< 8 October	10 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Van Voorhees[edit]

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

Such a massive autobio crys out for an AfD. Is he notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really; don't see the substantial coverage in reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are footnotes to online information. Currently obtaining other sources from public archives such as LSUS library archives. Also researching case numbers on class action suit. How many newspaper mentions are required? Jvanv 08:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonvanv (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relliable sources added more to come --Jonvanv (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 46 footnotes, 7 independent publications, multiple web sites, seem to indicate that others thought of van voorhees as notable or quotable. I'm sure the article could be improved and I would appreciate any help you may be able to offer. --Jonvanv (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see no incoming links. I see an assertion of "celebrity" that links to a CV (ie, cut hair of celebrities Jill Ireland, Elizabeth Wurtzel etc), and the whole article is basically reproducing what seems to be self-publicity already available on the web. Project Clear Visions: The Anthrax Conspiracy has an IMDB entry and many associated webpages but no review that I can see. I haven't checked every link, but of the dozen or so, I have none seems to satisfy WP:CREATIVE on its own; possibly in combination they might achieve notability, but it would require a situation where other editors had access to verifiable sources. Otherwise, it's just possible it could be moved to userspace, the editor could contribute to other articles, and clean bio up so that notability claims were clearer. There's an external link to the Coty Award but no indication he won or was nominated for it. Does the Texas Monthly Bum Steer Award count as notable award? Any comments or quotes by major hairstylists, in hairstyling magazines? Class action suit would need newspaper coverage IMHO. (Protested against nukes but worked for Raytheon?). No offence intended, just can't see enough evidence of meeting WP:BIO. --Cedders^tk 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the web about Columbia Park Bust, very little about George D'artois, some about district 14 race. Difficult to find references about class action suit due to date, 1970 which is why this was included - will contact Henry Walker and George Strickler to see if they have case numbers etc. Links to Austin, Orlando, and Dallas Newspapers referencing Van Voorhees as hairstylist that introduced new perm treatment in addition to fantasy styles published indicate he was fairly widely known. will write article about fantasy hair as a sub-genre of hairstyling & van voorhees' contributions were published in news media. Not much on difference between precision hair cutting and hair sculpting, may warrant another article or addition of a section to the article on hairstyle. Coty award was for Bill Tice indicating that Van Voorhees worked with notable people because he was a stylist of note. Texas Monthly is a prominent magazine inclusion in any form is recognition of notability. Everyone has to make a living, not everyone agrees with the positions and policies of their employers. pretty sure NO NUKES was before Raytheon. --Jonvanv (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns passing mentions, while the sources in the article seem to be more about topics that are related to the subject, not the subject himself. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 16 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Baker[edit]

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

This WP:BLP subject claims direct descent from divinity, but so do many, many others. The only absolute claim to notability I can see is the authorship of very many books, and on checking the British Library catalogue I find 80 or so. However, they are published either by 'D. Baker' or by 'Baker Publications', or by Claregate College which the author established. The only source actually cited is his own website and I have not found any other independent sources. Therefore I do not believe the subject is truly notable; in addition there is a matter of controversy over his history. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, and these publications can be treated as self-published. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. amazon.com has quite a lot of books with named publishers, so I don't think it is true that he only self-publishes. He's a nutcase, but that isn't reason for deletion either. Zero^talk 15:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As I can't turn any up any signifigant discussion of him in reliable sources. (Being a fringe self-published author might do that). But given the volume of stuff published, it wouldn't be surprising if there were articles that establish notability somewhere. Keep if they get found, but otherwise delete (since I couldn't find any) Bfigura ^(talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is (almost but not quite entirely) the work of User:Solar who originally asserted the subject has "written over a hundred books on various esoteric subjects, which it is claimed makes his works the largest collection in the world produced by a living author" - may be weasel words, but sounds notably prolific. Lectured [1] at Theosophical Society and described as "renowned esotericist", so while fringe, not "fringe of fringe". Amazon turns up mentions (of Douglas M. Baker) in "Guide pratique des élixirs floraux du Dr Bach by Roger Halfon", "The Alchemist's Handbook by John Randolph Price" and at least 2 other authors. I don't believe a controversy or slow edit war (about two points) is a reason to delete. --Cedders^tk 18:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The article provides no evidence or reason to suppose notability. Good faith search of online sources do not identify any significant independent coverage of him or his (numerous) works in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 05:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more. I'm not a regular here at all, I stumbled across this and can't believe what the issue is, to have Dr Baker deleted. Misunderstanding of what he says seems to be the only reason here, and the fact that others have not written a lot about him and therefore he is not cross referenced.... right ? Maybe some first hand insight might help his case. ?

I personally know Dr Baker better than many, though I have not had anything to do with him and the Claregate college since the late 90's, I'll stand up to vouch for him and his writings. My best friend moved to London late 80's meet and married his wife, who's brother works for Dr Baker. I was first told of Dr Baker through my best friend. then he came out to Australia with Dr Baker on a lecture tour, 1993 I believe...where I sat in on his lectures in Sydney and met him and his other staff. I spent a lot of of time with them all during that lecture series, and I was given numerous books of Dr Baker's to read when they left. Dr Baker came back for a few more lecture tours the following years, 94 and 95, I volunteered to come on tour with them spending upwards of two weeks at a time working and living with Dr Baker and his staff, sharing every meal etc. I came to know the man behind the lecturer that only a hand full of people got to see. Dr Baker always said he is only putting the ancient wisdom into the language of the day, and to study all the great works out there. That I have tried to... I have many many books of what are called the great works by the Theosophical Society written by authors such as Madame H P Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Alice Bailey, C W Leadbeater, J Krishnamurtti, Geoffrey Hodson, Manly P Hall, G De Purucker A E Powell, C Jinarajadasa, Mabel Collins and others such as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita...... Oh and all of Dr Bakers 100 or so books.... What strikes me having read all these hundreds of book on the one massive subject... is... that no book contradicts any other book.. they all are saying the same thing.... So either it is one huge cover up over hundreds of years, or they are all telling the truth.... I tend to think the latter.. The proof is in your own research. The problem, with comments Dr Baker makes, to the ordinary man on the street is their understanding of what he is actually talking about, They are taken too literally. Dr Baker says he is immortal.... people then think well he'll die soon and that will show us he's not... You need to understand what Dr Baker means by that. Of course he is not talking about his physical body.. he doesn't relate his body as being himself .. it is his spiritual self, his soul, his higher self that is immortal.. and it is that part of him that he recognizes as being HIMSELF. The same about the comment that he is from the divine... we all are.. all our souls are... so he is not excluding everyone else out by saying he is from the divine... he means that we all are a spark of the divine, a spark of God...Like Jesus said, I am the son of God... we all are the son's and daughters of God ... though at that level we are neither male or female. So I say read up to see that what Dr Baker has written is only what has been written about in spiritual texts since man has been able to write, and see truth and collaboration in each and every one of these hundreds of books written... you just have to understand the language they are written in at the time.... you will see the thread of truth in all of them with no contradictions. I cringe at many contemporary writers touted today, I see contradictions in a single book... yet these guys are put on a pedestal and praised for THEIR insight... Dr Baker has never claimed that his writings are his own, but only Ancient Truths passed down from time immoral.... Many of the current day new age authors offer the "easy way" their way, to spiritual unfoldment, people love them and they become very popular because they don't have to do anything for it. But Dr Baker never says it's an easy path, he says it's the hardest thing you'll ever do... hence the main stream so called spiritual people don't follow his handed down teachings, and he is not touted as a main stream author or given great write ups in the main stream commercial spiritual circles, and he'll say so and call authors on some crap they may write, so he is almost feared and revered by many authors. Omnisk8 (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC) — Omnisk8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series[edit]

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

Challenged for being unsourced since June 2009. Does not indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-03t22:09z 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...Pokémon test. Lots of content but not much sourcing; fiction topics are very difficult, deleting one implies a whole lot more need to be deleted as well, basically the entire contents of the ((MBF)) except for the book as well the contents of a vast number of others templates - (((swordoftruth)), ((DarkTower)), ((discworld))). I'm normally a stickler for policies and guidelines, but this one seems like it would wipe out a lot of content and be applied extremely unevenly. It may be worth spending more time working on a policy or guideline (i.e. WP:FICTION) than engaging in an issue-by-issue deletion discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:34, 6 October 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, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Malazan Book of the Fallen has a set of well-written articles contributed by many editors based on a fictional "universe" like many others, apparently 10 novels. I wouldn't like to see coverage extended any further, but they are presumably useful as a reference for more than a few, such that Wikipedia has become the top Google hit (itself sometimes a cause for deletion, but not where it is a digest of, albeit useless, knowledge). These are already lists and so merging does not seem an option, and deletion would be damaging. --Cedders^tk 19:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali's Telefilms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ali's Telefilms

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

Challenged prod. I believe this is a hoax which borders on but does not cross the line of speedy deletion. There is absolutely nothing on google about this production house, and almost all of the text was coped from Balaji Telefilms, including the list of "productions" when I PRODded. Odd to find not a single google hit for "one of the US top production house." (If anyone thinks it does cross the speedy line, I have no objection.) Barring the production of reliable sources to verify that this isn't somebody something made up, this article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more evidence for its falsehood is the willynilly changing made by the IP that removed the PROD; it seems that the data were changed simply to keep this from being an obvious copy of the other article. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a speedy delete tag that was removed because the admin wants the AFD to finish. I'm surprised at how many admins do that when the article meets speedy criteria including if it's a hoax or if the only main contributor requests deletion. What's the point of letting the AFD continue? Especially if it is a hoax? Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My mind tells me that if they are involved with all these shows, in all these locations, and have received "such a great comments by the viewers about there shows" (is that even a sentence?) then they would have something on Google. Almost definitely a hoax. Vincent Valentine 03:23, 14 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 consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preben Damgaard[edit]

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

Marked since August 2009 for being advert, biased, citationstyle, possible COI, colloquial, copyedit, introrewrite, likeresume, orphan, peacock, refimprove, spam, tone, and unencyclopedic. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-03t22:15z 22:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Why didn't anyone speedy-tag this?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:21, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeERP[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources on the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even were sources to be found, the article does not assert the notability of the subject. Sources establish a presumption only when they confirm an assertion of notability; see WP:MILL and WP:EXIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:43, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Delano Gilliam, Jr.[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a true-crimes archive; this is a sordid but in no way unusual murder case. PROD removed by author saying "This was a relatively high profile case at the time", but that is not the same as notability, and this does not meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nolamgm (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case was notable because of the controversial nature of the death penalty in Maryland. Every capital case that makes it through the appeals process is front page news in this state.--Ppatin (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "front page news" is not the same as "historical and encyclopedic notability" - see WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if he did get sufficient coverage, he would fall under the grounds of WP:BLP1E — he's only known for one specific part of his life. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, the policy WP:BLP1E does not apply to this individual for the simple fact that he is dead. Second, the guideline of WP:ONEEVENT does not apply as the article is about multiple events: crime, trial, appeals, execution. This is multiple events. Third, we have a guideline specifically for crimes: WP:N/CA. Finally, there is currently an RfC ongoing about notability and executed individuals. As I have forwarded in numerous AfD and the mentioned RfC,"ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed. There has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. This individual fits this category. He has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." He is therefore notable under our guideline and should be included. Nolamgm (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to mention above that WP:ONEEVENT is a naming guideline. It should never be used as a reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators, part of WP:ONEEVENT applicable to criminals is also a naming guideline. As I mentioned above, this article is not about one event. It is about multiple. In support of this I did some research on Gilliam. I have forwarded for sometime that all executions in the United States are notable because they received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The below list demonstrates this position. It also shows that the execution itself has become notable due to allegations that it was botched. Gilliam has been cited in numerous appeals and articles of the three drug cocktail method employed in the United States. (Please note that the list is not hyperlinked because I used a subscription/fee database and not Google. Also Gilliam is listed as Tyrone Delano Gilliam, Jr. and Tyrone X. Gilliam for some resaon.)Nolamgm (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denniston, Lyle (2/20/91) “Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Of Death Penalty For Gilliam” Baltimore Sun

Lyons, Sheridan (3/16/94) “Gilliam's Execution Set For Next Month” Baltimore Sun

Denniston, Lyle (10/4/94) “Justices Reject Inmate's Appeal Of State's Lethal Injection Method” Baltimore Sun

Rivera, James (11/21/96) “Death Sentence Overturned In Slaying; Defense Prepared Witnesses Inadequately, Judge Says” Baltimore Sun

James, Michael (4/11/97) “U.S. Judge Overturns His Order; Death Sentence Restored; Murder Suspect's Lawyer Made Sufficient Effort, Garbis Now Says” Baltimore Sun

Wagner, Arlo (9/25/98) “Inmates on Death Row Get Reprimanded” The Washington Times

Francke, Caitlin (11/10/98) “Killer Loses Bid To Appeal To State Court; Gilliam's Case Referred Back To Baltimore County” Baltimore Sun

“Across The USA: News From Every State” (11/2/98) USA Today

Francke, Caitlin (11/15/98) “Dead Woman's Parents Differ Over Killer's Fate Sources Say Mother Favors Clemency For Death-Row Inmate” Baltimore Sun

Kane, Gregory (11/15/98) “Questions Of Justice Cloud Issue Of Gilliam Execution” Baltimore Sun

Wagner, Arlo (11/17/98) “Maryland Executes Killer; Shotgun Robbery Netted $3” The Washington Times

“Gilliam Executed in MD” (11/17/98) Associated Press Wire

Francke, Caitlin (11/17/98) “Gilliam Executed For `88 Slaying Death By Injection Comes 10 Years After A $3 Robbery-Murder Final Appeals Are Rejected Killer Goes To Death Still Proclaiming That He Didn't Pull Trigger “Baltimore Sun

Stuckey, Tom (6/1604) “Death row inmate gets stay; injection method questioned” Houston Chronicle

Miller, S.A (6/16/04) “Court Stays Oken Execution Judge Cites State's Failure To Deliver Details Of Injection” The Washington Times

Glendening, Parris 12/20/05 “Editorial: The Value of Black Life in Maryland” Washington Post

Dechter, Gadi and , Laura (11/13/08) “Repeal Of Death Penalty Urged Md. Panel Votes To End Executions” Baltimore Sun

Woolner, Ann (1/15/08) “Editorial: Putting Inmates Down Like Dogs” Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)

Comment - Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators is not "part of WP:ONEEVENT" or "a naming guideline" - it is part of WP:N/CA which is a notability guideline to help decide which criminal acts should be included. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators is based on WP:ONEEVENT. It says so clearly: "Any notability of the crime is not automatically inherited by the victims or perpetrators of such crimes, and articles should not automatically be created on these individuals, in accordance with WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E." (Emphasis added.) WP:ONEEVENT is mostly a naming guideline. The first sentence of WP:ONEEVENT provides in full "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." WP:ONEEVENT does not say that you cannot be notable based on one event. It in fact demonstrates individuals who have. WP:ONEEVENT simple says that you don't get a biography just because you played a role in a notable event or are mentioned in a main article. That's why I, and many other editors, say it is a naming guideline. Nolamgm (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're mainly arguing about words here. The point those guidelines are trying to make is that there shouldn't be extensive biographies of criminals or victims not notable apart from the crime. That's not a problem here - the article focuses, properly, on the crime and the aftermath. The naming issue of whether the article is called "Tyrone Gilliam" or "Murder of Christine Doerffler" or "Crime and execution of Tyrone Gilliam" doesn't seem to me all that important - the present name is probably the best one from a search point of view. The actual issue where we disagree, given that the article is about the crime and execution, is: are they notable? That's where I think WP:N/CA is relevant. But I think we've both said our piece here - let's carry on at the RFC, where I am thinking out what I want to say and will comment in a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a very interesting factoid in the Washington Post related to this person that should be noted in Parris Glendening and/or Capital punishment in Maryland (i.e. Glendening issued a moratorium on executions after all four of the capital punishment cases he had to address involved black on white crime)[2] - but I'm not certain that there is anything reflecting coverage that would take this out of WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm going to abstain for a bit to give other interested parties time to dig up something more than regional coverage of this. Location (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. There does not appear to be significant or persistent coverage of the murder or execution outside of the region where this occurred. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it would be nice if the relevant guidelines regarding "significant coverage" were tweaked to help define the difference between items that are encyclopedic or just news. Location (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that more guidance could be useful or at least a reworking of the WP:N policies, guidelines, and essays. I think that this would be a misapplication of WP:NOT#NEWS in the instant case. The main tenet of this policy is that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Some of the newspaper articles I cite above would fit this description. They are simple blurbs that Gilliam was executed. However, most of the newspaper articles offer detailed coverage of either the trial, appeal, and/or execution. The rest of the language in WP:NOT#NEWS is pretty much a reiteration of the WP:BLP1E policy and the WP:ONEEVENT guideline. It even links directly to WP:BLP1E. I know of no current policy or guideline that offers any guidance on this "regional notability" issue. There is a proposed guideline of WP:LOCALINT but it has not yet received consensus for adoption. Nolamgm (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a brutal murder that got local coverage... and then a bit extra coverage 'cause the state killed the perpetrator as his punishment. Nephron T|C 03:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, basically per Nolamgm. While I appreciate and agree that WP:NOTNEWS would suggest that this article ought not be here, this case is different. The point about the executions in the United States is well-taken - I believe that the majority of cases that proceed to execution will have sufficient available information from reliable sources to justify an article. Particularly here, where there is so much coverage from the Washinton D.C. press corps, it seems overly rigid to delete. Like Nolamgm I have access to a pay database, and I can confirm that the bulk of these articles are substantial treatments of various aspects of the case. The execution did get some very brief international mention in Germany (AP feed) and The Netherlands (50 word summary). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. The idea that the murder, trails, appeals and executions are separate events are contrary to the spirit of the policy. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:42, 17 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 consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caner Malkarali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the biography of a purported Turkish author who is studying economics at Vassar. It is essentially a copy of the author's Facebook entry, full of puffery and vanity. For his novel, Ceskin Faik, no ISBN is given and there are no reviews. The publisher's website http://www.iskenderiye.com.tr/ is not presently accessible--the domain registration for iskenderiye.com.tr (Feb, 2008) still exists but there is no name server response. Perhaps the novel was self-published and the publisher's website was a vanity publisher. In short we have no reliable information on this person. And we have no reason to assume that he has done anything of significance except to publish his claim to be an author. --TS 20:19, 3 October 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, 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 merge to Mayer Hawthorne. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Strange Arrangement[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs), reason provided was:

