< 31 March	2 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi Baruwa[edit]

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

Non notable actor. DimaG (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-notable? Perhaps, but I would like to respectfully point out that this actor is a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and has appeared in a number of film and television roles besides. I haven't been able to do a proper search yet, but five minutes spent on Google turned up reviews in a number of papers, including the London Times and the New York Times. The reviews I've seen thus far do not seem to discuss Kemi Baruwa at any great length, but I'm not finished digging. In my experience, anyone playing principal roles in the RSC is someone who usually has left a trail of reviews in their wake. Evalpor (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - He may have performed with the Royal Shakespeare Company, appeared in some films and television. But there has to be something that stands out. Because then everybody in the company should be in Wikipedia. Then every person (even if minor) in a film have to be in Wikipedia. Everybody you see on TV has to be in Wikipedia. Whenaxis (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like I said, I'm still digging. If I turn nothing up, then I'll vote accordingly. I'm just saying that for me, an RSC affiliation is a signal to look closer at an actor's article that winds up in here. Evalpor (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. For example, she is not indexed in the International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance, nor in Wilson's Biography Index. --Bejnar (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I give up. Actor has not yet stepped into the fore. Evalpor (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belguimtown[edit]

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

No proof that this even exists, let alone is notable. Seems awful joke-y to me. Creator's previous contributions appear to be mostly nonconstructive, including a now-deleted article called "Deadly Fart", two attempts to create an article about himself, and this. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rm -f Belguimtown.txt (Delete methinks!) Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. User seems to not be very contributiv, and this page sounds very vandalish to me. Buggie111 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the content of the page and the creator's other contributions, this looks like vandalism. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Delete: Because it is a non-notable subdivision, if we kept it then we have to add every subdivision in the world. If its notable and 'real' then it could be in Wikipedia. Merge: Because if its real then we should add it to the town/city it is situated in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenaxis (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Outback the Koala (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Googling seems to show that this does exist, and therefore, it is probably notable. Though the article is written poorly in its present state, it can be improved. So can the creator - though he is off to a rough start, he is capable of maturing and becoming a good contributor. Lets AGF. Dew Kane (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that this title is not spelled correctly. None of the content is verifiable, aside from it being a subdivision. There is no evidence that I can find that this subdivision is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to Cape Breton Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia. There is a settlement named Belgiumtown in Cape Breton. See the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC): 1217030 - Cape Breton, geographical codes and localities, 2006 at Statistics Canada. Mindmatrix 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What useful content do you propose be merged? That it has the "Monster Truck Rally where people go do drugs and ramp off pieces of metal on their bikes". The article is devoid of any useful information and has zero references. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, I wasn't paying close attention. I think I'd rename the article, delete the text, and redirect to the municipality article or Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, but I'd retain the category in the renamed redirect. The redirect may need a disambiguator (Belgiumtown, Nova Scotia), as there are other places with this name (at least one in British Columbia, among others). Mindmatrix 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would it even be worthwhile renaming? There is nothing worth keeping. If a correctly named redirect is desired, it's easy to create. -- Whpq (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to AFD two years later, it is a clear violation of WP:DICDEF and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and in the two years has yet to be sourced or improved into a usable article. It simply cannot be constructed in a manner that would be a presentable article. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to delete the rest of Category:Profanity and Category:Profanity by language or is there some specific problem with Portuguese profanity? Polarpanda (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The "Shorter list..." section is an indiscriminate list, but the lead section includes encyclopedic (if unsourced) information. The long-standing and as yet unanswered calls for cleanup and improvement seem like a case of WP:There is no deadline. Cnilep (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviouly promising and contains cultural and historical dimensions that could turn this into a good article. While I've never edited this, I have worked on related articles including Latin profanity and Esperanto profanity, so the general type of article interests me, and this is part of a series. (One of these days I'm going to have to get around to Proto-Indo-European profanity.) The fact that two years have passed does not mean that a deadline has run. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's got a good point about this being unsourced after all these years. I can understand that it's not published in a book, but isn't there at least a website someone can point to? For all we know, the source is "João, my friend from Brazil". Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the article is quiet discriminate, perhaps it could be more so, but it is far from a useless jumble of information. It is a weak dictionary, but only because it is poorly constructed. As far as I know there is no expiration date for poorly constructed articles.--Tmckeage (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Playford V[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, as he does not appear to have ever actually won an election. Doesn't pass the GNG either; being the son of Thomas Playford IV doesn't make him notable in itself. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a mere minor party candidate at a state level, he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. There is coverage of the guy but it is all related to the campaigns he has run. Subject to any compelling arguments to the contrary being presented below, I don't think there is good reason here to depart from the community set standard of WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited, and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a blatant hoax. Evil saltine (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khoshniyati[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer player, fails WP:N; also linked to various IP editors who continually vandalize pages relating to Los Angeles Galaxy and List of current MLS players. It is likely that the subject of the article is the hoaxer/vandal. JonBroxton (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if possible - appears to be blatant hoax. If not speedied, delete for WP:V and WP:N failure. Jogurney (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Michael[edit]

