DavidDublin (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Steve-Ho (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KDE. No consensus to delete. No prejudice against keeping as a standalone article if someone wants to expand it and add references that show it's notable on its own. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThreadWeaver[edit]

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

I'm not particularly sure about this one, but basically every source I can find only mentions that it's in KDE to help deal with multicore processors and nothing more. I'm not sure if it's notable enough unless the notability is inherited from its inclusion with KDE 4. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with KDE, it isn't notable to stand on its own as an article UltraMagnus (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one of the core KDE 4 technologies and as such it deserves it's own article, IMHO. Right now, the article is a stub, but with time I'm sure it'll get expanded and be more informative. Thank you. kedadial 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to KDE. It is not notable enough to warrant its own article, ergo it should not have one, but if it is an integral part of KDE 4, then that's where it belongs. Yes, I said WP:CORP - as per the now obsolesced software guideline, this is what governs software. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Walker[edit]

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

Son of a highly notable figure (Oodgeroo Noonuccal) but no clear notability in own right. Claims to have co-founded the Aboriginal Tent Embassy but the WP article does not mention him. First media reference only mentions that he assisted his mother on occasion. Second media reference indicates he co-organised a protest in 1971. Could not find anything else. Manning (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple one. Most of the sources discuss this person in the context of the Australian Black Panther Party. See the two sources cited as further reading here, for starters. Since we don't have such an article, and since there's content here that would go in to such an article, renaming and refactoring is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidence exists that he was a notable activist. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [37] A fair chunk of news coverage, some of it fairly detailed, spanning 37 years. Ray^Talk 13:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Orderinchaos 04:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A9) by Y. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 07:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moo york[edit]

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

not notable - an article about a 10 second clip on a particular show is not relevant - at most it merits a sentence in the Chris Moyles article noq (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Single by The Chris Moyles Show" Has not charted, and unlikely to chart unless picked up for a Chick-fil-A commercial. --Milowent (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, so the Black Eyed Peas flubbed a line in a song. Doesn't make it notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A9 Stretching A9 a bit, but the "performer" is the non-notable gang of a radio show. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and TPH tagged for speedy A9. Beat me to it, will ya? =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no notability or sources, as per above. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Rahimzadeh[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:SCHOLAR. nothing in gnews and not much in gscholar [38]. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero GS cites. Looks like a Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Probably could have been speedied -- there's not even a claim of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an associate professor with nothing else doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PROF. Eeekster (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:N. Article asserts ZERO notability. ArcAngel (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the above. I did not intend to relist this, it can be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above -- notability isn't there. Being an asst prof isn't an assertion of notability Bfigura ^(talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Metcalf[edit]

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

fails WP:AUTHOR (particularly criteria 1 and 4), found very limited coverage of this author such as [39] and [40] but not much else. simply winning 1 not well known award (it's not a national award) doesn't grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I could not find significant coverage of this person to pass WP:AUTHOR. ArcAngel (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm pretty sure I've met this person, and with all due respect to him he's not (yet) notable. (Certainly not per WP:AUTHOR). And while we're at it, with regrets to the fine people at the ACT Writer's Centre, who I definitely HAVE met, the ACT Writing and Publishing Awards aren't notable either (they're a short step above vanity press), although at least one of the recipients is. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice stub on a notable author and doctor. He's won some awards. Published several works. Seems fine to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's a stub about an author who seems to meet the notability requirements. Article is adequately referenced. Gillyweed (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable in a local sort of way. Won some notable awards, written up in the local news. Ray^Talk 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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