“

Prod removed by creator without addressing the concerns. Fails to meet the criteria for music albums. At best, could be merged into Mayer Hawthorne. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

”

Procedural nomination, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. Delete. 76.173.74.250 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this pointless? Its someones album that they released with references. I don't understand how you can call your actions on Wikipedia un-bias. All you are doing is deleting work that is obviously important (and this has a point) to somebody. You are not the only person browsing Wikipedia. I'm sure the article will not get in your precious way. I don't understand you people. Don't you have anything better to do than exercise your tiny ounce of power that Wikipedia gives to ALL users by being an asshole? Independent Music Source (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted by JForget (talk · contribs) at 23:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC), who for some reason did not use the standard relisting template. Tim Song (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
As much as I tend to react to people being insulting and not understanding how the actual notability process on Wikipedia works by being more inclined to delete, this album has charted, and has been up to number 2 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, while also breaking into the R&B and Billboard 200 charts as well. It's not *huge*, but it's charted, so may be notable. Weak keep and I'm going to leave a nice note for the above editor. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mayer Hawthorne as suggested on article talk page Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) While the editor Independent Music Source is not helping his case, the reason I am supporting the deletion is based solely on the lack of notability of the album. Nezzadar (speak) 22:58, 11 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Containers[edit]

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

Coverage seems limited to self-published references and mirrors of Wikipedia. I'd dispute the factual accuracy of some of the claims made in the article, but after all it's the subject that's being evaluated, not the article itself. decltype (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not appear to have any reliable sources covering it. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing establishes notability, no third party sources. Miami33139 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources wouldn't fix the problem as the article does not assert notability. A well-sourced topic can still be non-notable where it makes no claim to being other than run-of-the-mill. See WP:MILL and WP:EXIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:46, 14 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KAlgebra[edit]

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

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. This is an advertisement, and the only thing missing is the price; we can't solve-for-x because there's not enough info. Generally, an encyclopedia article does not include the words "And more!" Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to have any reliable sources covering the subject. Seems like a useful app, and the binary has lots of mirrors. It will probably be notable soon enough. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shove this in a shredder. I don't know what KAlgabra is even after reading the article. James1011R (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - Are software components of the KDE desktop environment considered inherently notable, or deserving of inclusion simply in service of comprehensive reference? From my perspective as a user of free_and_open_source_software the software packages associated with KDE or gnome_desktop are highly notable but perhaps this is a personal fish-eye lens distortion of notability. Has there been some general discussion on this point? Ben Kidwell (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No software is considered inherently notable. Joe Chill (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find specific criteria for software in the wikipedia notability guidelines. Is there a discussion area where software area contributors reached consensus on this topic? I am personally surprised that software that is part of KDE would be considered non-notable. Ben Kidwell (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There isn't specific criteria. A guideline was proposed, but it didn't gain concensus. Joe Chill (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks very much for the reference. The proposed guideline seems to imply that software packages that are commonly included and distributed in free software OS repositories may be encyclopedic even in the absence of media coverage. This seems like an important point to get some consensus on, because there are a large number of software programs that are ubiquitous in the free and open source software world that don't receive any media coverage. If mainstream media coverage is required for software notability, that would seem to indicate many (most?) free software articles would be non-encyclopedic. This is somewhat outside the scope of this particular AfD, is there a good place to take this discussion? Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know the best place to take that discussion. You could try asking on the help desk. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable software. Has attracted no significant coverage. ^Bongo_matic 05:29, 15 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 Wishbone Ash. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty Blues: London and Beyond[edit]

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

All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 3 October 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, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wishbone Ash per WP:NALBUM. Albums of notable bands are generally considered to be themselves notable; however where the article contains little more than a track listing policy suggests it's more appropriate to merge to the artist's article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:51, 14 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. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andayil[edit]

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

This article is about a family that does not assert notability. There are no sources in the article aside from a statement that the information comes from the Andayil Temple Trust. As a source, this fails verifiability. My own search turns up no indication of notability for this family, nor any information about the Andayil Temple Trust. Whpq (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Also, the tags are present since July 2009. Not very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivas (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 01:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in searches to show notability for this particular family. -SpacemanSpiff 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Salih (talk) 04:22, 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. No consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Patten[edit]

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

The subject's lack of notability has been noted several times in the article's history and on the talk page. Employment history, listings of published articles by, not about Patten and association with user-generated websites as examiner.com do not establish notability, and many of the statements are simply not supported by the references (Gemini nomination, "founding board member" at a nn organization, for example). Flowanda | Talk 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon nu alpha[edit]

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

US intercollegiate fraternity being promoted by someone with an obvious COI. No evidence offered that it exists let alone that it might be notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of importance and notability. No references to support. Ghits found only Facebook page and group's offical page. Article was PROD, but later removed by the author without any justification or modification. Obvious Conflict of Interest WP:COI. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 19:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I am usually very skeptical about articles on fraternities with very few chapters. this has 11, and would be worth a fuller search for references. ` DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided at all, not even a link to the fraternity's own web site. I found no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia and mirror sites, nor any relevant Google News hits. I can't even figure out which colleges this fraternity has chapters at, because the chapters are identified only by city and not by the college they are supposed to be associated with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been updated to indicate that the fraternity has chapters at Cape Fear Community College, Winston-Salem State University, Savannah Technical College, and Darton College. However, I went to the web sites for each of these colleges and didn't find Upsilon Nu Alpha on the list of registered organizations there. See [3], [4], [5], and [6]. So I would need some more evidence to establish even the existence of this fraternity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for an inability to verify notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Greats: Lee "Scratch" Perry[edit]

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

No proof that this is real and their is no sources Mschilz20 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazon.com has the album for sale, so it must be real. However, it is not clear that this compilation is notable; I found no Google News or Google Books hits for the title. If someone wants to rescue this article, they should not only find sources that discuss it, but also remove much of the current content which is overly opinionated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In recognition of the sources noted by Michig, I am changing to neutral. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument that this may not be real is, frankly, pathetic. 10 seconds on Google could have proved otherwise. No sources is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for tagging the article as lacking references. The album obviously does exist, and sources are available: [7], [8], [9], [10], one of the "Recommended CDs" in the book World Music: the Basics ([11]). Also covered in Dave Thompson's book Reggae & Caribbean Music. I appreciate that the nominator may be new to Wikipedia, but deleting articles is not the best place to start for a newbie.--Michig (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep*. Okay, I'm biased because I created the page but it's a perfectly notable album by a perfectly notable artist. Incidentally I find the idea that I would have made up the album *and* it's track-listing too to be a rather strange notion. There's vandalism I know but who on Earth would to want create fictious Lee Perry albums? What would be the point? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 18:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment Not sure if the page follows the right page naming convention, regardless, I see no reason to get rid of the article in it's present form.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezzadar (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 11 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livid Records[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There are no sources in the article indicating notability, and can not find reliable sources that establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - the article about an organisation does not assert notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:53, 14 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonyum[edit]

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

Mystical fluff with no sources other than corporate web page and self-published books. I found lots of blog sources but could not find anything reputable. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of this article and I have had a very hard time citing it due to the fact that as you say, all of the books are self-published. I have tried writing the article in four different creative ways to make it not sound like an advertisement or like "mystical fluff" as the previous critique states. I have a genuine desire to place this subject on Wikipedia in accordance with the appropriate standards and criteria as it truly is a healing system that exists and that we offer at Universal Force Healing Center. Studies are currently being done but we just don't have medical statements right now. If you have any advice for me on how to better write this or cite this please let me know as I think is definitely noteworthy as it is healing people from various diseases (cancer, tumors, heart problems, bi-polar issues etc). I tried to write the article in such a way so that people knew it hadn't been proved but that it does exist, and I think that is fair and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.80.25 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 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, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:N - no independent secondary sources can be found. (The only independent source in the article is Blavatsky, who of course doesn't refer to Harmonyum, having died some considerable period before it was conceived.) To the author of the article, I appreciate that your only sources are self-published - what you'd need in order to have an article is to have your self-published works discussed by other people in newspapers, magazines, or books. That would be the proof we need that someone other than you cares about your books and your ideas. Feel free to recreate if that ever occurs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 15 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 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Newport to the Ancient Empty Streets of L.A[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is quite a famous bootleg. I've tried to improve the content of this article. Mick gold (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mick gold's improvements and WP:NALBUM. Notable artist creates a presumption of notability for the album, and this is certainly an exceptionally notable artist. That doesn't normally extend to bootlegs but given the cultural status of Bob Dylan and the quality of the article I'd advocate an exception. The additional detail included over and above the track listing justifies the use of a stand-alone page for the content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:58, 14 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The **** of the Mothers[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If ANY information at all can be found about the album I would say it could ride but if you say there is no outside information pertaining to it then I say delete, who will miss it? If anyone else has ever heard of it or believes its worth keeping speak up, my opinion is that an "unauthorized" compilation album article that has little confirmation of true existence won't be missed. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very surprised about this article. All that I can find for this is what is in the article and that includes out of unreliable and reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inapporpate needs to go.--Mschilz20 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a reason? Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The supporters of this article are going to have to provide some independent reliable sources to establish notability for this album, because its title is pretty much un-Googleable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empyreal Destroyer[edit]

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

Declined speedy; the article makes an assertion of notability. However, per WP:MUSIC I believe this band may fall below the notability bar. They are unsigned, and may have an album coming out at some point (likely a self-published release, though I can't be sure). While the last.fm site doesn't meet WP:RS (being a wiki), it does quote some magazine reviews; whether these constitute non-trivial coverage...? (tbh I haven't chased them up). Note that the last.fm article was also apparently written by the author of this article, and note the name (WP:COI). The other two refs are self-published and also unsuitable. EyeSerene^talk 21:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article makes an asserttion of notability then does it not meet the criteria for inclusion? Isn't one of the points for inclusion of a band an affirmation of the fact that they are noteworthy and represent that sub-genre of music... by being voted so by an independant publication (terrorizer Magazine) by the readers in 2007 and 2008? The release is not "self published" and I have been informed that it will be available in 4 territories (or continents if you prefer.. this can be chased by by looking up the Voiceprint label). You've also admitted here to not being sure on a matter you've called into question. The magazine reviews I believe do account as non-trivial coverage. The main reason being that these are magazines available to buy world wide... another matter you're unsure about. You an't really call something into question if you yourself are unsure and haven't chased it up... meant in a nice way here Im not picking a fight dude. what does my username have to do with anything? I believe the myspace is run by the band... making it a suitable source fromt he horses mouth so to speak. Im not too sure who wrote the fm article but it is probably based on general knowledge of the band gained from their official site and their myspace as well as articles in the past written by them. I could argue for every wiki article is we're not allowed to get info from a direct source. - Cyclonis12

Thanks for your response. The article asserts that the band is notable, but this is not the same as proving they're notable. If you take a look at WP:BAND, you'll see the notability criteria for bands. It seems to me that you're arguing that the band meets criteria 1 and 7. I'm not saying they don't, but we need proof from reliable sources that backs that up. Unfortunately you're right in saying that we're not supposed to get information from a direct (or primary) source. We can use such sources to write what someone says about themselves, but not for anything beyond that. The issue with your username is that you've edited no other articles (see WP:SPA), and Cyclonis is the name of a member of the band. This inidcates you may have a conflict of interest with the article subject; generally, if something is truly notable, someone unconnected with it will write about it. The ideal Wikipedia article is a neutral, balanced distillation of material in reliable secondary sources - I'm not saying these don't exist for Empyreal Destroyer, just that at present the article doesn't prove that they do. I hope that's clearer? What would help is some reliable sources - maybe links to those magazine reviews etc? EyeSerene^talk 08:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria being in points 1 and 7 can be gained by ordering back issues of the magazine or contacting the magazine itself. Otherwise musician forums such as http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548301 could be used as secondary sources. Im pretty sure its just a case of "googling" for these articles. At the moment Im about to leave to go to Essex but will pick this up once I have time again. Im pretty new to this dude. Ive only been on wiki for a few weeks give me some time to get things done. My username comes from a love of transformers the movie. I will get those sources on here once I get free time to sift through google. --Cyclonis12 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC) cyclonis12[reply]

Im not sure if these will help or not but here you go. http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=80475 http://www.brutalism.com/wb/pages/reviews/reviews-e/empyreal-destroyer.php http://www.heathenharvest.com/article.php?story=20071014062049101&mode=print http://www.live4metal.com/live-28.htm http://www.organart.demon.co.uk/neworgan172.htm http://www.schwermetall.ch/cdkritiken/kritik1714.php Unfirtunately I dont have scans or can find online scans of their appearance in Kerrang!, terrorizer, and metal Hammer, and Zero Tolerance Magazine, though there is evidence of it in numerous musician forums it seems. http://www.metalstormmag.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=11

That came up on the first 2 pages. Im sure theres more if I sift through more of it. --Cyclonis12 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC) cyclonis12[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a country/western band? No? So I thought... Did they invent gunpowder, or perhaps saved the world? No ?! - delete. NVO (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Terrorizo magazine notation is for being voted for something. But in any case, that's very thin coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 15 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. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, per general notability guidelines / WP:BIO. Chzz ► 21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. The two sources support virtually none of the article's claims, and don't seem to meet our reliability standards; the sourcing is hopelessly inadequate for a WP:BLP. To be honest it looks like a advertising piece. Delete. EyeSerene^talk 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems highly self-promotional with peacock words and the vague mention of holding "high positions" with several companies without noting specifically what those positions are or any media coverage of notable corporate activities being credited to his actions. And it all culminates in promotion of his latest venture. --JamesAM (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:10, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lego Batman: The Videogame characters[edit]

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

Kinda falls under WP:GAMEGUIDE. Game not really notable enough for a list of characters. If it was part of a notable franchise, (well, it could be considered a franchise along with Lego Star Wars: The Video Game and Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures, but it doens't really work in this case) that might be OK, but not in this instance. Is also pure original research. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the game. Agreed it doesn't justify a separate list of characters. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, don't know if this changes anything, but there's already a shorter list of characters in table form in the article, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right. The additional information and additional characters can be merged. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Character list already exists in an acceptable format within Lego Batman: The Videogame. --Teancum (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a much more concise and easier to read list exists in the game's article, although that list may need to be referenced. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for this article and there is no benefit in keeping it. All that's necessary is to mention on relevant pages that they were in Lego Batman. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VGSCOPE. Marasmusine (talk) 11:23, 16 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) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codespring[edit]

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

More or less spam; most of the links are thoroughly commercial, and those that are not merely mention the company of passing. Having notable clients does not automatically make one notable; neither does having a booth at an expo. Oh, and User:Szilagyiz is the creator; guess who's their contact person. Why, Szilágyi Enikő, of course! - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CallForPrices: they seem to have overlooked this :) Delete. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Microsoft Gold Partner should be another good reference: MS Solution Finder. Szilagyiz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC). There will be other notability issues mentioned in the course of the week. --Szilagyiz (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. I would argue that the Microsoft Gold Partner Certification does not imply notability as seen by the requirements to attain such a status on Microsoft's web site: https://partner.microsoft.com/40013031. Furthermore the article reads more or less like an advertisement. Also possible COI issue as noted by nom. --Aka042 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 15 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) 01:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeoCube[edit]

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

A non-notable toy made of a bunch of magnetic balls. While it looks kind of neat, the article has severe issues with spaminess (includes a handy pricing section) and appears to fall under the Wikipedia is not for things you just invented rule. Also, there's no real demonstration of notability (youtube and a brief mention on gizmodo don't count in my opinion), nor could I find any reliable sources via google. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not spam. Look at my references, many reliable sources have written about the NeoCube...such as WPVI-TV and the Pitt News a college newspaper or something. I worked pretty hard on it and the Pricing section I added in to show the cents per sphere. Keep XRDoDRX (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. A non-notable toy. Crafty (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is notable, actually, and as I have demonstrated reliable, third party news sources verify almost every part of the article except the section on Knock-offs, which I am trying my best to address. XRDoDRX (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I see lots of links to YouTube. A deadlink to pittnews, an abc local affiliate, a blog and a German site. You need to show significant coverage in second and/or third party reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link wasn't always dead. However the more you guys find fault w/the article, the less able I seem to be to fix it. I think ibrought unnecessary attention to it by requesting assisstance. :( XRDoDRX (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the English version goes, what about the French and Russian versions? XRDoDRX (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter for the French and Russian Wikipedias. Fortunately we only have to worry about the English Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the multiple independent sources writing about this. The Pitt News 404 is not relevant as student press isn't usually conidered strong enough to establish notability, so this leaves a local affiliate station's piece. Not sufficicent to clear the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 15 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) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chartjackers[edit]

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

Seems to be "sourced" to press releases, YouTube and Twitter; fails WP:V Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources that I can see (lots are present but seem to have little or nothing to do with the topic), aggressively self-promoting; possibly a case of "Wikipedia-jacking". Accounting4Taste:talk 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per Accounting4Taste. HandyScholar (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite it in a wikipedia fasion. --86.175.26.86 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. 81.168.70.117 (talk) 13:23, 12 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) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worvine Acadamy[edit]

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

Unsourced and probably misspelled (Worvine Academy). Nothing beyond what could be covered on Maya and Miguel. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Web search on this does not even return one result. (went ahead and moved this article to the correct spelling). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maya_and_Miguel. No references to third-party sources establishing notability, but a likely search term. --EEMIV (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite possibly the most unlikely search term ever. Even correctly spelled, has only the two Wikipedia pages as a hit on Google. Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If there hadn't been that recent blowup, I'd just redirect it now and we could go on our way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 12 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 Women_Without_Borders#SAVE_campaign. Redirecting to the parent organization for now. The consensus is that at this time the subject is not independently notable. If this changes in the future then the article can be restored. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters Against Violent Extremism[edit]