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

BLP (recently edited to state that subject is recently deceased) that has been tagged BLPUnsourced and remained unsourced for a year. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has published books on Holocaust studies but I can't find GS cites. has received a notable prize. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep' Meets WP:PROF as a expert in his subject: multiple books in WorldCat,[1] many in hundreds of libraries. Many of them translated. Winner of important national level award. 00:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Clarification Requested. The claimed prize evidently does not have its own WP page. When I looked for more details about it, I found this official page, which says the prize is given biennially. The subject's faculty page says he won in the award in 1997, but another official AHA page that ostensibly shows all the prize winners does not list his name. In fact, it seems to say that 1997 was an "off year" in which the prize was not even awarded. Could an expert weigh-in to clarify this matter? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- My guess is that this refers to the 1996 prize, "H-Net: Humanities Online, based at Michigan State U.; Richard J. Jensen, executive director, U. of Illinois-Chicago; Mark Lawrence Kornbluh, chair, Executive Committee, Michigan State U." — Michael's vita also lists him as former "editor" of three H-net email lists (out of some 70). Since our H-Net article doesn't even mention him, I don't think this award can be viewed as an indicator of notability for him personally. And (obviously) I don't think that mailing list editorship counts towards WP:PROF #8, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks David. The article's wording implies that Michael won the award both personally and exclusively, which seems to be quite a stretch in light of what you've said. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is that while library holdings are high cites seem to be inconsistently low. A search on GS for 'author:"Robert Michael" Holocaust' give around total of 21 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The Robinson prize issue lessens my trust in the accuracy of the sources about him, so WP:V is an issue as well as WP:PROF. I did some more searching and found this nomination for the Robinson prize for H-net, which (as with other verifiable sources about the Robinson prize) fails to mention Michael. Our article has only one primary source, and although I did find a secondary source about Michael, this obituary, it appears to be so closely paraphrased from our own article (including the Robinson prize claim with as little justification) that it seems to me unusable for fear of circular sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but tag as a stub) -- The problem with this article is that it is only a stub. The CV which are the external link from the article lists about a dozen books, mostly related to the Holocaust. I do not regard being moderator of e-mail discussion lists as notable, but contributing editor of Menorah Review might be. This is a field of history that I so not deal with. Additionally I am faced with the difficulty that in US all lecturers are "professors", so that I find it difficult to see how distinguished be was. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of various revelations above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not a prize winner, but a contributor to an "Outstanding Teaching Aid". Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. One short obituary from The Boston Globe and one from his pet project H-Net. --Bejnar (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Globe piece were an independent obituary, I'd say that it contributed to some amount of notability. But it's labeled as a "death notice", which I think just means that some family member wrote it and paid the Globe to publish it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Henry Tompkins[edit]

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

The article doesn't seem to assert sufficient notability as either a soldier or molecular biologist. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of any published papers, at least in Scopus. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After serving in both WWI and WWII and receiving the British Empire Medal I belive notibility as a soldier has been established. I have added a copy of his Military Medical Record downloaded from the U.K. National Archives as additional proof of his service. There is also a link to the London Gazette announcing him as a recipient of the British Empire Medal - Medal of the Order of the British Empire. Thank you --Richard Jordana 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richjordana (talk • contribs)