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

Contested prod. Not seeing significant coverage where this group is the subject of the article. Google News produces only a single article. Included references are largely to youtube videos produced by parent group Women without Boarders. Other references appear to be blogs, or ones where this organization is not the subject of the article. Not seeing how this might meet notability guidelines. The parent organization might however. RadioFan (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Women Without Borders seems notable, so one solution would be to write that article, and stub and merge this one into it. Fences&Windows 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and redirect~~.Merge. I thought Women Without Borders was redlinked, but that's just the typo, Women without Borders... It already contains a section on this project at Women_Without_Borders#SAVE_campaign. Fences&Windows 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good catch, I agree that a redirect to the existing section would be the best course. If there are no objections in a day or so, I'll withdraw and redirect.--RadioFan (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear RadioFan, I appreciate and respect your comments on the SAVE article I posted but I must disagree with your opinion for the article’s deletion or merger with Women without Borders. It is true that SAVE was an initiative started by Women without Borders, however SAVE itself has drawn the interest from other Organizations who are now taking part in SAVE projects. Also in references to SAVE’s media coverage there has been quite a bit of coverage in Indian and Austrian publications: Hindustan times (Lucknow, India), Sunday Times (Lucknow, India), Sunday Express (Lucknow, India) and in Austria there is coverage in Kurier and Die Presse. I have seen clippings of these articles but I have not yet cited them it will take me a day or two to do so. Of course I may need your help to make sure that it is done properly to maintain Wikipedia quality standards. Please get back to me with your response whenever you are able. Thank you so much for your time and effort. SincerelyBdanna81 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that a dedicated article is warranted. This topic can be sufficiently covered in the main Women WIthout Borders aritlce. Please add the references you have located. They will be included when/if the article is merged into Women Without Borders. This article will be redirected to that section so that no one gets lost.--RadioFan (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RadioFan, I have added three new references to the article all of which are from reliable newspapers.There are many more but some are in Hindi, German, etc... and some cover events and information that is not yet mentioned in the article. In addition to this coverage there is also an up coming presentation for SAVE at Oxford University in late October. I also wanted to ask you why the SAVE article has been added to the Sexuality and Gender-related deletion discussions list, is the article offensive? I sincerely appreciate your time and effort.Bdanna81 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning. It's a feminist project, so appropriate for a listing that covers gender issues. Fences&Windows 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. I wanted to ask if it being a feminist project was grounds for deletion because I read the page on Sexuality and Gender related deletion discussions but was not sure if it was part of the reason for the SAVE articles proposed deletion. I am Sorry again for the miscommunication.Bdanna81 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can sort deletion discussions into various lists - this is only to highlight them to editors who are interested in those topics. Fences&Windows 04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any chance you could link to the specific references you have here, in the deletion discussion? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:[12][13][14][15][16] Fences&Windows 04:49, 11 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) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Minhaj[edit]

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

Formerly a PROD, which was then deleted and then restored as contested per a talk page appeal. No evidence of notability from multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. There are claims of mentions in newspapers, but these have not been sourced, despite giving the author a reasonable amount of time to find these. For being so notable, very few third party sources about his company can be found; not even the usual press release-type material seems to exist anywhere other than on the site. I took this to indicate a possible WP:HOAX, but your mileage may vary. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or no chance at notability. Someone with an account very close to the author claims to have sources, but they haven't shown up. Perhaps there is FUTON bias, but the lack of any mention of such a noteworthy person means it's a hoax, an advert, or an entirely non-notable individual. In any case, delete. tedder (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note about usernames note the two very similar usernames: User:Mike6565 and User:Mick6565. It's easy to overlook the difference, especially since they are both single-article accounts. tedder (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note about userspace article there is another version of this in userspace: User:Mike6565/Hamed Minhaj. If this is deemed a hoax, I encourage the closing admin to delete that version too. tedder (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author Dear All,

I do not need to create a hoax or waste my time or anyone else. i am writing to help by covering people from countries that don't get attention from everyone. these people are notable and have done alot of good work. i don't claim to have the newspapers. I DO HAVE THEM. i will be more then glad to email or upload to you guys for checking or anything that you guys see fit. Please do not delete something that i have worked hard on it. as i have mentioned that i am willing to provide more info for you guys. i have the documents from afghanitan investment commission which clearly states this companies investment and works. please advice where do i load them. as i have mention they are hard copies. Please kindly do not treat every country like developed countries where all the news and stuff is avaiable online.

please do help me and guide to the right direction.

2 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a majority of the article also seems to focus on what the subject intends to do as an entrepreneur. Very little seems to be about why the subject is notable now, which also appears to be an issue of WP:CRYSTAL. Can you please shed some light on what aspects of the WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG criteria the subject meets? --Kinu ^t/_c 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author Dear Kinu,

maybe the way i wrote is not perfect, it may need touch up to get it acceptable to wikipedia standards. i will name few of the points for you

1) His company is the first malaysian company to invest in Afghanistan according to kabul weekly newspaper and afghanistan times. 2) His foundation is a very active in the country. providing for the poor and orphanage around the country which is also been covered in kabul weekly newspaper. 3) This is the second company to secure the edible refinery license in the afghanistan and upon completion making it the biggest. 4) after my full research he is only 25 years old. he start at the age of 16. at a such a young age he has achived so much again covered in kabul weekly. 5) actively promoting afghanistan to international companies. 6) currently in talks with major banks from malaysia to joint venture in afghanistan according to companies press release and story covered by afghanistan papers 7) Owns 7 soccer teams in afghanistan and one of the main sponsor of the sport in afghanistan. this covered in tv's in aghanistan upon his company sponoring the soccer teams.

there is alot more about this person and his work. i am very sure he is a full notable person.

kindly rest assured i have done my home work and have done a full research on Hamed Minhaj and his compaines before i wrote this article. i have all the hard copies with me.

02/10/09 mike6565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike6565, can you post the information about a few of the most major articles about him? In other words, post the title of the article, the page number/section in the paper, the name of the paper, and the date of publication? That way some of WikiProject Afghanistan can help verify. tedder (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Crafty (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author Dear Tedder,

As requested kindly find the following:

1) Kabul Weekly news paper No. 356 on 27 May 2009, Front page tile.YOUNG, AMBITIOUS, ENTREPRENEUR AND ROLE MODEL TO HIS GENERATION. 2) Me & You weekly on saturday 7/03/2009 front page 3) Me & You weekly on 14/03/2009 front page 4) Kabul weekly on 11/02/2009 page 3 under report. tile Wamata Corporation, Malaysia Joint Venture With Local Afghan's Expertise Spearheading Investment and Construction Projects in Afghanistan. 5) Afghanistan times on 11/02/2009 front page Wamata corporation speardeading investemtent in afghanitan 6) Shba Daza Magazine page 23 7)Copies license and investment document of the edible oil refinery from ASIA ( Afghanistan investment commission) 8) copies of License from ASIA for wamata corpoation

in kabulweekly they have wrote about him in almost 2 pages from his young days till today. about his foundation and so on. i hope the above has helped and willing to help more if needed be.

I have all the hard copies.

mike6565 03/10/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author Dear All Admins

Please kindly help me to make this article better, i mean if someone can help to rewrite it with information provided with better English. and kindly remove the tags from the account. i have been cooperative with information requested. if i can be any further help then please feel free to ask. once this is done, i want to start on my next article.

thanking all of you for your kind help in this matter.

mike6565- 10-10-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC) *Delete as nominated. Not notable. I also agree with the WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Crafty (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Striking my own duplicate vote. Crafty (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author Dear Craftyminion,

why would you say it is not notable. i have read the rules for notable on wikipedia, it say if the person is covered in a third party publication then it can be consider notable. this person is cover in above newspapers and magazine. i have provide you with the full list, with dates, and numbers. so i am sure that this person is notable. and has done a lot work at his young age.

Please explain your reason, then simply saying delete or not notable. i am sure that everyone here is trying to help and expand the Wikipedia with the right information.

thank you mike6565- 10-10-2009- 4:39 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you crafty

mike6565-10-101-2009. 4:53 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you might want to hold your gratitude Mike. I struck my !vote because I forgot I'd already !voted 8 days ago to delete this article on notability grounds. This was partially me not paying attention but it's also because your scattergun posting style makes it extremely hard to read this page. Crafty (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that notability is established through significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you provide are a start, but without actually seeing the sources, a) they cannot be verified, and b) merely being mentioned in a newspaper, especially on a local scale, is not an indicator of actual notability per WP:BIO versus local importance. Also note that the Kabul Weekly IS online ([17]; the author linked to it himself in the article); however, there seems to be no mention of this subject found in the archives. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient notability to pass WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author Dear Kinu,

If you guys want i can mail the hard copies i have. kabul weekly online is not working, you can check yourself. i have the hard copies of these newspapers. it is not one to say he was merely mentioned. if you look at the list i provided, it has all the papers with date, number, pages and articles.

if i could be any more help, please feel free to ask. mike6565-10-10-09, 8:10 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PLEASE sign your comments!!!! You can do so by typing 4 consecutive tildes (~). I have noticed that you have been told already numerous times to sign your comments in you talk page, but you seem to not understand... Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Thank you Jolenine, --Mike6565 (talk) 21:48, 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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon CJ Graham[edit]

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

No apparent notability KenWalker | Talk 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A blogger who makes movies with(in) Halo 3. As surprising as it may seem, this doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is very well known, and is one of the most popular machinima directors out there. Perez Hilton is a blogger as well, but he hasn't done anything notable other than ask Carrie Prejean a controversal question, yet he has a Wikipedia article. He is a very well known figure, and has incredible noriety. That falls well within WP:BIO. The Edit Corrector (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't really a strong argument. The question at hand is: are there multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way? If there are, I haven't found them. Popularity on youtube isn't the same as notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say popularity on YouTube doesn't count, yet Fred is popular on Youtube as well, and has a Wikipedia article, but as you say, that doesn't count, so I'll use others. He is well known in the machinima community, which at this point is pretty massive. He has been featured at PAX, and has even been noted several times by Machinima.com, is a fan favorite, and has been given credit by several other machinima groups, including Rooster Teeth, which is arguably the most famous machinima group out right now. The Edit Corrector (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is nowhere near as famous as some of his die hard fans think he is, and not deserving of a wikipedia article. Machinima community isn't "massive" at all, it is a niche and Jon doesn't deserve his own wiki page, rather be part of the machinima page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.171.89 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't coming from a die-hard fan, this is coming from someone who noticed his notability, and feels he deserves one. And, I'm sorry my friend, but you are sadly mistaken, the Machinima community isn't a "niche," it is a very large community. Just take a look at PAX, and how many machinimators there are there. The Edit Corrector (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there's still no proof of notability by reliable sources (at least not that I've seen). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must forgive me, Bfigura, but I've stated many things on how he is reliable, yet you continue to say he isn't. In your eyes, I must be missing something. Could you please be more specific? The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Although first I'd say that the issue isn't whether the guy is reliable, but whether the sources discussing him are reliable. My issue is that none of the sources you mention seem to fit our definition of reliable sources, as defined here. Forums, self-published materials, youtube videos/stats, blogs, etc, generally don't meet our definition of reliable sourcing. If after looking over the page on sourcing, you find material that you think fits the bill, go ahead and update the article with it and let us know here. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, another source I'd like to mention is Bungie. They have give cudous (forgive my poor spelling) to him, even posting a link on their website to one of his videos. Another is halobabies, which is a Halo news site, and have interviewed and mentioned him quite a few times. However, if that is not enough, please say so. I will address it as best I can. The Edit Corrector (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added his halobabies interview, the Bungie link to his video, and links to his blog. The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way things are going, it looks like we're gonna keep the article. Unless someone can come up with a reason for deletion. The Edit Corrector (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't quite say that: none of what you've added really demonstrates notability, or in any passes WP:BIO. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how. Halobabies is a popular news source for hardcore Haloteirs, and just a good news source that many people check into often for Halo info in general.PAX is a big gamer community, and if your featured there, you must be well known. Has been acknowledged by Bungie, and has been interviewed by SodaGod from Machinima.com. So if you haven't been interviewed by CNN your ineligible for a Wikipedia article? The Edit Corrector (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can help out a bit in this debate. What this article really needs is a good clean up and the fact still remains that Jon has contributed to the machinima community in a big way. That's how he is notable. So I say keep it, but clean it up a bit.--71.91.175.99 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that the burden of WP:RS has been met to indicate how the subject passes WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, Graham does meet WP:BIO on the grounds that he has made substantial ground in his machinimating. Not to mention the sources added ARE reliable for reasons stated above, and he clearly meets WP:BIO. As for cleaning up the article, I'm all for that, as you said, he has contributed in a big way. The Edit Corrector (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated multiple times, reliable sources are not forums, blogs, YouTube, etc. They are, well, what is listed at WP:RS. And which aspect of WP:BIO does the subject meet that can be backed up by reliable sources? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are two blogs and a site that I chose not to bypass the malware warning for. I couldn't find any published information on this person with my own search. 'He has made substantial ground in his machinimating' is not a claim to notability in itself. I have made substantial ground in my study of the guitar... but I ain't notable. I have no problem with keeping the article if any independent, reliable sources that confirm the information in the article appear, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site that you didn't bypass due to a Malware Warning is a Halo news site that is a one of the top sites out there for Halo. And it's not a claim, take a look for yourself in the machinima world. Machinima.com, machinima sites, he's gotten quite a name for himself. The Edit Corrector (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources that are apparently given show reliability. Stated with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we see that yes there are other wikipedia pages that probably have way less merit than this page does. The fact of the matter is, he has thousands of fans. Because of Jon CJ Graham's contribution to the Machinima project and because of the fact that his Machinimas remain to be the highest and most viewed videos, ought to be merit enough. Just because for right now he doesn't have any "high standard reliable" sources means nothing. His hard work and status as a Machinima maker ought to qualify him to have a wikipedia page. Obviously from what has been stated in this in this discussion(mostly from the above), calling his fans "die-hard" basically just opens the door to the fact that you are biased against him. Sometimes on Wikipedia, you guys confuse notability with what you actually care about. A great link for you is this, WP:INSPECTOR I believe helps to merit this articles existence. It needs obviously clean up and is also obviously very incomplete. Thanks, --H*bad (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the issue here isn't that I think the page is incomplete or missing sources (which is what INSPECTOR refers to), it's that despite looking, I can't find them (and Edit Corrector hasn't been able to as well). While I can't prove a negative, it would seem to be that we can't find them because they aren't there. Thousands of fans don't confer notability, especially given the lack of reliable sources. At that point, all this boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am more willing to trust the veracity of a guideline like WP:RS more so than an essay such as WP:INSPECTOR. You say yourself that there are other [articles] that probably have way less merit... the purpose of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't to justify the existence of this article in comparison, but to scrutinize the existence of those others to see if those in fact belong. So what if he has "thousands of fans"? I'm a hard worker and I have thousands of fans, but I don't deserve an article, because there is nothing in the way of reliable information out there about me. You state that he doesn't have any "high standard reliable" sources means nothing... indeed, it is everything, because those reliable sources are needed for verifiability, which is policy. Indeed, the essay to which you link states: Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. People have tried, and they were not found. And trust me, there is no bias here, as I don't care one way or the other about the topic... the only bias is against articles that have no sources that can be found to support any of the claimed assertions of notability. The reason it is incomplete is because the sources aren't out there yet. Could they be out there in the future? Perhaps, but they are not now. Even as the sum total of human knowlege, it is still an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

While the sources found may not be CNN or MSNBC, he is an entertainer, and falls in the WP:BIO in the imboldened statement. You continuinly say that fans don't matter, yet that's exactly how he falls in WP:BIO. Fred fell in this way, so does Graham. The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the assertion of significant "cult" following needs to be backed up. In the article on Fred, there is sourced information from the Sydney Morning Herald, Wall Street Journal, The Independent, and Business Week. Enough said. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:52, 15 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganfyd[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources to support this article. Also, being a website, it doesn't meet the recommendations at WP:WEB. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three references, an international meeting and a national journal among them, in the article. There is a long article in Nature Medicine, which is a distinctly reliable source. Brandon Keim Nature Medicine 13, 231-233 (28 February 2007) doi:10.1038/nm0307-231 News ( http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm0307-231.html for the start of it, and access to full text. Easier to go to your library though.) There is a discussion of the methods of ensuring reliability on medical reference wikis at http://davidrothman.net/2007/03/02/nature-medicine-on-wikis/ which pops up in the same rather simple search, along with a lot of other hits. While Ganfyd aims to be useful of itself, the key notable element of it is the licence and approach to reliability that is embodied in it. You'll notice that I'm a key mover in the project, I wouldn't wish to write a great deal in the article, but I'd suggest that keeping it and improving it is probably better than removing it and hoping someone will rewrite it better. I've looked at [WP:WEB] and the guidelines there do not appear to me to rule out ganfyd. There are many items in WP about things of less notability than a collaborative textboook and unique copyleft licence, and WP is not limited in space by being on paper. Midgley (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DavidRothman self-pub blog is not a WP:RS. Also, his analytical methods consist of adding the word poop to article. This, I can not trust. "There are three references, an international meeting and a national journal among them, in the article. There is a long article in Nature Medicine, which is a distinctly reliable source. Brandon Keim" Does this imply that Brandon Keim wrote this? Are you Brandon Keim? The abstract of the WikiMedia indicates trivial coverage. Any chance of fair use excerpt? --Odie5533 (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am not Brandon Keim, Brandon Keim, at the time an editorial writer in the Nature group of journals is Brandon Keim. (Nature is the foremost scientific journal dealing with such things as the discovery of th structure of DNA and one hopes the grand unified theory of everything, It has a number of offshoot journals that deal with less groundbreaking things of more day to day use, such as how to do medicine. The reference - the title of a piece in an academic journal, with the volume number, page number and author name - given above does not imply that B Keim wrote the piece, it states that he did. Nature will let you read it for a few pounds/dollars or your local university or goood public library will have a copy, or your educational establishment, hospital library or wherever your academic link is will get you a photocopy of it, probably free. Mentioning fair use suggests you are American, I'm English, we don't have that concept in our law. However, nice though it will evnetually be when everything anyone publishes in a journal is freely available via the Web, we have not yet entirely subverted the basis of academic publishing since the reformation, and WP sources are not confined to those which people can read without rising from their chair. Please distinguish between "I can't find anything" and "I'd have to actually go and find what I've been given the reference of". The latter is the start of research. Midgley (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do by all means improve it. Midgley (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, here are some links: [18] [19][20]--Nutriveg (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link needs a subscription from the journal, the second link is a trivial mention, and the third link is a copy of a wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing wrong with links that require subscriptions. WP is not an encyclopedia of the Web, it is of all knowledge. Midgley (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dozens of articles discussing it in academic journals available on gScholar. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if it's hard to verify right now, its site traffic is high enough [21] that I'm sure it will be referenced eventually. Meanwhile, it's reasonably well-written and visited several times daily. - Draeco (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't determined by numbers, Notability isn't determined by Pageview stats. Algébrico (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not based on independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't FAC, of course the article has problems. The question is, is the subject of the article notable? --Odie5533 (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is: What have the sources written about the subject? "Lots of sources" does not stabilish Notability, specially if the mentions are trivial (which seems to be the case). It does not stabilish the consensus of independent reliable secondary sources about the the information which I believe is even more important than notability itself because the article would be consistent (See WP:FRANKIE#Intersections. Algébrico (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The Nature Medicine article is non-trivial. Midgley (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Disclaimer: I have not read the Nature Medicine article.] The Nature Medicine article itself is not trivial. However its coverage about "Ganfyd" might be trivial. I would appreciate more viewpoints from anyone who has read the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is this "might"? I suggest you read it. The coverage was considerable and non-trivial. Midgley (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I worked on this article last Janurary, and therefore was notified of this AfD. The article is fully unsourced and makes no claim of notability. American Eagle (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant enough. Like we have pages on sports and movie stars and non of them have hits on pubmed or google scholar. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation. My reading of the article suggests it is a little niche thing for doctors that isn't well known, even among doctors. A search of the internet confirmed that feeling, and a quick look at the site itself made me think it is not going places very quickly. I didn't get any hits with Ganfyd on PubMed. Ganfyd is not notable currently -- but I think this could be revisited at a later time. Nephron T|C 17:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you expect hits in Pubmed on it though? The area of academic publication that it should appear in is medical librarianship rather than medical research. Midgley (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? If you search UpToDate you get hits on PubMed. If you search Wikipedia on PubMed you get 42 hits. Nephron T|C 04:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ganfyd doesn't meet the criteria for PubMed searches. It does however appear in TRIP Database searches. DOI: A ganfyd contributor. --Amdsweb (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it should be noted that Midgley may be conflicted, as he/she is part of Ganfyd.[22] Preceding stated, I realize that Wikipedians may not be completely objective about this... as one could (perhaps) consider Ganfyd a competitor of sorts, even though the target audiences of Ganfyd and Wikipedia are much different. Nephron T|C 04:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it should be noted, it should also be noted that I noted it above, the day before Nephron did. I think there is an overlap in authhorship and readership of WP and Ganfyd. Midgley (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article could be improved. The term GANFYD is used in the English speaking world. Obviously to be consistent those for deletion will go around deleting all articles that mention a medical wiki with higher editorial control standards than Wikipedia or less than Ganfyd. A obvious list includes the articles on Medpedia, Ask Dr Wiki - oh I have just noted that a reference there also reference GANFYD !, WikiDoc. Conflict of interest I have contributed articles or parts of articles to several of the above and rarely wikipedia. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems there are a lot of Ganfyd-ies here. I wonder if their efforts would be better directed at pushing forward sighting, as implemented on the German language edition of Wikipedia. To this end, they could join the WikiProject Flagged Revisions. Nephron T|C 00:03, 15 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) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith's fifteenth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While this would at first appear to be a subversion of WP:HAMMER, a closer inspection shows that almost none of the information pertains to the actual album. Most of it refers to the album only in vague passing or not at all. Last AFD resulted in keep due to sources, but see previous sentences. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Yes, many of the 19 references are passing references, mostly to support a single statement in the article as in inline citation. However, several of the sources are fairly dedicated to the album. Again yes, that contains some "we don't know when it will be released" but that is verifiable speculation. Specifically, refs 1, 11, 13, and 19 consist of fairly substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. Arakunem^Talk 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can say that nearly 25% of the references deal specifically about the album, while a bunch more talk about it. Everything is well sourced, and I see no speculation on here. The album has been in the recording process for nearly 4 years now, but it is still good enough to keep.
Read [23] if you are just going to post Delete: Hammer. This shows how an article can be kept even if it doesn't have a title. Ten Pound Hammer has done a good job explaining why he is nominating this, rather than just nominate it and quote his essay. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- We're not quite in Chinese Democracy territory, but at the same time, the subject has achieved enough notability that I see no problem with a separate article. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheWeakWilled and Umbralcorax. Note: This is the second AfD for this article, and even in the first AfD there was not consensus for deletion. The subject did not become less notable since the last AfD closed; to the contrary, the article sourcing improved.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is well sourced and the album is slated to come out this year. I found it relevant and was glad to see it here when I specifically searched for this. --P shadoh (talk) 16:28, 15 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. There's no point in transwikiing, since Wiktionary already has an entry for copacetic, and the information in this article is too encyclopedic for inclusion there. I'll move Copacetic (album) to Copacetic, and redirect Copasetic there. +An gr 06:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copasetic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about the word, and contains a definition of the word, and the etymology of the word, and nothing more, and (it seems to me) has no prospect of being anything more here. An article exists in Wiktionary, which frankly isn't as good, but that's not the wikipedia's problem.

The article has not 'done enough' to be an encyclopedia (actually that's not even a policy, but I know somebody will claim it anyway), but worse, everything it has done is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

The article is about an adjective. The policy WP:NAD and WP:MOS (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Article_title_format) forbid article titles that are adjectives; we do not have tallest, shortest and so forth because they are meaningless in encyclopedias, we have tallest building etc. etc. The article would have to merge with something like OK or something, the underlying meaning, and the etymology is much better in a dictionary anyway.

The article cannot be translated into a foreign language; one of the characteristics of encyclopedia articles is that they can be because they're about an abstract concept, not a word.

Because of the poor wiktionary entry I'm calling for Transwiki - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per the nominator's excellent rationale. This is clearly a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - WP:STUB explains it well: "A dictionary article is about a word or phrase... An encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by the title." This is about a word. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per WP:NOTDICT and the benefit to our sister project Bfigura ^(talk) 04:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per this being a dictionary definition not an article. Following the transwiki Copacetic (album) should be moved to Copacetic (a title that currently redirects here) and this page redirected there. A ((Wiktionary)) template should then be added to the article about the album. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then move Copacetic (album) as per Thryduulf. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:11, 13 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) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kudjodji[edit]

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

Although this player technically meets WP:ATHLETE (as he has played in a fully-pro league), his entire professional career consists of one measly minute. I feel that playing one minute in a professional league shouldn't be enough to become notable, especially because players who have made multiple appearances in semi-pro leagues have been repeatedly deemed non-notable. Kudjodji has done nothing of sporting note since his sole minute, and he lacks any media attention to show he is notable some other way. Giant Snowman 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst I can see what GiantSnowman is saying, he does pass WP:ATH so with that in mind I would keep 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanoni (talk • contribs)
Delete: Agree with the nominator; although he techinically passes ATHLETE by the skin of his teeth, there are no sources about him that aren't routine announcements (WP:NTEMP). ATHELTE is a bit of a daft guideline really because technically, a player whose only career appearance was in an FA Cup Final would actually fail, as the FA Cup isn't a fully pro competition. I don't think that playing one minute of professional football makes a person notable so I'm going to have to say delete. By the way, there are probably quite a few more articles about players who have played just as few minutes as this guy, so I suppose the nominator's waiting to see what the outcome of this one is before creating a shed load of AfD's. -- Big Dom 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he played in the Football League Championship, not the FA Cup for Palace. --Jimbo^[online] 13:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not intending to list any other "one-minuters" for deletion, this AfD was a test really to see how strict/lenient people are with ATHLETE. It's thrown up some interesting results! Giant Snowman 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the coverage available would pass WP:GNG (these appear to be mostly trivial mentions) and we ought to disregard WP:ATHLETE over 1 minute of professional play (in the past, I've voted to ignore WP:ATHLETE for other footballers with less than 45 minutes of professional play in a career). Jogurney (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: marginal cases can always be found to make a thresh-hold rule seem ridiculous, but breaking the rule for such cases achieves nothing. To delete this article would be to declare that this project has no intention of being complete within its self-declared criteria. As to BigDom's unlikely scenario above, he ignores the likelihood of a cup final debut maker receiving not inconsiderable publicity. Kevin McE (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said that any such player would fail ATHLETE, not that he wouldn't be notable. I've just decided to WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case. -- Big Dom 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to consider this in the grand scheme of things. If the manager had decided to keep him on the bench, he would be immediatelt deemed non-notable. However, because for whatever reason his manager allowed a youngster one minute (!) on the pitch, he is notable?!? Doesn't make sense to me...Giant Snowman 22:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to make sense to you when Gary only played a unverified couple of minutes. So how many minutes should ATHLETE specify? 2? 10? 45?. Did he actually only play 1 minute? do they not have added time in the championship?--ClubOranje^T 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzpatrick may have only played one pro game, but he has also had a non-league career of note, as well as enough media attention to arguable meet GNG; Kudjodji has had none of that. Three games which, with minutes played added together, only equal one and a half games is not a notable footballing career! Giant Snowman 10:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzpatrick's non-League career looks very ordinary to me, he stayed in the Conference for a while, that's about it. Comparing him to Kudjodji doesn't really work as he has 18 years on him and is retired. --Jimbo^[online] 14:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"[Fitzpatrick] moved onto Telford United where he played more than 100 games." And Kudjodji hasn't played since 2008! Giant Snowman 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100 games in a side that didn't do much isn't much of a feat. The reason Fitzpatrick was kept was because he played in the FL. Hundreds of non-League players who've played 100+ games for a club are deleted because they fail WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 14:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, if Fitzpatrick had only had a non-league career, he should have been deleted. All I was saying that Kudjodji's entire career amounts to an absolute maximum of 136 minutes! Giant Snowman 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played for other teams besides just the one minute, though. Those might not pass WP:ATHLETE, but help cement notability. matt91486 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if said teams are lowly non-league teams? His article says he only made two appearances for his subsequent teams, including only playing 45 minutes for one! Giant Snowman 10:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley were in Conference South when Kudjodji played. That's the second tier of non-League. --Jimbo^[online] 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has played for Palace too. There should be no problem. --SM (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a firm supporter of WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played at the fully pro level (and it's not often me and Spiderone agree at AfD!) Eldumpo (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he passes WP:ATHLETE having played in a fully-professional league. No real difference between one minute, two minutes, 60 minutes etc - it's all game time and where do you drawn the line? If you want to be really picky he probably played over a minute as there is always stoppage time ;-) --Jimbo^[online] 14:06, 12 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. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boomz[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JohnCD notified me about the sources (which the AFD was in my watchlist), so I'll post more. I still think that this shouldn't have an article. I think that the article still fails WP:N because the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue and Keep I have added more details and some references to justify notability. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 01:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment by nominator: that's better, and I will invite the !voters above to have another look, but I'm afraid it's still not good enough:
- it's a neologism - see also WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day,
- it's not an encyclopedia article, because it's about a word - a dictionary definition. You could try it on our sister project Wiktionary, but I doubt if it would pass their Attestation requirements,
- certainly, for Wikipedia, blogs and Youtube are not considered reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a poorly-sourced dictionary definition. Even if it was properly sourced and it could be shown that it was a "notable word", it still wouldn't belong in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism, not much to discuss. Hairhorn (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. neologism, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, possible Wikipedia:Attack_page, plus more importantly see Wikipedia:Notability - more specifically Notability is not temporary. At most, it warrants being merged to the Ris Low article as it is only notable in that context.Zhanzhao (talk) 10:31, 12 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 WP:CSD#G7 by Christopher Parham. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timonia[edit]

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

Contested PROD.

My reason for PROD: Unsourced micronation (poss nanonation), quite likely a thing made up one day recently. Come back when duly recognized at least by other micronations and verifiably sourced.
Article creator's edit summary contesting the PROD: Timonia meets all criteria by definition of Micronation by the sourced References and has existed for a little over 1 month. A signed and dated contract recognized Timonia as a sovergn nation.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is there any reason why it can't be speedy deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7? Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source coverage at this time, probably just something madeup one day trying to get 15 minutes of fame. About A7, not sure that this would fall under a group, but I think a case could be made that this is a group with no assertion of notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is the point of being recognized by other micronations? They aren't recognized by any real nations themselves, so why is their recognition important? They were also 'just made up' one day, but they get a place here? Please explain to me why they have a place? Bocephusjohnson (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although we probably have too many micronations with articles in Wikipedia, it does appear that some of the ones that do have articles here have received some coverage in reliable sources and could claim to meet the general notability guideline. If anyone points out a Wikipedia article about a micronation that does not meet that guideline, I would likely support deleting that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any reliable independent source to indicate notability, also per WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MADEUP, and as nonsense. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search has not found anything. Notability is questionable. No reliable/pertinant sources. References that are provided in the article does NOT even talk about Timonia, but rather about Micronation.Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant sources have been provided, and I doubt that any exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can for this is Wikipedia and Wikirage. Joe Chill (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:38, 12 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) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local IQ[edit]

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

Local free sheet - Not notable noq (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Notability not verifiably established, article not referenced. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 12 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 A7) by Graeme Bartlett. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thorpe-Apps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notability asserted, so misses CSD A7 - student journalist, the height of whose career thus far is a newspaper I can't find evidence of (searching for only turns up a council document from 2006), now author of a web campaign to be elected London mayor massively misses WP:POLITICIAN. Searching online reveals no indication of meeting GNG Prod removed by article author. Saalstin (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable to see here. noq (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Hasn't this article been deleted before? Or was that a different person with the same name? Oh who cares anyway, delete, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Delete Article has already been deleted before, per G4. If this was a different person, then delete because no references/sources provided. Also per WP:BLP, " 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." Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete we're wasting time on this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either G4 recreation or A7 non-notable. Tagging as such now. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:38, 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 merge to Semen. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spermophagia[edit]

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

In a nutshell, this article is a combination of Original Research and Synthesis. For starters, the very definition of the term cannot be proven--because the term is not accepted. See this, for instance: only two of the hits seem related to the present topic. The first relevant hit is in a publication called Excerpta medica, Volume 3, from which we only get a snippet. The second, Kama bhog: foods of love, is a book in which the term occurs once, and this book is hardly by a well-known publisher in the field of sexuality, biology, or anthropology. The second, from Sex and drugs, is even less reputable. (The author of this article never saw fit to find or included these references.) All other hits are related to the biological term, and refers to plants, gnats, and such; Google Scholar offers nothing. Certainly a noteworthy term, supposedly employed in the various fields claimed in the lead, would have been better-known. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, doesn't list it either. The article used to be called Seminophagia, a term invented by its author--there are no hits for such a term; it does not exist in any real sense.

The article itself is a mixture of strange references pulled from all over the place. We find (or found, in earlier versions) pseudo-scientific references to the benefit of swallowing sperm for dental health, for musco-skeletal support, etc. There are very few references here that pass muster (I cleaned them up once or twice; the article's main editor reinstated them). One of the articles that this editor keeps reinserting might pass muster: I present to you "Semen acts as an anti-depressant"--I have pointed out many times to the editor that this article discusses the vaginal 'consumption' of semen, not its swallowing (an essentially oral activity). While I don't wish to essentialize the difference between the vagina and the mouth, they seem sufficiently different at least in an accepted biological sense. Without wanting to prejudge your response, I wish to point your attention to the recently introduced "In popular culture" section, which points to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, a delightful comedy, as exemplifying spermophagia. It does not, of course, but it is typical of the way in which this article attempts to make every reference to swallowing semen count.

To summarize: a non-existing (or barely existing term) term is beefed up by unreliable references that cannot even establish what the article is about. If there is anything to this thing at all, it is to be found in the second paragraph of the "Cultural practices" section--but this is already found in the Semen article, with a better reference than the Getting It webzine. In fact, a lot of the material in the present article has been or is also found in Semen--to some extent one might call Spermophagia a POV fork, of a very particular POV.

I apologize for this lengthy statement; I foresee strong responses and wanted to be as complete as I could here, even without digging up the long discussions on various talk pages and the move from Seminophagia to Spermophagia--this is to be found in the article history and the various talk pages, incl. the deletion by the main editor of a "merge" proposal which, it is granted, wasn't making much headway. I propose delete, not merge, since I propose that whatever is valuable in this article is duplicate information. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this article has been and continues to be a mass of synthesis to promote a particular POV. If there is anything useful not already in Sperm or Semen, then merge as appropriate and redirect to the latter. --LadyofShalott 18:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this discussion be posted on the food and drink project's discussion page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had hoped to achieve inclusiveness by listing it under "Society." But if you'll post it there, I'll thank you and toast you with a shot of you-know-what. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge get rid of the OR and merge the rest with sperm or semen, whatever. Dincher (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, or merge at the most. You won't find me disagreeing. Sticky Parkin 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't semen ingestion notable? It seems to have been discussed to some extent in anthropological studies, alternative medicine and sexual health psychology type materials. Is the problem that the article keeps getting vandalized? Or it needs clean-up? There do seem to be some sources for this somewhat fringey topic and it seems problematic to merge it with any one of the targets mentioned. The word used in the title does seem to carry some weight. I'm not really sure but I think it seems notable. Am I missing something? (Also the first line of the article should be revised I think, it's too ambiguous and yet not broad enough to cover the content of the article).ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CoM did put the finger right on the wet spot--the first line of the article. As for their second sentence, "It seems to have been discussed to some extent," it's precisely this vagueness that is the problem here. Drmies (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never, a page on cum eating. Savagely cut out all the original research and merge to ~~Oral sex~~Fellatio#Ingestion of semen, as it's hardly going to be occurring outside that context. Fences&Windows 05:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Fences and windows - Merge to Fellatio#Ingestion of semen Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as I already commented in the talk page of the article. And the OR and non-significant research needs to be cut out. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the name of this article was changed to "semen ingestion," reverted, and then switched to yet a third title, some of its history was not retained and so not all of its authors have yet been notified of this debate, including its creator (NOT me, as has been assumed). This history should somehow be restored and earlier contributors informed. All the wikilinks still read "seminophagia," its original and proper name. This title should be restored simply because it relates to the semen article and not to the sperm article. Additionally, it is impossible to swallow sperm without also swallowing semen, so in the strictest sense "spermophagia" is a practical impossibility and at the very least is a term of incomplete description. Also, not all of the properties of semen referred to in the article are contained in sperm itself. This article cannot properly be merged into "semen" because a big ruckus was made about it being called "spermophagia" rather than "seminophagia," a linguistically proper term, whether neologism or not. (Google recognizes it, correcting the inaccurate 'semenophagia' spelling.) So if it must be moved anywhere, the "sperm" article is the only place left for "SPERMophagia." This article certainly relates to fellatio, but cannot be merged there either because to do so is to deny the existence of felching and also ignores other ways that semen is sometimes consumed, such as after masturbation.