Comment. As a rule, only the highest awards for valor (Victoria Cross, Medal of Honor) automatically qualify the recipient (see WP:MILPEOPLE for general guidelines); the British Empire Medal by itself isn't enough. Also, quite a few people served in both world wars, so that doesn't do it either. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the combination of the B.E.M. and serving in both World Wars would qualify him? I'm not sure who in Wikipedia makes these sort of decisions? One last query... If you decide to delete him, would he no longer appear under the B.E.M. recipients page? Category:Recipients of the British Empire Medal --Richard Jordana 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply. Immediate decisions are made by the voters and administrators lurking hereabouts. If you want to plead your case for getting the criteria changed, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. And yes, he would no longer show up in the category. If you check out the other recipients, you'll see that they qualify for achievements other than the BEM. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage needed in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the combination of military service and a BEM is not enough to establish notability under WP:MILPEOPLE. His military career, although noble and worth remembering in my opinion, is probably similar to many thousands of men and women of his generation, thus the Military History project's standards have been set quite high in terms of decorations and notability. Thus, if Mr Tompkins is to be considered notable it would probably be because of his work in molecular biology. However, as the article is written it does not provide a positive statement as to his contributions in this field, so I don't believe it passes WP:GNG. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in contact with Medical Research in Cambridge. They have informed me that the BEM was not for Military duty but for Civilian service. He was nominated by a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his duty to his country. They will be forwarding the details to me along with the information at the crypt at St. Pauls Cathedral in London. I have added (Civilian Division) after BEM so I'm assuming that the article shouldn't be in the Military-related deletion discussions? --Richard Jordana 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richjordana (talk • contribs)

Delete the London Gazette describes him as a porter when he was awarded the BEM so it was probably in recognition of his many years service at the Laboratory. Although I suspect a long and hard working career and he did his bit during both wars like thousands of others, he does not appear to be notable in wikipedia terms. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior comments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot, article deleted by User:Kinu - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FrostWare[edit]

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

Non-notable company Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, strongly. Advertising and original research:

FrostWare was created on January 1, 2010, under Quinton Wilson. His goals and aspirations to be the dominant company in the Linux community is starting to show as the company has gained explosive popularity....
On Jolicloud's release the company had a few reviews that led to solid followers as the first time rookies took advantage of the speed and small size it offered. Soon tens of thousands of downloads came flooding the servers as they young company found it evident they needed to expand....
The company now offers support for almost any Linux problem or any concern a costumer has, although the software is free of charge the company makes more money from Jolicloud revenue than most corporations that have been around for longer than a decade. Tons of investors continue to invest into this company as its success is evident. It is perceived to be the next Microsoft and Apple together.

I'd say this qualifies for speedy deletion as advertising; other stomachs may be stronger than mine, though. My first thought was that this material was added to the article as a hoax or spoof, but apparently it's always been like that. I'm still not convinced that this isn't a leftover April Fool's joke. If it is a parody, it's not bad, although I'd have tried to work in a few references to "knowledge management" and "software as a service" as well, although that might have made it a bit too obvious.

Or are we not allowed to delete spam because the article is only two days old, now? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this for speedy deletion. Were it real, it would appear to be blatant spam; but in fact it seems to be a hoax. The claimed product Jolicloud also has an article. While that product has notability issues, it asserts that this distribution was created in France.[2] Neither the Jolicloud article nor its website mention "Quinton X. Wilson", Statesboro, or FrostWare. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. I've changed the speedy tag accordingly. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tim Noah#Films. Shimeru (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of the Wow Wow Wibble Woggle Wazzie Woodle Woo[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Google search turns up nothing really. Creator is blocked sockpuppet of indefblocked editor. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G5 (author banned). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film appears to be notable, according to the sources. Xtzou (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how two retailers are evidence of notability. Amazon and some music download site are not evidence of notability.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tim Noah. The film & song exist and can be purchased, but have not established any individual notabilty. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable film. Warrah (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tim Noah. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 14:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It won four Emmy Awards.[3] (As a side note, this appears far more notable than Sonicsgate, a film I proposed for deletion that was kept. Sometimes the deletion process seems a bit arbitrary given that there are a number of deletion votes for In Search of... already.) Chicken Wing (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... I saw that blurb on the Tim Noah website, but was unable to determine if the film won the Emmys or if Tim himself had. If it can be sourced that the individual film had won them, then I'd be very happy to change to keep. But if the Emmys are Tim's and not the film's, then I'd still have to feel that the film itself has yet to show individual notability through RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm surprised there isn't some sort of Emmy database out there. If there is, I didn't find it in my brief search. Anyway, a bit of original research here, this article says Tim Noah has eight Emmy Awards, which would suggest that the four number applies just to "In Search".[4] The article also notes that "In Search" has aired on HBO and The Discovery Channel, which may be marginal evidence of notability. This account notes that one of the four awards went to Patricia Royce for producer, suggesting that the awards are tied to the film and not to Noah. It's a borderline case to be sure, and I probably wouldn't cry myself to sleep if the article disappeared, but four Emmy Awards is four Emmy Awards. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why are past Emmys such a bear to source? Researching past Emmys at the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences website at http://www.emmys.org/ is amazingly unhelpful. Like you, I found repeated references to them in SPS, but nothing in RS. And even though numerous reliable sources DO call the film award-winning,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].... they always do it as an aside in articles more about the creator than the film. Two possibilities presented themselves for this assumedly award-winning film: 1) it could be kept and expanded and sourced... or 2) set as a redirect to Tim_Noah#Films where there is already substantially more information about the topic. If someone has better luck than me, I would have no problem with it being kept, or spun out again later if someone were to properly expand and source the awards... but at the moment, the Tim Noah article is far more comprehensive about the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I favour the redirect as suggested to Tim_Noah#Films. Xtzou (Talk) 18:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) and salted. –MuZemike 02:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonburg[edit]