Just because some may find the subject matter "distasteful" (pun intended!) is certainly not grounds to eliminate an article entirely, as if the subject did not even exist. There is a strong undercurrent by a small group with a vendetta against this topic (and its related subject matter) who are apparently highly averse to performing this act and so are sarcastically disdainful of those who advocate it. There are 3 million other articles to choose from, and surely they could and should find something else to read.

This page is basically just about a very popular sexual fetish, of which scores of other such pages exist. But the medically verifiable content of this article is both astonishing and radically significant, attributing to it far greater validity. Although it has yet more potential for development, I believe we have a comprehensive analysis of the subject, as medical research now stands. When an article typically garners 4000-5500 hits in a single day, that fact alone would surely in most people's minds provide more than ample justification for its existence! That actually places it into the top 1-2% of all articles on Wikipedia! The compelling interest clearly far outweighs the repulsion of a few, even if that were the criteria.

This article is a work in progress. If some of the references are poor then let's upgrade them, not tear down someone else's efforts and arbitrarily delete entire sections. Contribute and improve instead of detract and undermine! A poorly referenced statement does not equal a false statement. While blaming it on synthesis or O.R., what seems to have actually drawn the most ire is the research that is clinically proven, referenced and verifiable.JGabbard (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to notify as many of the contributors as I could find. I'm not going to answer all your points one by one; it's been done before. But a few things are worth noting. The research that is "clinically proven, referenced and verifiable," there is precious little of that, and it is at odds with your earlier claim that this is about fellatio. What is happening, and it's plain to every other editor, is that the importance of a particular sexual fetish is blown (yes) out of proportion; by the inclusion of fictitious and poorly referenced claims to health you have added "medical benefits" as if semen swallowers swallow semen (or sperm, whatever) to maintain a healthy lifestyle, and that therefore this invented term is notable. You have to make up your mind whether this is a sexual fetish or not. If it is, then you might consider a merge to fellatio. If it is not, you might consider a merge to ingestion of semen or something like that. But it seems, from the comments of other editors, that you cannot have your semen and eat it too. Oh, "entire selections" were not arbitrarily deleted: they were very judiciously deleted, with lengthy summaries, because they were based on unreliable sources or because they made no sense. You never responded, I note, to my objection that the vagina is very different from the mouth, yet you keep reinserting the reference to an article that suggests vaginal absorption of semen might be beneficial, but says nothing about oral consumption. Do you not see yourself how ridiculous that is? Or should I, for the purposes of clarity in this AfD, include pictures of these orifices?
No, this article, under its various imaginary names, has run its course, and while it was fun, it is time to move on and build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on imagination and synthesis. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added templates to contributors of the original page semen ingestion including the creator User:OOODDD - that should make for a fair discussion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per Fences & Windows, unless some reliable sources, menus and techniques (chopsticks, knife and fork etc) emerge. I find the idea that this topic deserves a free-standing article impossible to swallow. pablo_hablo. 19:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect or simply delete. There's precious little worth saving. As an aside to Ronhjones, you might want to be a bit more selective in the future; I was one of the people who received a message from you. My single edit was to remove an unsourced statement, dating to the period the article was at Semen ingestion. I saw a discussion of the statement on another site, and cleaned out that particular bit of unpleasantness. This is not an article I would have found otherwise, and I'm fine with that. </me heads to the shower, feeling soiled> Horologium (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not covered in Semen or Felatio, or delete if nothing worth merging (most of the good info is already at Semen). Once the synthesis is removed from this article, it is only small section at most, so no need to spin out an article for such a little used term, a section redirect will do the job.Yob Mod 14:52, 15 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) 00:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Walls of America[edit]

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

This article is an advertisement for Superior Walls of America and is not otherwise notable. Should be considered WP:Spam and deleted. I placed a speedy deletion template on the page, but it was quickly deleted by another editor. CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to cite reputable third-party sources. Associated with This Old House and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Dragon224 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References seem ample. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article content reads just like the company's website advertising and links from the site. Definitely not an encyclopedic article, should be considered WP:SPAM in its current state.--CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the information is from quality third-party sources. I encourage you to follow links provided in references. I was careful to source critical information. rburk41 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that the article should be rewritten to be less likely to be flagged under WP:ARTSPAM, as said by rburk41, it has enough third party verifiable references that means that it means baseline notability requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eastmain, those references really aren't that impressive. "Quality third-party sources," rburk? Ich don't think so. www.concreteproducts.com is not a quality third-party, and I have removed the "reference" to an "article" of theirs that was meant to strengthen the lead. I also moved an article from a local VA newspaper what was supposed to bolster the claim that the product is environmentally friendly. I also think that it passes muster, but only barely--and I would like to urge editors to look more closely at sources and at what they are supposed to verify. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Concrete Products is a monthly magazine that has been in print for over 10 years. It may not be too exciting for most people, but in the concrete industry, it doesn't get much more credible or reputable. --rburk41 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had to fix this above comment as it was disrupting the AfD listings for today. I have no opinion on this article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no indication whatsoever of an independent editorial board on their website; a quick look at the article I removed (and the one still cited in the WP article) reveals that there is no author, and the closest thing to an author is the Superior company website. That something is a reliable source requires some evidence, and that this particular article is not printed more or less directly from the supplier of the information (2/3 of the article was a quote) requires even more evidence. BTW, you have added two new references to the article which will pass muster, in my opinion, so kudos to you--but, unfortunately, you cannot claim that "environmentally friendly" and "Approved Products - National Green Building Standard" are the same thing. Approved according to one set of guidelines does not mean environmentally friendly, and you will have to adjust the wording. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Drmies, I appreciate your insight into this matter and help. Your caution toward Concrete Products in this case is warranted. However, it should also be noted that the information I have found in Concrete Products has been supported through my research in other more well-known publications like Popular Science, Builder, Fine Homebuilding, The Boston Globe, and web articles from BobVila.com and This Old House site. This verification and support adds credibility, in my opinion. --rburk41 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, thanks--I don't deserve much praise, I think, since you are (already) doing exactly what you need to be doing to "save" "your" article. I've seen people at AfD's get all bent out of shape as if this is a war-zone, but in this case, I think the subject might well be notable and finding proper references, as you are doing, is what convinces editors (and many of them, see above, already were impressed). Keep up the good work, and I have good faith that in this case it will not be in vain. Wikipedia is one of the few places in the world where, I believe, hard and honest work is usually rewarded. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ConstEdit - article should be rewritten. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:11, 13 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 keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Stone[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:Music by a mile - unsigned band. Might be worth a line in Mike Lombardi but that's about it.~~ --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Well I'm convinced by what's been presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in Worchester Magazine and an album review in the New Haven Advocate and the Stuttgart Daily Leader (the latter sources added following nomination). There is also this article in the Boston Herald, which I don't have access too.--kelapstick (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review of a unsigned band's self-released album isn't enough - it fails WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent reviews of a band's album is actually enough to establish notability for the album itself. And there has been significant coverage of the band itself, and if a band passes the general notability guidelines there is no requirement to pass WP:MUSIC. Also there is this article about the band from Monsters and Critics.--kelapstick (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, fails WP:MUSIC per nomination statement, but appears to meet baseline notability requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appears to meet baseline notability requirements. How? which sources do that? It's just another myspace band, the only difference is that one of the guys in it is a minor actor - so that would meet the requirements for a mention on his article - but an seperate article? naw. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RightCowLeftCoast and per WP:BAND criterion 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. It looks as though there are other articles that could be used as refs, other than the ones already there, as well. Probably worth someone looking at that.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The songs were featured in two episodes of a notable television show. Plus it has coverage. Dream Focus 10:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep due to the sources added after the nom its clearly noteable enough to merit an article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 13 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 per G11 by DGG. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Sponsored Health Care Reform Bill[edit]

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

Personal essay; Violates WP:OR mhking (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability's "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and violates WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not a webspace provider". --maclean (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G11, as the article is clearly intended only to promote a cause. I am tagging the article for a speedy deletion. Note that WP:PROMOTION refers to, amongst other things, "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise." JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 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) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokbox[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable startup. Haakon (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. This [24] sort of coverage makes it clearly notable. Dream Focus 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some specialized sites may cover anything related to its interests. If the articles were, say, on a single column review of an important newspaper, it would be more convincing that those whole articles @ cnet. Mostly because that website reviews all of the software they host.--camr ^nag 12:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A delete !vote filled with POV. It's odd to find !votes like that. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So someone disagrees w/ you and you call him biased. Very mature.--camr ^nag 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that no guideline supports it. If no guidelines or policies support it, it is someone's personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm following guidelines: WP:N+WP:COMMON--camr ^nag 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't support it. So you mean WP:COMMON which is an essay and everyone has different opinions about what common sense is. So, it is your personal opinion. I didn't word my first comment well. I wasn't trying to attack you. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't offend me. You may not like that policy, but it is still a policy. We don't get to ignore every policy we don't like, and that also is a policy.--camr ^nag 23:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a policy. It is an essay. The essay is part of the policy WP:IAR, but everyone has personal opinions about that (it really needs to be clearer). All that WP:IAR says is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The only way that people describe it is through two essays. It's an editor's choice whether to go by essays, but they aren't the rules. WP:DONTLIKEIT is part of an essay and I'm not even doing that anyways. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "part of a policy" should also be taken into account, there's a reason for them to be there. And yes, you don't like some rules, and you ignore them.--camr ^nag 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:IAR. See what I mean? Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please offer us reasons. If not, this is just a vote.--camr ^nag 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is obviously per the seven links I posted. It's easier to say per above than typing that all out. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's clearly a vote. The reason of WP:PERNOM is to avoid polling and provide reasons, which he doesn't, if he just repeats what you said.--camr ^nag 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if someone thinks that seven reliable sources with significant coverage meets WP:N, what else should the user say? Something a little more such as "I think that the seven reliable sources above show notability? It will always be the same thing no matter if a little or a lot more is added to it. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really need to say anything. If a very good argument has been made, he who determines the outcome of the deletion discussion will take into account the arguments, not the amount of people who agree with it. I really can't believe we are discussing this, please read this first. No polling in AFDs!!.--camr ^nag 00:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are times when those comments are acceptable and this is one of those times. If no one else commented, the AFD would be closed as no consensus or relisted. You're in the minority of people that think that those type of sources don't show notability and your only excuse is a sentence long policy that is always used per people's personal opinions and is constantly ignored in AFD. Essays are constantly ignored in AFD also. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you should've ignored my vote from the beginning... Regarding the other topic: what you say may be valid. But if there's someone that agrees with you but is not capable of articulating a ten-word argument, then he/she should refrain from voting until the limited time of an AFD makes it imperative to participate. As you can see, two more people were skilled enough to write something else than "per Joe Chill". Because, regardless the reason, that's just polling.--camr ^nag 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole should thing is an opinion (definitely bias). Same with the 10 words thing (definitely bias). Saying someone isn't skilled enough could be viewed as a personal attack. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So everything I say is biased, but there's no problem with you saying that it's OK to break the WP:PERNOM rule. Sure, you're as objective as Fox News.--camr ^nag 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, WP:PERNOM is an essay! Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I would suggest that both of you stop this back-and-forth and either apologize to each other or avoid contact. Getting riled up over rules helps no one (that's what that other rule was meant to prevent) and just makes us look even more like the serious-business drama site so many other places say we are. If you two can't, I would suggest that someone close this discussion (even though it's been up only a few days and I've sought a Keep), talk with the editors about dispute resolution, or both. --an odd name 22:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is better stated by Joe Chill than I could state myself, so I leave it to him. I reiterate my keep, now a strong keep Doc Quintana (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I checked Joe Chill's links and they (in particular the NYT, TechCrunch, cnet, and PCMag ones, I think) demonstrate solid notability through multiple reliable sources per the general and web guidelines. --an odd name 01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References above provided by Joe Chill demonstrate notability by significant coverage in industry relevant media. Ben Kidwell (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Joe Chill found which are more than sufficient for the purposes of the notability guidelines. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 15 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) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial candidate[edit]

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

This article appears to consist of original research. Although many sources use the term "perennial candidate", I have not been able to find any substantial reliable sources that describe or discuss the concept itself. The list of "famous perennial candidates", which takes up all but the first paragraph of the article, is a hopeless mishmash. Respected statesmen who ran serious but unsuccessful Presidential campaigns (such as Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan) are lumped in with fringe candidates like Pat Paulsen and Lyndon LaRouche who never had a chance, and in many cases never even broke 1 percent in the vote. Therefore, most of this article consists of an indiscriminate list. Unless someone can find some reliable sources describing the concept itself, not just saying that person X or person Y is a "perennial candidate", the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Call the rescue squad. Good topic, dates from the early "grafitti doesn't include sources" days of Wikipedia, but the OR problems would be easy to clear up. There are plenty of sources where political commentators have described certain people as "perennial candidates" (i.e., guys like Ralph Nader, Harold Stassen, etc. who run for high office with no chance of success, but who use the opportunity to promote their view of the issues). Certainly an encyclopedic topic for politics, and a good structure that seeks to identify such candidates around the world. This one should be rescued. Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem — we have plenty of sources saying that politician X or Y is a "perennial candidate", but they don't say what being a "perennial candidate" means. We don't have a reliable definition of the term. I don't see an effective method of having an article that is consistent with policy. *** Crotalus *** 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those terms that a reader would infer from the context, in the same way that "successful candidate" might be figured out without having to ask "successful in what sense of the word?" or "what type of candidate?". William Safire wrote about it in the musings included in his political dictionary. In order to explain it in the strictest sense, I would say that the word "perennial" has many definitions [25] including "3c: regularly repeated or renewed", as a synonym for recurrent; and "candidate" has many definitions [26], including "1a: one that aspires to or is nominated or qualified for an office, membership, or award". While insisting on strict definitions is a necessity in things such as a statute or a mortgage, it is not a strict policy in the writing style of a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable subject, article needs work. I'll add rescue tag.--Milowent (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic topic, just needs work. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I click the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and it shows that the term "Perennial candidate" in quotation marks, has 6,990 results! Anyone a major news paper refers to can be added to that list, although if it ever gets too long, perhaps a side article created, or it cut back for notable examples. This term is quite real. Dream Focus 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies that the term exists. The problem is that we don't have any reliable sources discussing the term, as opposed to simply using it. Therefore we cannot write an article that meets Wikipedia policies on verification and original research. The sources don't even seem to have a single concept in mind when referring to "perennial candidates" — if this term has no fixed definition, and can encompass candidates as different as Henry Clay and Pat Paulsen, what good is it? *** Crotalus *** 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources talking about the term, they just aren't in the article yet, e.g., [27], [28], [29]. Many terms have definitions that flucuate, yet are still notable. --Milowent (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We have the perennial issue here of failure to engage with the topic as directed by our deletion policy — no discussion, no tagging, no consideration of good alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nominator (Crotalus) deserves the highest of praise for nominating this article. Although I disagree with him about the article being beyond saving, he was exactly right that this was unsourced and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It's not original research, so much as lazy, don't-bother-to-confirm-it, writing on the part of the contributors over the last five years (8/12/04 creation. Any idiot can nominate an article right after its created, but it takes some effort to spot a bad apple out of the hundreds of thousands of articles created in 2004. If it hadn't been for the 911 from Crotalus, this wouldn't be getting rescued now. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why this was even considered for deletion.--camr ^nag 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources establish notability. Just needs improvement. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define or Delete Like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, we can't really define a perennial candidate, but we know it when we see it. I appreciate everyone's views for why the article should remain, but I think the biggest problem is that the topic eludes a valid definition that would reasonably define who belongs and who doesn't. This means that each editor can include or delete a name based on their own feelings with the only requirement for inclusion being that the candidate ran more than once. I haven't reviewed the edit history in depth, but the lack of a good definition means that this article could easily become involved in an edit war over one name or another. There seems to be some good discussion going on over the inclusion of several names, but I doubt that these discussions will ever be resolved due to the root problem. I like the idea of the article, but it's impractical in it's current form. I say define it better or drop it. AlanK (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the definition is quite clear, even though it could establish some set of "rules" to clarify further. If you don't agree with the subjects included, then that's a discussion to be taken to the article's talk page.--camr ^nag 19:24, 15 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. Any editorial issues fall outside the scope of this AfD, so while the article does indeed need to be expanded, that isn't necessarily a reason to delete it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC Pension Corporation[edit]

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

No references were found that confirm this article's claim of notability, which allows it to pass WP:CORP. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the public pension plan for one of the larger provinces in Canada. Not very sexy, but certainly notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References? 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hairhorn. --KenWalker | Talk 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Save for this passing mention in Canada.com, this company has not received coverage in reliable sources. This is the same with the other references listed in a Google News Archive search. Hairhorn's rationale for keeping would be valid if there were sources, but there are none, so this article should be deleted per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [30] Google News archives suggest this is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea that a major pension benefit corporation likes this lacks coverage is preposterous on its face. Such coverage may not be easy to find online, but it's going to be out there -- it's built into the economic system. This is an area where Google News is ot particularly helpful, because so much coverage is likely to be proprietary, and even the limited coverage found in a full Google News search is consistent with notability for this sort of enterprise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may not be much in the media there is no lack of information in legal and actuarial publications that verify the existence and significance of the entity. A google search of BC Pension produces hundreds of thousands of hits and browsing through them most relate to pensions administered by this organization. The law that created it is a sufficient primary source to verify its notablity. --KenWalker | Talk 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, I see that this is my second Keep vote on this article.--KenWalker | Talk 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notwithstanding lack of news articles, this is a public benefit corporation engaged in possibly the most boring area of law, Pension law, and one so obscure there is no law stub on it yet. (I took such a course in law school, and passed). Bearian (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This entity is almost certainly notable, but a two sentence article with one reference is a joke. Let someone with a modicum of interest put together a few paragraphs, and it should be saved. This entry in Wikipedia is not a net positive experience for the reader; there's so little content, the reader will be annoyed for having their time wasted.--SPhilbrick T 18:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rally (band)[edit]

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

Notability was questioned in July and has not been addressed. The article admits that this is an unsigned band and no references have been given to substantiate any degree of notability. The article has been largely edited by The dob boy who has no other Wiki edits; one of the band members is called Dobbin, suggested a conflict of interest and self-promotion. The article's creator has no other edits. I confess to being ignorant of the current Scottish music scene, but strongly suspect that this article owes more to vanity and wishful thinking than to musical accomplishment. Emeraude (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like there is sufficient grounds for deletion. Bejinhan Talk 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. Not even being signed really put this over the top of non-notability. Tavix | Talk 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see anyway that it passes Wp:BAND. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits did not come up with something relevant. NO sources/references to justify claims and notability. IT HAS BEEN 3+ YEARS that there is no references...which really questions the band's notability and importance. Moreover, I see big controversy: here [31] it indicates that this band is from Japan and currently [32] it says that it is from Scotland. Which one is right and which one is wrong?? Also, on March 1 2009 (see revision history, edit summary) a user mentionned that this article (as it currently appears) has been hijacked [33] Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If it is notable enough to pass WP:BAND, that has not been evidenced.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohana (web framework)[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)).

Previous AfD for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kohana (Web Framework)

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

The article fails the general notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Very few reliable secondary sources exist discussing Kohana, and sources offered on the talk page are not reliable. All sources used in the article are self-published by the people working on the framework. Sources found generally include blog posts, forum posts, wiki articles, and self-published news articles as primary sources. While it appears the framework is gaining popularity with Gallery and osQuantum, there simply isn't a lot of coverage for the framework yet. Perhaps in the future Kohana will become notable, but as it stands I do not believe it warrants an article. Odie5533 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People seem to really be coming out of the woodwork for this framework. Please read WP:RS and WP:N (at least glance over them) and feel free to contribute to the discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:AGF and [[WP::COI]]. You seem to be verging close to the line on this one :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to be discussed often around the php community, see [34] [35] [36] [37] : just a random few of many ghits coming out. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources: first one is a self-published blog, tutsplus seems to publish paid user content with no editorial policy, beyondcoding has no list of editors anywhere and appears to be a self-published blogs, and everything on devreview appears to be posted anonymously, no editorial policy, no list of editors, I can't even say for sure how content gets on the site. Perhaps Kohana is making its way around the PHP blog community, this still doesn't constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject simply is not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is: what does it mean "notability"? It seems that today WP deems as non-notable everything that has not been thoroughly reviewed by formal RS: however context is everything. In the context of software like a PHP framework, where most discussion is made online by mean of blogs, forums, etc., the coverage by formally RS has little to do with the actual notability of the subject in its real spirit: the fact that it is something that is used, debated and discussed by people, in my opinion makes it notable. Remember that WP:GNG is a guideline: it tells us what it is likely to be notable but not what it is non-notable. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment to Errant below. It discusses what my opinion of notability with regards to PHP frameworks is. "WP deems as non-notable everything that has not been thoroughly reviewed by formal RS" yes, that's kind of the idea. I realize WP:N is just a guideline, and I'm more than willing to hear a special case, but this doesn't seem to be one. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, and I respectfully disagree. Our notability concepts should be in line with common sense and what appears reasonable, not on blindly applying guidelines even when they do not provide reasonable solutions. Kohana seems to be widely used and vibrantly discussed by unrelated third parties, and as such it is notable in the meaning that it is not an irrelevant trivia. As such we should think twice before throwing almost irreversibly the article into oblivion. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never blindly apply guidelines; I consider each case carefully. The question here is not whether or not people use the framework, but whether or not the framework is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. AfD is not remotely "throwing almost irreversibly the article into oblivion". As I mentioned to neovive below, WP:userfy and WP:DRV exist. If the framework becomes notable in the future, as is suspected, it can easily be restored exactly how it was before. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - note first I am a Kohana user as well as an old time Wikipedia contributor. Take that as needed. However....
- note: Part of the rationale for deletion posted by Odie5533 on the talk page is lack of Google hits. Whilst this is a reasonable judge for articles it was never, in my time at least, considered as a valid reason for deletion
- The CakePHP framework article also contains only links to sites created by the CakePHP community (and at that only 2 other sites beside the official CakePHP site). The same issues exist for that article as this one (I realise that is not a good "keep" argument - but it is worth pointing out). The vast number of other articles on PHP frameworks have the precise same problem; removing all of them does seem an odd manoeuver. However if the decision on Kohana is the delete then we should look at them very closely.
- Kohana is being used by a large, old, stable and very notable PHP project called Gallery (a photo gallery application) as the basis for it's upcoming release. This counts as reliable secondary sources and should go some way to establish notability.
- For the record the Nettuts site is a pay-for-tutorials site (it's part of the Theme Forest portfolio). They run the free articles as a sideline / news section - the editors name is easily found on the site. They heavily edit content - I have written for and submitted content to their sites before with some of it declined. They have a strong notability policy, stronger than here; if it appears on the site then they consider it notable. However with that said it is notable for the PHP community - which might apply or not.
- I have some other secondary sourcing - from oreilly and Mozilla nonetheless. The Google Breakpad and Socorro projects (which actually AFAIK handl all the mozilla crash reporting) uses Kohana for some sections. Sourcing: [38] [39] [40] [41]
- Also could the nominator please clarify what exactly he/she feels is required for notability in this field. I note this because the general idea (again in my time) was that the notability rules where designed to be vague so a consensus on what denotes notable could be established individually in each field. Things like news articles etc. are unlikely to ever exist for articles in this field (PHP frameworks), for example (simply because of the context) - so secondary sourcing from that area is unlikely for any of the articles. On the other hand
--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely against the use of Google Hits to determine if a subject is notable. I have not mentioned Google Hits at all regarding Kohana, so I'm not sure why you think I'm basing my support for the deletion on this. The CakePHP article, and many other articles for that matter, have problems with not using reliable sources. However, the question at hand is whether or not the subject has been covered by reliable sources rather than whether or not the article on the subject is using reliable sources. I do not think the article should be deleted because it isn't using reliable sources; I think it should be deleted because the subject is not notable. The use in Gallery counts for something, but not quite enough in my opinion. And that's a primary source, not a secondary one. Plus it's self published. I fully believe Gallery uses Kohana, but we don't have any reliable secondary sources that confirm this. If Nettuts does indeed have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, then it would be considered reliable. Based on the evidence I've seen, I am inclined to say it does not have such a reputation. I would, however, be more than willing to reconsider if new evidence were presented. This is, however, a moot point as it would constitute only a single source and not be considered "significant coverage". As the nominator, my thoughts on what is required for notability Wikipedia-wise within the PHP sector (i.e. not what is notable within the PHP community, but what from the PHP community is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia) would include: Book(s) published on the use of the framework, books on teaching PHP which use the framework, body of academic research analyzing the framework, developer magazines publishing news, tips, etc on the framework, reputable news websites publishing reviews, analysis, tips, news, etc on the framework. A pattern of wide recognition, commentary, and analysis on the framework would be, in my opinion, required for the framework to be notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies i misread the thread on the talk page and attributed the google comments to you,. Ignore that then. Plus it's self published - that is irrelevant in this context. It is a secondary source of the notability of Kohana but a primary source for the fact it is being used (there is a distinction; this was argued over many times before). As this is a framework a vast number of sites probably use it - but there will be little or no stats or data on that. There are very few secondary sources for CakePHP being used to create sites for example. All of the elements you list will not exist for any PHP frameworks - or will exist in tiny numbers. If anything (as noted below) Kohana is most likely to have reference material in that area over any other framework in the near future. Any comments on the mozilla stuff? That is highly notable. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the framework is currently being used, or the extent of its use, is not the problem; the problem is that there does not exist a body of coverage in reliable secondary sources discussing the framework. Thus primary sources supporting its use are not supporting its notability. CakePHP has loads of books and journal articles and reviews (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Notability does not exist for most PHP frameworks, this is true, and for those that notability does exist they should have articles. If, however, the framework does not meet the threshold for inclusion as outlined in the notability guidelines, it should be deleted. For the Mozilla powerpoint presentation, this is again a primary source supporting the use of the framework, not a secondary source supporting the notability of it. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use in osCommerce and Gallery *are* secondary sources of *notability* (as has been discussed many many times). They are *primary* sources of Kohana's use within those projects. I feel that is an important distinction.

I'd also like to point out that the tagging on Stackoverflow is probably a fair example of notability, and yes, yes I know it is arguably not a reliable source etc however in the programming / development community it is a very good marker.

However I have a secondary source for Kohana's use in osCommerce. The scale of that project, along with the gallery stuff, should provide enough notability - http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/solutions/article.php/3826911 http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/essentials/shopping_carts/article.php/3842506

BTW the note at the top has potential to bias the closing admins decision. As there is currently no comments here to which it applies it should probably go :) Finally I disagree with your comments on what constitutes notability. I would judge PHP frameworks are notable on their pervasiveness and awareness within the community. Kohana has quite a lot of awareness which, as pointed out, exists within discussion boards and blogs. -Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use in osQunatum and Gallery is supporting the use of the software. "Coverage in reliable secondary sources" would support the notability. StackOverflow is as good for determining notability as gHits, or Titter, or Digg. They are all good markers of something, but not notability. ecommerce-guide appears reliable, however, one source hardly constitutes significant coverage and the articles present only brief and trivial coverage of the framework, but do support the framework's use in osQuantum. Perhaps they should be used on the osQuantum/Commerce page. If Kohana truly was notable within the PHP community, shouldn't the PHP community's reliable publications, academic researchers, and book publishers be reviewing it? If the answer is that they will, that hits on WP:CRYSTALBALL. The note at the top is not for admins, it is for newcomers to deletion discussions. I can not be sure it applies to anyone here, I don't know how many deletion discussions everyone has participated in. Thus, it's there just in case so people can review the pertinent guidelines while participating in discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that usage === notability within this context. Specifically usage in large, notable projects. reliable publications, academic researchers - none of this really exists for the PHP community (which is heavily fractured and divided anyway; all the publications having favourites, affiliates etc.), that which do exist will not really review or discuss frameworks. Indeed I cant think of a general programming or PHP specific news site anywhere on the net that WP would consider notable :) Stackoverflow is, yes, similar to gHits et all in terms of applicability; BUT it is one of the best markers in the community - far better than books/articles to a point. In terms of book publishers only really O'Reilly is big enough to be applicable for WP (there are a couple of independents and smaller publishers but I dont see many books by them on the subject of frameworks). They have not written about Kohana but that is not unusual - regardless of notability most of the Books O'Reilly publishes are written by community members. Kohana guys could probably write a book and get it published by O'Reilly. Indeed this is fairly standard for the programming framework book genre (unless your talking super-large like Cake or Rails). There have been at least 2 .net printed articles I know of discussing Kohana. They are not online though so probably don't count (I cant remember) - but if they do then it might be applicable (here in the UK .net would be the de-facto web developers magazine).

In terms of the note it is generally acceptable to post it when "voting" is taking place and new users are making wild comments left right and center. In the past single use or "for the moment" accounts have been ignored by closing admins biased by the note - Im only commenting because we *are* having discussions here and not blindly voting :D

Anyway I do feel like this comes down to a definition of notability in the sub-field. I would argue that as a PHP programmer that my view is probably most "correct" - however I am also biased by being a fan of Kohana. I would argue heavily that in this area blogging and sites like SO are as important judges of notability than the other elements you listed. Anything you might consider secondary sourced news sites, for example, we could probably get articles posted too (or by) before the end of the week to establish notability (and I know I and others could write for magazines). That is how the field works :) in a very fickle manner. :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Packt puts out loads of PHP framework books, Apress put out a CakePHP book (among other platforms, and actually 2 books on CakePHP), Friends of ED has books which discuss CakePHP and other frameworks, Wiley has book on CodeIgniter, Dreamtech Press has a book on Zend. There's lots of book publishers out there, and lots of books on PHP platforms. I haven't even mentioned foreign books. It's not just books though, there's lot of reliable resources on other PHP frameworks, just not for Kohana. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It should also be noted that version 3 of KohanaPHP was very recently released with support for the Presentation-abstraction-control (HMVC) design pattern. The new website and documentation will be available shortly. Since Kohana is one of the few PHP frameworks supporting the HMVC design pattern, it will likely generate a lot of academic interest in the form of magazine articles and reviews. If possible, the deletion discussion should be postponed until after the new website for Kohana version 3 is available and the community takes note of the new HMVC support. A few notable sources:
- The Gallery3 project explains why they chose to rebuild the project using KohanaPHP: link
- StackOverflow questions tagged with Kohana link
- A jobsite dedicated to companies hiring people with KohanaPHP experience: link.

--neovive 9 October 2009 — neovive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please base your opinion on the subject as it is, and not speculate what it will be. If you are right and the framework becomes notable in the future, WP:DRV can easily bring back the full article exactly as it was before it was deleted. Or you could wp:userfy a copy and work on it, recreating the page when it becomes notable. The sources you've posted are not reliable secondary sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not notable. As precedent, take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRADO; I was for keeping that article but it was deleted. Today, the same reasons do apply to Kohana, so for the same reasons it should be deleted. Rather PRADO has more hits on Google than Kohana and it did win the Zend PHP5 contest. It's a matter of coherence and consistency, when you choose a policy you have to follow it. Ekerazha (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a slightly less related but nonetheless relevant precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parchive, which even survived deletion review, and it is probably even less sourced than Kohana. What happened to PRADO is absolutely despicable. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the !votes were keep and the only delete from Miami did not help out the discussion. I hate comments like that. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 11 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 per WP:CSD#G11 - advertising. It should be noted though that this was not patent nonsense per the Wikipedia definition and thus WP:CSD#G1 was not applicable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imonggo Inc - POS Software Company[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)

non notable software company and products. Heyjohnd (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obvious advertising and patent nonsense: the first Software as a Service (SaaS) company to offer a free Web-based point of sale software to the global market.... Imonggo is a free retail solution that can be accessed using any computer that can connect to the Internet. It uses Web 2.0 technology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-OS[edit]

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

Non-notable OS. Heyjohnd (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, OS has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Unable to find any hits for it on Books or Scholar, and nothing reliable on Google Search. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:29, 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. Let is snow, let it snow, let it snow. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loony left[edit]

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

Not notable. The first sentence says that it is about the expression "loony left." However it never establishes that that is notable. It then goes off in a WP:Coatrack about the politics in some town in England. I don't doubt that there are "loony" people on the political left, as well as the right and even the center, but this is not the right title for a WP article about them. Borock (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a general expression. You can always have "crazy right", "wicked liberals", "loony Greens" etc. All of these expressions are probably used extensively in politics and the media but they are not notable phrases in their own right. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither Libtard (AfD discussion) nor Repug (AfD discussion). There most definitely are reliable sources, beyond the one already cited in the article, that record the election campaign by a U.K. political party in the 1980s, based upon recording and publicizing incidents of "Loony Leftism", and the effect that it had on the policies and election strategies of the Labour Party (UK). Such sources include:
- John Gyford; Steve Leach; Chris Game (1989). The changing politics of local government. Routledge. pp. 310–313. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
- John Lea (2008). Political Correctness and Higher Education: British and American Perspectives. Taylor & Francis. pp. 157–161. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Ralph M. Negrine (1989). Politics and the mass media in Britain. Routledge. pp. 11–12. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- James Thomas (2005). Popular newspapers, the Labour Party and British politics. British politics and society. Routledge. pp. 92–93. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Ivor Gaber (2005). "Slaying the Dragon". In James Curran; Julian Petley; Ivor Gaber (eds.). Culture wars: the media and the British left. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 208–210. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Kathleen Jones (2006). The Making of Social Policy in Britain: From the Poor Law to New Labour (3rd ed.). Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 170–171. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
Sources exist. (One was already cited in the article.) They document this by this very name. (Lea's title, for example, is "Loony Leftism and the British tabloid press".) They document more than is in the article, containing as they do political and historical analyses of the campaign. This is a sourced stub with clear scope for expansion. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we keep and expand those. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy perfection ab initio is not required. And per Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:Article development an imperfect article based upon a single source is a beginning. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncle G's sources back what I know as a Brit: loony left is a term the rabid right use to poison the well against anyone whose politics lie to the left of The Blessed Margaret. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although sourced, it only has one source right now, and goes off as nominator says into a WP:COATRACK for the continuation of the article. The article needs major improvement, as well as a rewrite to have a neutral POV to have me change my view to keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvement is done by editing, not deletion. And assertions of coatracking are not based in fact at all. The topic encompasses the actions of local authorities, because that's what the election campaign was focussed upon. Go and read the sources and see what this subject actually is. And please also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Editing policy, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very common term here in Blighty. As a leftie myself, not one I like, but it's very common and a term people would look up. See these 2,760 news articles for some further ideas should anyone feel the urge to make this a better article. Am a bit too busy today or else I'd do it. --Tris2000 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - simple Googling on "loony left" and "looney left" shows how widespread and a part of the British political vernacular this term was and still is. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a political pejorative phrase it is somewhat in the category of Political correctness in that no-one actually accepts that they are part of such movement, but it was ubiquitous in discussions about politics of British local government for about a decade from the mid-1980s. It is capable of being more than a dictionary definition, and being developed into a discussion of how the phrase came to be used, whether some incidents were distorted in order to fit into a pattern, and also how the local authorities involved regarded the actions for which they were being criticised. In addition there is scope for discussion of how local authorities from the 1990s onwards sought to demonstrate that the label could not be applied to them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete partially per Gizza. The sources prove that the phrase exists but is it used enough to where it goes beyond WP:DICDEF? Removing the coatrack from the article leaves behind traces which exist in a classic WP:DICDEF stub and because of that, I am leaning towards "delete". Tavix | Talk 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually read the sources cited above, you will discover the answer to your question. And as I said, assertions of coatracking are not based in fact. From actually reading the sources you'll discover what this subject is — Hint: It's not the existence or meaning of a phrase. — and what can be written about it. Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I got from this is that it is a phrase that refers to people of the political left. Since it is a phrase, what can be written about it that isn't a WP:DICDEF or doesn't tangent into discussing left-wing politics in general? The other direction I could see this becoming would be a list of people who have used the phrase or been refered to as such, but that really is just useless trivia. So then, how then can you make this an encyclopedic topic and not just a dictionary entry? Tavix | Talk 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - By noting, as I pointed out, that the subject here isn't a phrase. It's a political campaign. Don't go by the article. The article is a stub, and by definition neither complete nor comprehensive. Go by the sources, which actually have a fair amount of historical context. The discussions in the sources are far better than our article is. (It is, after all, just a stub.) And as Sam Blacketer points out above, the territory that they cover when discussing this subject is the territory of the history of politics and politicians, touching upon, as JzG points out above, Margaret Thatcher, Neil Kinnock, the Greater London Council, Militant Tendency, and others. This subject isn't a phrase; and using the sources cited above it doesn't expand into an article about a phrase, either. None of them are dictionaries, or books about language, note. They are books about politics. And they aren't even the only sources in existence. That's simply where I stopped looking. As I said, go and have a look at what sources exist on this subject, and what those sources say. You will discover the answers to your questions. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Thanks for clearing things up. Tavix | Talk 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely used in UK, becoming used in US. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UncleG. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - deletion is not a solution to fixing the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Rocksanddirt and others. Article needs work, but keep. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G and others. This is a notable part of British politics, and the article needs improving not deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been a major term in British political discourse for almost thirty years, "crazy right", "wicked liberals", "loony Greens" have not been. Improvements are obviously needed.--SabreBD (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing, and break out the WP:SNOW shovel already. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split up this content fork. This is a turn-of-phrase, not an encyclopedic topic. Wiktionary already covers it quite well as a term: wikt:loony_left. Spin out the well-written and well-sourced Baa Baa White Sheep topic off into it's own article, which it richly deserves. Otherwise this is a cobbled together content fork of Political correctness and the rest of the material should be merged there. If you want to write in a balanced manner about the perception and state of the Labour Party in the '80s, we already have History of the British Labour Party#The 1980s and United Kingdom general election, 1987#Campaign and policies. Fences&Windows 05:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United Kingdom general election, 1987 or Weak Keep. It needs some work. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "Loony left" was a heavily used concept regarding a certain faction in British politics in the 1980s. (There was even an American 60 Minutes piece entitled "Loony left" in 1987, but I can't find a transcript of that yet on the net.) --Oakshade (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the weather outside is frightful,
But the fire is so delightful,
And since we've no place to go...
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comparison with political correctness above. JQ (talk) 22:22, 14 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) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbo tip[edit]