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

Lack of sources per WP:GNG Kruchone (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs given, and I can't find any. No releases made - two self-issued demos to come. This doesn't indicate current notability. I also find the concept of a one man heavy metal 'band' rather peculiar - it may confer a degree of notability at some future date. Then again, it may not. In Aphex Twin's genre, one-man is not unusual. I can't place any in metal. Peridon (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (band). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Peridon (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mortification Records[edit]

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

Non-notable label. References only qualify as primary. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this record label. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find WP:RS coverage to establish WP:N. Additionally, WP:MUSIC defines a notable independent record label as, "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" - which this does not appear to pass either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Howie[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not sufficiently notable 1sankaty (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say that an obituary in The Scotsman and an entry is Scottish Who's who's is a high enough bar to cross to establish notability. I have to say, it does seem odd that a user's only contribution to Wikipedia is to nominate an article for deletion. The fact that another single-purpose user did a prod on this article citing a reason of WP:BIO makes me more suspicious. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris Neville-Smith. It needs some work, but it is a useful article on a man who was prominent in many different ways. It will probably need some non-internet sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CNS and Bduke. All these brand new SPAs going after bios is very suspicious. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like he's notable per sourcing above, although the article could indeed use some improvement. Vartanza (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He met B-P and talked with him. 75.142.57.160 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Porathur[edit]

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

Non notable. DimaG (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a vicar-general does not make someone notable. StAnselm (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable --Sodabottle (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mashup minded[edit]

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

Original research, unverified, unlikely to become verifiable or terribly notable. Jisakujien (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be original research on a topic that has no notability or verifiability. Babylonian Armor (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find any decent references in an admitted brief search. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Barber[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:Creative Lithoderm 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lithoderm 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems there's very little information outside of blogs, social sites and self-published profiles. I found an article published by a local newspaper Dorset Echo, and a short mention at the website of a local gallery art@plush. No independent and substantial reviews of her work, published by reliable third-party sources. In my opinion, the subject fails notability criteria for artists and the general notability guideline. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the 1996 student award in the NatWest 90s Prize For Art, selection for the first Jerwood Art Commissions in 2000, and finalist for the 2009 Barclays Trading Places Awards, all now added to the article. Ty 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just per Ty. still young & likely to progress. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by a slim margin. Dorset article and representation by Browse and Darby are good credits. JNW (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources. She has shown her work professionally. Only of local interest, if that. --Bejnar (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANYBIO an article is valid if "The person has received a notable award or honor", namely winner of the student award in the NatWest 90s Prize For Art, and the award of the first Jerwood Art Commission. Both of these are major, national organisations. Ty 17:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Éternel[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Author Removed Speedy tag without reason. The "official site" is a Myspace Page, and the references are to myspace or to Self Published sites. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the removed speedy tag. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No published references, as it relates to the subject bands. I may put maintenance tags on this article just in-case. Minima c (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND ukexpat (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AllegroGraph[edit]

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

Notability cannot be confirmed, either by the references provided (see the talk page), or by other searches for significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I will gladly withdraw if these sources can be found. (Maybe I'm missing something?) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to understand why three solid references are removed that show validity of the subject.

Article #1 is about work in the Intelligence community (don't we want to know about what the DOD is doing?). Articles out of the intelligence community are few and far between. Please see the last sentence in the Abstract. Can it be more clear?

"Our contributions are built to work with AllegroGraph, from Franz Inc." 1. http://c4i.gmu.edu/OIC09/papers/OIC2009_4_SchragEtAll.pdf

The other two are in peer reviewed scientific journals. I don't understand how these CAN'T be considered relevant. In the field these are the best reference to have.

2. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICSC.2008.10 3. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICSC.2009.33

How does something like this product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo4j get to reference their OWN Blog. The blog reference used for addition support I provide is from an recognized expert in the field???? www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2009/04/getting-started-with-allegrogr.html

Please explain to me how something like this is better - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontotext

The article should have the above referenced articles added back and the pending deletion should be removed.

Cnorvell (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references listed in Google Scholar seem to indicate more secondary source recognition than for most software. The fact that some of it is quite depreciating, doesn't lessen its notability. After the Afd, assuming that it is kept, editors should try to avoid blog sources. Also they should strive to put at least the lead paragraph in plain English without jargon or acronyms. --Bejnar (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable enough. Cnorvell, please keep in mind that other stuffs exist. Perhaps those articles need deletion or improvement? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Frédéric Noël[edit]

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

Non notable artist. DimaG (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can find significant sources. Google gets 56 results only. Ty 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tyrenius. Lithoderm 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating Across Cultures[edit]

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

The article gives advice on communicating across cultures, cited to two books on business communication, a web source, and Wikihow. Content is of a how-to nature, and is not encyclopedic per WP:What Wikipedia is not. The page was prodded by Madhero88 with the comment, "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.". That prod tag was removed by Alain971; no reason for opposing the prod was offered. Madhero88 restored the prod tag, but since prod is only applicable for non-controversial deletions, AfD is the more appropriate venue.

Compare WP:Articles for deletion/Communicating in small groups, which perhaps coincidentally cites the same source as this page. Cnilep (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider these essentially short unencyclopedic essays, not articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay and a how-to. I don't care if it's written in "essay style", it's a friggin' essay. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to cross-cultural communication. This would seem to be an unintentional content fork given the prior existence of a slightly better article; I see nothing worth merging. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per What Wikipedia is Not. No redirect required as it is not a term of art. --Bejnar (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed by nominator. Happy April Fools' Day, everybody! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka, Kansas[edit]

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

As Topeka has renamed themselves to Google, they no longer exist. Therefore, it should be deleted. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DURR HURR I'M SO FUCKING FUNNY DERP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeeeeeeeeebus (talk • contribs)
- Yes. Yes, you are. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Topeka is only changing their name for one month. As such, this article should not be deleted. In addition, this subject is already mentioned within the article; for all intents and purposes, this is sufficient to clear up the issue at hand. Speedy Keep 24.181.76.193 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Newguy[reply]

Keep Precedent indicates that anything that is, was, or will be a named city, village, small community, isolated and possibly abandoned locality, or random cabin in the woods gets its own article. So we have to keep this. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Google plans for world domination. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. –MuZemike 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it no longer exists, it should be kept because it contains some good history. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kansas is not notable. —Kevin Myers 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I don't care if it's April Fools' Day, we do not need this banner on the page. Seriously. CopaceticThought (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I second CopaceticThought. mynameinc (t|c) 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Can we kill this joke now? Mateinsixtynine (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball redirect to Humorless. —Kevin Myers 22:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RainofIron[edit]

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

xbox member - non-notable Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Orangemike - non-admin close.. ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Aesthetics[edit]

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

This seems to me as mainly self promotion. Anyone agree? —EMS 2 4 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you, EMS. Warrah (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 1 hit in gnews [14]. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as an advertisement for a website. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion?! I have nothing to do with any of the websites listed. I would like to contribute a definition of Temporal Aesthetics maybe it belongs in wiki dictionary? Self promotion it is not. Timdeivne (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caernarfon. Black Kite 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caernarfon (HM Prison)[edit]