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

I have removed the speedy from the article because this is not blatant vandalism. Possible reasons for deletion could be WP:DICDEF and WP:N. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the discussion on the talk page:

This is an expression. Like many expressions, its origin is traceable, but you might not find it in most lexicons. It could be considered slang. I would like a linguist to look at this. The expression was used in the region of central Canada in the 1990s, but I don't know its origins or who originally coined it. I still hear it said from time to time, but not as much as in the early 90s. "He's on the Columbo tip" can also be considered metaphoric: Metaphor , even a compound or loose metaphor (see Metaphor under 'types': "A compound or loose metaphor is one that catches the mind with several points of similarity. Examples: "He has the wild stag's foot." This phrase suggests grace and speed as well as daring."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekramvil (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search on this phrase turns up a hit in the lyrics of "The Steve Martin", a song by hip-hop artists EPMD on their 1988 album Strictly_Business, which perhaps lends some creed to it's use as a real slang term. 174.2.11.221 (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page clearly indicates that this is an attempt to grow a dictionary entry for a slang phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. It's an encyclopaedia, and articles here are about the people/places/concepts/events/things denoted by their titles. We have the clitoris documented under clitoris, unsurprisingly enough. An alternative title redirect would require verification that this really is an alternative, slang, name for the clitoris, which the talk page comment ("you might not find it in most lexicons") indicates isn't forthcoming.
Nekramvil/174.2.11.221, the dictionary is thataway. Note that you will be required to demonstrate multiple occurrences of the idiom in separate, published and permanently recorded, instances of running text. When you look for those, you'll discover the reason why you don't find connections to the clitoris in most lexicons: It isn't actually true. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; implausible original research as well as a non-notable neologism. Moreover, given what the word apparently seeks to define, my first suggestion for an origin would be Columbo (TV series) and the character played by Peter Falk, rather than an eighteenth century anatomist. If this term has actual usage and currency, it might merit a mention at the article about the TV show. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I had caught it with the speedy tag, I would have zapped it. Unreferenced waffle. Protologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:17, 11 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 as nonsense/vandalism, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coochie rolls[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction, upon reading the article, was "No, it does not.". My second reaction, upon reading the edit history, was to wonder what StephenBuxton was referring to. Because my searches don't turn up any such thing. This is just completely unverifiable. Reality is, in stark contrast to this article, that this is a song title, for a song that hasn't been documented by the world at large, by a band that, as far as I can tell, hasn't been documented by the world at large either. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment This was nominated for speedy deletion as Vandalism, and a quick google search of "Coochie rolls" showed up enough hits to indicate that it probably wasn't(eg [42]). I agree that there probably isn't enough material out there to make it notable, and it will probably fail AFD. But "probably" doesn't cut it as a candidate for speedy deletion (with the exception of BLP, of course). That was why I suggested PROD/AFD/Improve. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You also said that it appears to be accurate. I wondered what you found because I cannot find anything that confirms the accuracy of either sentence here. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. And since when is a non-notable song by a non-notable MySpace band a reliable source for such expressions and their inclusion in an encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this definition of a neologism. LadyofShalott 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:22, 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 speedy close. A clearly mis-placed user sandbox for Money game (talk · contribs), unsurprisingly enough. Userfied. Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money Game Sandbox[edit]

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

nothing in gnews [43]. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartung[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Two sentences. The article has been tagged for notability since June 2008. No 3rd-party sources. Orphan Will Beback talk 06:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ Keep, to allow the article to be expanded per the "keep" comments below. Will Beback talk 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLPs we have to be strict. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, and the presence of two religious stub categories refers to personal and private information. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: ~~I can't find significant coverage for this professor.~~ Per ThaddeusB. Joe Chill (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - A quick look at Gscholar and GBooks shows that the subject has had a significant impact on both his professional field and to a lesser degree on Atheist thought. (Not every link is him, obviously, but the majority are). The article had additional (unsourced, but accurate) content before Will removed it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the unsourced material from before,[44] but even then I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO. Please add what you can find to the article. Will Beback talk 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally don't have time this week, but if no one expands the article by AfD close it is probably a good candidate for incubation. I certainly wouldn't object to that outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That'd be fine with me. At the moment the article would qualify for speedy delete, and it hasn't been improved despite having a tag for over a year. If no one is willing to improive it now then placing it in the "incubator" may rescure the article. Will Beback talk 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, absurd nomination, with no apparent attempt to establish notability -- which is in fact quite obvious. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument of ThaddeusB. Particularly difficult to search, given the nature of his area of influence ad the fact that there are several prominent people sharing the name, but there is clearly coverage indicating his stature/influence, eg [45]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how a short quotation in a newspaper article establishes notability, but I've chnaged my !vote to favor keeping the article to allow material showing notability to be added. Will Beback talk 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as an adequately but not exceptionally cited researcher, per WP:PROF #1. The article still looks like an A7 candidate, though. And its history doesn't make me confident that we can expand it without running into the same WP:BLP problems as before. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual record in that the subject has published well cited papers in anthropology, evolution, and anesthesiology. HPoP gives a total of 1,620 citations, three papers with more than 100 citations, and a respectable h-index of 22. Initially I thought that they were not from the same J. Hartung, but it turned out that they were. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some text to the article about his position as the Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, plus a refs. section.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Following on Eric Yurken's theme, his CV shows substantial interdisciplinary accomplishments. Also, an h-index of 22 is way into the pass range on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:57, 12 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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InstantPresenter[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. Haakon (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No indication of notability and appears to be simply a promotion of a relatively obscure software product. Calltech (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable, most likely self-promotion. --GreyCat (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Zaslavsky[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:BIO. ^Bongo_matic 06:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of third-party, reliable sources. A Google search returns mainly social-networking sites such as LinkedIn, Plaxo, ZoomInfo, etc. A Google Books search returns one result, which is a passing mention that does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Recused (unblocking admin) - NN-Bio - Alison ^❤ 06:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. COI. Netalarmtalk 06:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that they meet our inclusion standards and improperly sourced BLPs are a really bad idea Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person per our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence individual meets WP:BIO criteria. ttonyb (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI. Notability. WP:RS. Fails all three Manning (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that his circumstances will soon change so that he meets our criteria for inclusion; until that time, however, it would be premature of us to have an article on him. Regretful delete'. DS (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I despise your wp:notability. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H.A.T.E.U (song)[edit]

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

It's a bit premature to have a page on this song (supposed third single) when the second single was just released and there has yet to be any substantial confirmation of this as the third single. It has not charted, nor has it received significant third-party coverage from reliable sources, so it fails WP:NSONGS. Note: I have previously redirected this back to the album page, but it was reverted. (Also, if this survives AfD, the correct title is "H.A.T.E.U." and it should be moved there, because there is no need to predisambiguate.) SKS (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do realise that Carey herself has verbally announced this as the third single; however, that's not enough. For example, she said for quite a while that "Say Somethin'" would be the first single released from The Emancipation of Mimi, but it obviously wasn't, so yeah....
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough information YET Jayy008 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This has been confirmed as the third single, therefore I'm happy to approve it. Plus deleting it would waste everyone's time, if it only has to be started again once the pedants are satisfied with their 1000 sources of confirmation. It just seems like people raise these AfDs to score points with administrators. (Paul237 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: This made me laugh. Thanks! :) 173.66.252.156 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is confirmed as the next single, it hasn't charted as of yet, nor has it been covered by third-party sources. The song fails WP:NSONGS for these reasons. No prejudice against recreation when it is notable. talking birds 19:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry guys, it has just been confirmed as a single on her OFFICIAL WEBSITE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pderrick13 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already stated this. We know it exists. The question is, is it notable enough at this time for an article? talking birds 19:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have stated this. However, it's way too premature. Considering that they just released "I Want to Know What Love is" as the second single, things may change by the time the label actual releases a third single. It's comparable to how "Say Somethin'" was juggled around quite a lot before it actually become the fifth single. (And to the earlier comment about scoring points with admins, I resent that. :P ) SKS (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Keep it at least until something (either this song or another) gets released as the 3rd single. Lots of people will look for it, it's more useful to have this article than to delete it. We can still delete it later if it never becomes a single. – Alensha ^talk 13:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I commented earlier to delete but now I think it should be kept! It's been confirmed for Radio releases on Mainstream and Rythmic radio. So it's definitley the next single. I expect it to chart on some component charts soon so there's no need to delete it and give someone the task of re-adding all the information!! Jayy008 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to "H.A.T.E.U.", that's its actual title. It's a Mariah Carey song, of course it's notable and will chart. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, why on earth is a full page needed to state that a song has been selected as a single? We had the same issue with "Broken-Hearted Girl". Until the song is actually release or charts or there is extensive information and independent coverage this page should be deleted. Furthemore it should be protected to prevent unecessary remaking and re-hashing of the page. It really is not required at this stage in time. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:54, 14 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 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Preston[edit]

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

The article was created by a user who has been blocked for the second time on grounds of repeatedly creating hoaxes, particularly with regards to historical topics. This article does not cite any sources and is thus highly suspicious given its creator's history. This AfD is therefore a precautionary measure as I myself do not have much knowledge concerning this particular topic. If somebody can dig up suitable sources, that would be great (an initial google-search does not yield much). If nobody can dig up sources in the course of this Afd it should be assumed that the article is yet another hoax. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as this AFD was started, I was busy stubbing the article. There are sources available for the person in question, as noted in the article now - I only pulled one and stubbed it so it can be expanded if so desired. The person in question is mentioned in quite a few sources, actually, for his defense during the Siege of Fort St. Jean. however, I'm just trying to make it sourced, I'm not attached to it or anything. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided. Commander in notable action. Not "famous", but enough notability to keep a stub on him. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the author's history, the problem is not so much outright hoaxes, as a habit of putting nonsense into articles about real people of borderline notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to this in the course of writing 26th Regiment of Foot the other day - it's a fairly trivial article, but Preston does seem to have existed roughly as described; see eg/ p86 here. I am not sure he's notable, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of a low rank comparatively, but commanding what appears to be a major fort against a sustained siege led by a ranking American general officer would appear to be notable, especially since he has some non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets minimimum General Notability Guidelines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references appears to be about this person, so WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 14 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 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radagun[edit]

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

Was PROD'd but creator, with obvious COI, logged out and removed the prod tag as an IP. Fails WP:BAND at this point. Band do not inherit notability from being one member being sponsored by a guitar company that also endorses notable artists. Aside from the one Alternative Press article, the rest is blogs and myspace. Mfield (Oi!) 17:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band only just came into existence a year ago. A year isn't much time to get yourself onto the national stage, and this band is not yet known outside their home town. This is evidenced by the band receiving no news coverage, according to Google News. A regular Google search reveals less than 200 results, all of which are either unreliable or mention the band only in passing. In short, the band fails the general notability guideline by not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Tim meh (review me) 20:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the nominator and Timmeh said it well. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article about the band in The Fresno Bee (March 27, 2009; p. 7), and along with the Alternative Press article, that might be enough for a weak keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 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, NW (Talk) 03:38, 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) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added the Fresno Bee article as a citation. It's a decent-sized article about the band. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Paul Erik. Now, with his addition, meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 14 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) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sa3id[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reliable 3rd party sources/references and article has no other references except their official site. Notability is questionable. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 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) 00:38, 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) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - My website has more hits on Google than this. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NRSNVNA. Algébrico (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, fails WP:WEB. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:51, 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 Redirect to Geo Da Silva, as this is the practical effect of the move. The move makes the article compliant with policy, and appears to address all concerns raised during the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Do You like a Truck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'll Do You like a Truck

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

contested prod. Does not meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm a bit conflicted on this one. First, it did make the Dutch Top 40, so it meets that part of WP:NSONGS. Over a million hits on Google, but so far as I can see, every single one is a chart, lyric site, or download link. Can it grow beyond a stub? I'm not sure. Someone's going to have to find an actual source for an article on this, and I can't. I tried narrowing the search down to Dutch sites, thinking that that would provide some actual discussion, but it didn't help.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: " Nom links to Wikipedia:NSONGS, which says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts ... are probably notable." Song reached #5 on a national chart (& youtube copy of this song has 2.8 million views, so that tells me it was popular somewhere). So nom is flawed as to notability. The artist doesn't seem to have a page to merge into, so leave it here for now. There also appear to be articles about the artist/song that can supplement the entry here.[46] --Milowent (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS also requires the ability to grow beyond a stub. Looking at the English translation of your provided source, I still don't see enough to grow beyond a stub. Good find, though.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Afd nom doesn't show on the article page? --Milowent (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired. Article creator warned not to remove AFD notices from articles.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 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 22:43, 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) 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charting singles aren't inherently notable. There are no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Keep now that the article is about the singer and not the song. Then trout creator for putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added an article gushing about the guy and single in Romanian. It appears the song was also a hit in other non-English speaking countries. --Milowent (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources.As Mr. Hammer points out, charting is no magic bullet. RadioFan (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it may have charted, it's unlikely to ever be developed beyond a stub. Rehevkor ✉ 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Geo da Silva doesn't exist yet, despite clear notability: [47]. Once that article is created a merge & redirect is probably warranted, but until that time we shouldn't be remnoving a hit single from Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page (rough translation) claims the song is a hit in 30 countries. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked that one over, and the problem is that its claims don't stand up to scrutiny. I can't find any charting outside of the Dutch position: if it was a "hit in 30 countries", I would find more charts, unless they are using an extremely loose definition of "hit". As I said earlier, I'm conflicted, because it meets the minimum charting requirement. I won't lose sleep if this is kept.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Geo Da Silva. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to move, much better place for long-term keeping.--Milowent (talk) 13:02, 15 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) 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jubo League[edit]

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

This unsourced article is about a wing of a Bangladeshi political party. There is nothing here that could not be covered in Bangladesh Awami League. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Keep: Per ~~nom~~ Eastmain's sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of media coverage at this search. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's sources - although I'd note that the article is currently unsourced and does not assert notability, which would make it a target for an A7 speedy delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if you could add the sources to the article. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is the youth wing of the ruling party of Bangladesh -- the Awami League. Many media coverage (besides those by Eastman, there are many mentions/coverage in Bangladeshi media as well). --Ragib (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am more than willing to withdraw the nomination, but leaving it open appears to be helping improve the article. Perhaps it would be good to drop a {((rescue)) tag at the top of it? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:52, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 00:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Barnes[edit]

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

Orphan dab, unneeded dab, no reason to expect either of these articles to be titled "Dr. Barnes" JHunterJ (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barnes (name). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Keep - Dab are rarely unneeded, and users can reasonably try to search for "Dr.Barnes". --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a dab page in the way keeps users from as easily reaching the search page [48], and since the matching articles aren't actually ambiguous (WP:D: "disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title", and none of these articles could, in principle, be titled "Dr. Barnes"), the dab page is more of a hindrance than a help for those "reasonable" users. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the search concern. I think however it is just matter of updating the dab, isn't it? I will give it a spin tonight. (And I am not saying such users are reasonable, I am saying that it is reasonable that someone will use that search). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what about redirecting to Barnes (name)? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there exists a page (disambiguation, redirect, or other) at Dr. Barnes, it will inhibit the return of the search result set. Other than that, though, yes, redirecting it to Barnes (name) would be better than the current page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Barnes (martyr). --Paularblaster (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A page which does not mention "Dr. Barnes". Why? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try "Dr Barnes" (without a full-stop). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the articles are "Dr. Barnes (xxx)" so a dab page is not needed to distinguish between multiple people. Tavix | Talk 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy on WP:D. No need for a disambiguation page when the articles aren't ambiguous. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unneeded disambig, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:22, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 2821[edit]