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

This prison was never built and is not going to be built. The land was not even purchased by the Prisons Service. Not notable. Bleaney (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge. Just because it isn't going to be built doesn't mean that it isn't notable. As there isn't much more that can be said (afaict) though, I think it would be better to merge this into a single article covering all the proposed sites (I haven't looked to see if we have any articles on these already) - if there were protests in Wrexham and Cwmbrân then there should be plenty of sources available. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As original creator of the page back when the Prison service "confirmed" that it was going to be built, looking at it now it should probably just be merged into the main Caernarfon page as a single paragraph under it's history section or similar.Miyagawa (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge. Good reference material. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a paragraph in the Caernarfon article under Present day, and "Caernarfon (HM Prison)" as a search term, is meaningless. --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The title matches that of almost all the articles in the list at List of prisons in the United Kingdom#England and Wales - the only exception I think is Lancaster Castle, which is a special case and Lancaster Castle (HM Prison) exists as a redirect. This says to me that the title is a very useful search term, and the stats.grok.se figures show this title has had at between 40 and 200 hits a month since at least September, so at the very least the title should be kept as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect--Tmckeage (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Los_Angeles_Unified_School_District. Black Kite 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Charter Academy[edit]

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

Middle school with no assertion of notability. PROD contested by author. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Middle schools are generally not kept. tedder (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few days The page was only created yesterday, and already you are nominating it for deletion? Give them a few days to flesh it out! --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will waiting make it eligible? tedder (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will give the creators time to add content and sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that no amount of sources will change that it's a primary school. Unless it has a Blue Ribbon award or other high-level cert (which it doesn't appear to), it won't turn it into a notable primary school. tedder (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has certainly been ample time to gather evidence of notability, as the article was created twice in December 2009 by the same author. Besides, the AfD process usually takes a week, so it's not like we are rushing the article to deletion. Favonian (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous deletions? Shouldn't those previous discussions be linked here? --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't AfDs. One PROD resulted in the author blanking the article, and shortly afterwards a new attempt was made with (as far as I remember) only an external link to the school website, and that was speedied (A3). Favonian (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District which is the usual action with otherwise nn primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Unified School District. (There are at least three schools by this name in the United States; this article is about the one in Los Angeles). I just added some more detail to the article, which was so minimal you couldn't even tell what city it was in, except by the telephone area code 323. However it still probably does not meet notability standards. Sorry, guys, I tried. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First, let me say that, although I'm essentially a merge-ist, I don't think that merging to LAUSD (the second largest school district in America) is smart. There are more than six hundred schools in that district, and a significant majority are lower-grade schools that we'd defaultly describe in the district article instead of on separate pages. I could see creating an article about the charter school agency (PUC Schools or Partnerships to Uplift Schools) and writing about all eleven of their schools, or creating a Charter schools in Greater Los Angeles article (Excel was the 100th proposed in the district, so there will be no shortage of potential content), but dumping it in LAUSD doesn't seem reasonable.
Second, this particular school has received some non-trivial media attention: e.g., Spanish language media and LA Times (both conveniently reprinted on the schools' website). Even though the LA Times is their "local" newspaper, it's also the second-largest metro newspaper in the entire country, which I think argues in favor of it likely not having the usual "everything in our backyard" problem (=the primary reason we want some kind of non-local media coverage, especially where small town papers are concerned). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to weak keep based on the coverage you found. I agree about the LAUSD article being impossibly huge, and I like the idea of creating an article Charter schools in Greater Los Angeles or List of charter schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District or something similar. I think with so many schools it would have to be a list, not an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage found by WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) demonstrates that this middle school passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Unified School District. LAUSD may eventually become over run by its containing schools, but if and when that happens there should be a fork.--Tmckeage (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: needs moar beans. (non-admin closure) fetchcomms☛ 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools' Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the pinacle of non-notable holidays. This article is hopeless in terms of salvation. Our only bet is to delete this, wait a bit, and start over. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because Ktr101 stole my joke from last year. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got me! Now I don't know how to vote. --Lquilter (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure... - Per nom. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and delete and have the rationale for the del/keep argument all in bold, just because you can and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax article. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Main_Page. Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Neutral per WP:NCR. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- or is this an April Fool's joke :P ConnorJack (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second Didi's motion./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.33.189 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded! Shmuel (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Topeka, Kansas. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exchange with Jimmy Wales. The only way that life can be restored. TuneyLoon 20:08, 1 April, 2010 (UTC)
Delete An article about a day of joking so the content is clearly false thus the article is joking and must be deleted since it's about a day that's a joke.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Main Page. Yottie (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main Page redirect to here. 97.85.90.143 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a rabid chipmunk. It must be morphed into a toaster, where a man in a tank will run over it, causing a flat tire. Then, while wondering how he got a flat tire in a vehicle with no tires, the man, the tank, and the toaster, must be run over by a horde of stampeding pro-wrestlers. Sadly, there will be no survivors. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keepthis joke stopped being funny after the second time! Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. Reach Out to the Truth 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: April Fools' Day is generally recognized and there are citations throughout the article, so it's not non-notable. In addition, numerous pages link to this article. A number of the above suggestions are only jokes. Some of the content in the article may not be notable, though, so cleaning up or rewriting the article may be necessary. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what you're saying is these jokes aren't funny anymore; they're too close to home and they're too near the bone (more than you'll ever know). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was being too serious ("Why so serious?"). DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What, you're already giving up? Way to let us down, man! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete under clause G13. Not tagged yet, I want some consensus here. Seriously, this is a dumb holiday! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This works so much better as a category. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, NO! This should be a list, Mandsford! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If this deletion proposal is serious and isn't itself an April's Fool joke; this page is actually one of the most sourced paged. Jon (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with Perez Hilton Perez Hilton's entire career is an April Fool's Joke, why not just merge this article with it? 75.70.221.14 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Saint Stupid's Day" as per the Life in Hell wall calendar. --I'm not the late William F. Buckley, Jr. (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Neutral I get two votes. 75.70.221.14 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild pico de gallo. Needs some flavor. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it BUBBA just for the hell of it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove citations. They only get in the way and detract from the quality of this article. 67.193.21.101 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precedent and the consensus of many editors, all holidays are notable. Stop wasting my time bringing these to AfD, or else I won't be able to write more articles about holidays you won't consider notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hear it talked about a lot. It's notable to me. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it. 132.32.201.8 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a hoax holiday, so the article should be put through a paper shredder. Also causes stress due to pranks by vandals, which means editors waste time pwning and zapping them into fried pancakes. Bramble claw x 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – would make a great admin. ^Pepper∙_piggle 23:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Merge~~. Userify. Make into Pancakes. ~~Fails~~ Meets ~~Meets~~ Fails WP:WTF. -~~Quartermaster (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)~~ User:1.2.3.what are we fighting for 23:25, 1 April 1957 (GMT)[reply]
Spit ball delete or Rename to Jimbo Wales. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Weak Speedy Delete Keep Neutral. Because I said so. -AMK152^{(t • c)} 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Neutral. It is clearly notable and any April Fool could tell that it's not notable. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This article was clearly created by Godless Liberals. Pikamander2 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too late fetchcomms☛ 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no indication of importance or significance. JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contempo Lettings and Property Management Ltd[edit]