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

~~Completely lacking sources and inline citations. In addition,~~ this incident fails WP:AIRCRASH. Blodance (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find anything notable about this incident. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There must be some other website where this kind of minor incident can be reported. WP is an encyclopedia for the general public, not airline insiders. On the other hand I would like to see more, and better articles on airline safety issues in general.Northwestgnome (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but incorporate relevant info into the MD-80, American Airlines and Bryce Canyon Airport articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any of the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. I'm not even certain that there is anything other than trivial mentions to incorporate into the other articles Mjroots mentions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No injuries, no death, no damage to anything. The plane just had to make a landing because of some smoke in the cockpit. I don't live in the area, but I bet this probably got little more than a 2 minute story in the area where it happened. Not even worth mentioning in other articles. TJ Spyke 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we're WP:NOTNEWS, and this barely even classifies as news. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smoke does not necessarily mean fire. How unfortunate for Wikipedia. --Triadian (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from nom The nom rationale is failing WP:N. Considered improving it and accidentally typed some of the problems(while they are not grounds for deletion) w/ the article as reasons for deletion. They are withdrawn. Blodance (talk) 12:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Racing[edit]

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

Minor cycling team with no coverage to establish notability. Not to be confused with the motorbike racing team, Quay Garage Racing. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 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) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Jeremjay 24 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by Jeremyjay24, and article appears to fall under WP:PROMO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantius (journal)[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Apparently, this is a newsletter of an Italian research group. Article was re-created after expired prod, the only improvements being addition of the ISSN and a list of the 6 universities to which the researchers of this group belong. According to its web site, "Its first aim is to document the activities of the Group". According to WorldCat, the journal is not held by any Italian library, although that may be an underestimate (I would expect it at least to be in the libraries of the 6 universities from which researchers participate in this group), but in any case there is no evidence that this is widely held or even listed in library catalogs. No information on abstracting or indexing is given on the journal's site, so it is highly likely that it is not indexed anywhere. Google gives three hits for the English title (and 9 without parentheses) and 69 for the Italian title (omitting parentheses), none of them suggesting notability. Google Scholar gives no better results. This misses all criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (Academic Journals), hence delete. Crusio (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. --Crusio (talk) 17:31, 1 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 per nom - non-notable newsletter (not a journal, despite the claims in the title and body of the article - read their own website !), published in Italian language. Might be notable for Italian wikipedia, but not here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment worldCat does not presently list any italian libraries, as far as I can tell. the language of a journal is irrelevant to notability in the enWP, If its notable in Italy, it's notable enough to be covered here--although the different WPs have somewhat different standards of inclusion. the enWP covers the world, English speaking and non english speaking just the same. the only distinction is that it is written in English. To the extent it preferentially covers English-language subjects, or English-speaking countries, it's a fault that needs correction, known as WP:Systematic bias DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. I did not take this to AfD because ot this being Italian. But if you read their website (I speak French and can decipher Italian somewhat), you will see it is just a newsletter and as far as I can see not peer-reviewed. As for being notable within Italy, surely it is similar there as here in France: to be notable locally, the newsletter/journal would have to be indexed somewhere. Again, as far as I can see, this is not the case. Also, my Google search were not language limited and several of the Ghits are to Italian sites. None of them seem to confer any notability and not even the number of Ghits (a shaky argument in the best of cases) provides any indication that this might be notable I did not know that WorldCat does not cover Italian libraries (I already mentioned above that I thought the score of 0 was unlikely to be correct). Is there an Italian alternative? --Crusio (talk) 09:29, 4 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) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick glance at WP:SJ, I suppose the question is whether it's peer reviewed (and some confirmation of that would help, but I agree with Crusio that we should assume it's not unless there's evidence it is).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crusio's work. A lack of peer review makes this into a nn-newsletter. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 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 redirect to Glasvegas. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rab Allan (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO and isn't covered in depth by multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG JD554 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 14:57, 1 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]

Could Redirect this to Glasvegas. No notability outside band, no reason to have a seperate article. Nothing to merge. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 6 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) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Duffbeerforme.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Spendlingwimmer[edit]

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

We're here at AFD because of Spacepotato, in essence. ☺ The Proposed Deletion rationale was actually not far from the mark at all. Although I can find sources that document Longo Mai (which we don't have but the French Wikipedia does, at fr:Coopératives Longo Maï) and that talk about the Circo Fantazztico, they don't actually document this person. Xe is, at best, a source of a quotation as "member of the Circus" or the like. This biographical article of a living person is bad, and there are no sources available that can be used to fix it. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: malformed AfD fixed. Relisting in a moment. Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 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 redirect to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalidah[edit]

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

Not a notable topic in and of itself. Cirt (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in case you're curious, Kalidahs are a fictitious species of animal created by children's author L. Frank Baum for his novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. No opinion yet on the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 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) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. --EEMIV (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, per EEMIV. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:57, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anil shastri sharad[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable author, created for the purpose of self-promotion. Paucity of relevant Google hits -- not in itself significant, as the author writes in Hindi. However, even the author's own (free webspace) website lists under publications only a single volume of poetry and some literary essays(?), along with a series of articles on marketing, salary adminstration, etc -- odd inclusions for the website of a literary author. Summary: even if the article weren't a self-promotional autobiography, the subject fails WP:GNG in not having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Rrburke^(talk) 13:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in article authentic.It is from the reliable source.This is not an autobiogrphy & not meant at all for self promotion. The writer is honoured with National Talent Honour 2009 by Akhil Bharateeya sahitya sangam,Udaipur Rajasthan.He has also been awarded honourable degree of Kavyakarna by the same institution.In addition to this he has been awarded Pandit Arun Kumar Tripathi Smriti Samman by sahityik sankritik kala Sangam Academy pariyavan pratapgarh & Sahitya shree Samman by Hindi Sahitya Samiti Dehradun for his work.He has one collection of poems published 'Svarnkalash'& one edited book 'shraddha Suman'a Smarika on life & work of vetaran social worker Lala Bhim Sen Arya.He has also edited 'kavyapushpa'a monthly literary folder magazine in Hindi of Rashtrabhasha seva sansthan dehradun. He also has one gazal sangrah,one lekh sangrah 'Kchhij ke us par'and one collection of articles on Management'Towards Managerial Excellence'as unpublished works.He has been published by various national & international magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.150.54 (talk) 06:51, 7 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) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on gnews/gbooks/gscholar. Many of the Gweb links are mirrors or forums, a search in Hindi gave me just one result. Nothing to show that this will pass notability for biographies. -SpacemanSpiff 19:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chankast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This program doesn't assert notability and it is unlikely that it can gain any information past trivial specifications. TTN (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Found no notable sources whatsoever. Also fails to follow WP:GAMECRUFT, giving exhaustive version histories. --Teancum (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 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 redirect to Banjo. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Banjo[edit]

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

While tolerably well written, this is essentially a promotion for one model of one maker's instrument. There doesn't seem to be anything specifically notable about this instrument. The 5th string design, while well executed, is not unique. —Kww(talk) 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should normally be exhausted before an article is brought to AfD. In this case, I don't yet see why Kww has rejected the idea of a merge to the "variants" section of Banjo. Why's that, Kww?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't anything notable enough about this intrument to warrant a mention by name. The technique used for the fifth string is mentioned in banjo, and properly credited to F.C Wilkes in the 1890's. There have been thousands of banjo makers with tens of thousands of different models. We don't list them individually.—Kww(talk) 12:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that it isn't notable. For me, the question is whether to merge, redirect to Banjo, or delete entirely.
I'm going to run with redirect to Banjo on the grounds that plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:23, 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, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Banjo, as it doesn't seem that there's anything worth keeping here]]. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Banjo#Banjo variants where this string arrangement is discussed. The article as it stands is about one maker's take on an old technique. The redirect can be expanded down the line if and when this particular product acquires some more notability. pablo_hablo. 16:37, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon Davis[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable music producer. I wasn't able to verify any of his works with non-trivial, secondary sources. Your thoughts? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the article mentions some discrepancy in his first name: Byron/Bryon. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I vote for a delete. I saw this and didn't know what to do with it. Could be another page somewhere. Nezzadar (talk) 22:07, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we accepted all the claims as true, they wouldn't add up to anything notable. But without any sources, it's hard to even verify those claims. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry - no notable accomplishments per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources to substantiate claims made. Crafty (talk) 20:21, 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 redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Nanotwi[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. The real problems identified by Xxanthippe (i.e. sources, details) seem to be a matter of the article being a stub, not of notability of the subject. Nanotwi is at least purported to be the (co-)founder of a important university, which is important enough to merit an article. Giving the benefit of the doubt that the claim is actually true, this should be {expand} not delete. LotLE×talk 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - it would be hard to classify Nanotwi as an educator, educationist or academic. The benefit of the doubt is a subjective matter, which this individual does not merit as far as I can see. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until there has been a proper search for sources in the appropriate languages--the Pashto WP article is substantially fuller, and seems to provide the appropriate information for notability, including his publications. Tentatively, I would accept their judgment. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 6 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) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to another article for the same person Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi, there are sufficient reliable source references for the biography, so much so that there's even dispute on his year of birth! Between three spelling variations - Qasim Nanotvi, Qasim Nanotwi and Qasim Nanautawi there exist almost 300 Gbooks references. So it's an easy keep if one were to bring the other article to AfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Agree with SpacemanSpiff. As nominator I would hold that since another article for the same person exists then this stub can and should be simply redirected. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:43, 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 redirect to Papa Roach. keep votes not policy based Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Horton[edit]

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

Members of a notable band that fail to establish individual notability as per WP:MUSIC. According to WP:MUSIC, such articles should be redirected to the main band article. Attempts to do this have been consistently reverted without discussion, so seeking to establish consensus to either delete or redirect here. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following articles for a similar reason

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, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect all to Papa Roach and protect all for now. based on what I see wp:music supports redirects and not individual articles. The only sourced info worth keeping is the Buckner lawsuit which is already in the Papa Roach article with the same source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (NO redirect) Plenty of sources exist. But it's not as clear that Tobin Esperance or Dave Buckner have a lot written about them or that they have the kind of talent and star power that Horton obviously does (hope this doesn't cause hurt feelings, I might well be wrong...these others guys may deserve their own pages, I just don't know enough about them). So you will get no real argument from me, right now, on a redirect for these other two. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these results do you think shows Horton's individual notability independent of Papa Roach? ("Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." from wp:music). Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can WP:wikilawyer this to death. Or we can admit that the guy is talented, that he stands out, and that he has some kind of star power. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is talented, he has some kind of star power, as "Jerry Horton from Papa Roach". Look at the google news search you provided, Papa Roach "Jerry Horton". You included Papa Roach. Where is his notability past Papa Roach? Look at the Jerry Horton article. Cruft based on OR and trivia. Papa Roach article is small enough to keep what little info in the Horton article is worth keeping without the need for other articles. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They publish quotes of this one guy in many news sources. Therefore he is notable. Dream Focus 12:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a keep just for Horton? Esperance and Buckner are also included in this afd. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence. But it would be helpful if those who feel that he deserves his own article would point us to the specific sources that indicate how he has "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases", as Duffbeerforme suggests is required by WP:MUSIC. I think that was a fair comment, working off the guidance (which is what I think should direct our conclusion). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(See MTV artilce and Sac. Bee article). It can be extremely abusive (in the sense of violating the WP:5P) to apply wiki-policy in an overly precise way. That's why there are commen sense loopholes Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:Wikilawyering to provide such relief. This is a clear case where the current policy needs to be taken with more than a few grains of salt. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to do otherwise. And "let's just ignore the rules this time" is not, on its own, a compelling reason (neither is "he's got talent"). Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 16 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 13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Destination (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)[edit]

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

I don't see how this soundtrack is notable outside the parent article. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of a borderline case. Sources don't seem to meet WP:Notable, although it is more noteworthy than many other things which do have articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:17, 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) 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Kei_Jo (aka Keithf2008) (Talk to me, baby! :P) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with parent article. The article on the film itself isn't excessively long, and although the soundtrack album's critical reception perhaps suggests some separate notability I'm not really sure why it's a separate article. It has a lot of relevant detail which should not be discarded, but should be moved to the Soundtrack section of the The Final Destination article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:12, 14 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 Richard Lynn. — Jake Wartenberg 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Asians/North Africans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/South Asians/North Africans

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

A "racial group" coined by a rather controversial psychologist that doesn't seem to have caught on outside of his work. Google news shows no hits, and google scholar has 4. (A regular google search returns more, but many are in comments sections of blogs, and hardly count as reliable sources. Aside from the fact that this would appear to be a non-notable neologism, the article doesn't serve much purpose other than pushing the POV of the person who coined the term. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per clear/concise argument by nom. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom's excellent rationale. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Richard Lynn; it is a distinctive feature of his system (I doubt anyone else agrees with him), and anyone searching for the term will want his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Ramdrake (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you google "South Asians and North Africans" in quotes you get thousands of hits. I created the article because the term needed explaining & the fact that it has come up in 4 scholarly articles makes it more notable than a lot of the articles on wikipedia. And the term has caught on outside of Lynn's work; it's used quite frequently by J. Phillipe Rushton. Needpics (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) — Needpics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, I would imagine that googling for South Asians and North Africans" would return a bazillion hits. That's because most of them aren't related to this usage of the term. And Rushton's use of the term hardly validates it as being widely adopted. (He's in the same sort of controversial (and minority) camp as the proponent of the term). --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All influential people are controversial. Anyone who is not controversial is failing to challenge ideas. And it's very difficult to know how many of those google hits are relevant or not so speculating does not advance the argument. Needpics (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not all controversial people are notable, nor are all of their ideas necessarily notable. Especially not those that are minority opinions that shouldn't be given undue weight. If you find mainstream citations that show widespread use of the term with this particular meaning, great, otherwise there's not much else to say. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree it's an extreme minority perspective & thus should not be given much if any weight in mainstream articles as per undue weight policy, but because it has been referenced in peer reviewed academic journals, it seems notable enough to have an aticle. Minority views are fine when they are contained within articles about those minority views. For example flat earth theory is too fringe to be given weight in an article about the earth, but that doesn't mean an article about the flat earth theory should not exist. Needpics (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my nomination gives the reason this should be deleted. In short, this != flat earth theory. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Flat earth theory; heck, we even have an article on John Cleves Symmes, Jr., whose earth was even weirder. 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Richard Lynn - classic example of a fringe theory, which can be satisfactorily covered in the article on the person who created it, but has no notability of its own. Robofish (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NEO. It is a fringe theory and not supported by the scientific data. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses a reference to the journal Intelligence as a source. Intelligence is a peer reviewed academic journal so this is obviously not a fringe theory. Needpics (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also add that the reason I created this article is that so many articles on wikipedia make reference to Richard Lynn's racial divisions that there was a need for a wikilink to explain what he meant by South Asian/North African. The term needs explaining because his definition of South Asian is broader than the typical definition of South Asian & the lumping together of South Asians with North Africans is confusing to those who see these as separate groups. It's inefficient to have to explain what Lynn means by South Asian/North African in every article, hence the need for an article that can just be linked to for those who are confused. Needpics (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment, there is only one article that links to South Asians/North Africans: Race and intelligence#Worldwide, where the term is menioned once in a listing of racial groups by intelligence. It'd be simple to expand tha mention to include a short parenthetical definition. Will Beback talk 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there are several articles which mention the concept, I just haven't bothered to wikilink them to the South Asians/North Africans article because I don't know if it will survive. There are many articles that mention Richard Lynn's theory on race & these tend to make reference to the South Asian/North African group. Needpics (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Richard Lynn. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Richard Lynn. This is a marginal topic that is only relevant to Lynn. The redirect can take the place of the article when the term is referenced in other articles. Will Beback talk 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the reasons cited by nom and because it is extreme fringe POV-pushing.Skywriter (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed that a lot (all?) of the people who are voting for this article to be deleted have been embroiled in articles that are hostile to Richard Lynn's views, thus these people are not a representative cross-section of wikipedia opinion. Needpics (talk) 22:18, 15 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) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon Evans[edit]

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

A possibly non-notable anchorman for Greater Manchester's Channel m. I was unable to find any significant coverage by reliable sources of his work (see Google results for Bryon Evans+Greater Manchester and Bryon Evans+Channel M). Your thoughts? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:46, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Free[edit]

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

Non-notable director. His work for Rooster Teeth productions appears to be his only notable work, and the man himself generates fewer than 100 unique ghits [49], so no reliable sources are likely to exist. And most of those links are to blogs, wikis, and official websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 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) 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Action Figure (album)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP. Rationale on talk page is:

PROD removed by creator. Fails to meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC albums. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added the page of the band itself as it was tagged for speedy deletion but with two albums and an ongoing AfD we might better discuss it here. Delete unless reliable sources can be found. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:34, 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) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band and album, no insufficient non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article from The Morning Call, which I added, is not a trivial source. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blow (web framework)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Another one sentence article by the same creator is in AFD here. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 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) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources on subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate any reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:40, 12 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) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BKNR[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. The article's biggest claim to being non-notable is that the article only says "BKNR is a web application framework for Common Lisp." Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 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) 00:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:37, 12 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) 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Uysiuseng[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT , most third party coverage is passing mentions rather than in depth coverage [50]. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although not popular, the subject is still notable being a cast member on Lipgloss and Bud Brothers. She was also nominated for Best New TV Personality in 22nd PMPC Star Awards for Television link here. Regarding third-party coverage, most Philippine news sites do not have an efficient archive (sometimes even deleting articles a day after). Meanwhile, the external links should be deleted and citations should be placed. Starczamora (talk) 13:15, 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) 00:12, 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) 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does not appear to meet minimum notability from verifiable reliably sourced third party sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having zero reliable sources (fails WP:V). In response to Starczamora, WP:V requires sources to be verifiable. Articles that "go poof" with no way of locating them should be disregarded - readers must be able to "check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". If articles are found in sources that are expected to disappear, there are archiving services that could be utilized. No prejudice against recreation if (but only if) reliable sources are included. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:52, 11 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. No prejudice to speedy renomination. Listed for 20 days with no argument for deletion aside from the nominator, but not enough participation to determine consensus. No comment since October 2 despite a second relisting. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Riachi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 19:30, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the lead is rather misleading and might better be written as "... is an orthopaedic surgeon in the Lebanon, founder of the first service of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology in the Middle-East, and founder and first President of the Lebanese Orthopaedic Association. He also founded the Lebanese Ski Federation."--Derek Andrews (talk) 11:21, 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) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I don't like relisting twice but since this article is about a living person, let's give it some more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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.