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

Advertisment with no evidence of notability. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (corp). So tagged. It's not blatant enough for a G11 (spam), but there's nothing to show why, as a landlord, they are notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sawing off of Manhattan Island[edit]

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

This article's content is supported by no reliable sources. It all stems from a story that was told 30 years after the event was said to have taken place. See the Snopes article[15] for more information. Gary (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - respectfully, I believe the nominator is looking at this article in the wrong light. Yes, it's a hoax - but a notable meta-hoax. The Snopes entry is a good source from that respect.--~T P W 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 (spam). Seriously, somebody makes up these things and tries to make money off of them? Really, this is a stupid idea! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with TPW; even if it didn't happen (which appears likely), it appears to be marginally notable, has a reliable source, and isn't a half bad article. Buddy431 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennisthe2: I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the nomination appears to be serious, despite the date. Buddy431 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...oops. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In nominating this article for deletion, I was not trying to make an April Fool's Day prank. I think that the poor quality of the documentation of this event indicates that it probably never happened. But if other Wikipedians think this is worth preserving on Wikipedia and vote to keep it, I won't take it personally.Gary (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in echo of other commentary. Has enough resource to back it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per below, I'm also redirecting the title to Contribution. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is apparently about a DJ. The title is misleading, which lead me to redirect it to contribution. I have moved the original content back for reference. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Contribution. This would not violate GFDL as the content here is irrelevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious advert for this Hanaghan guy. If he's notable, a real article may appear someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Dennisthe2. Content is entirely irrelevant and non-notable. tedder (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astronautas (band)[edit]

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

To say this article fails WP:BAND would be an understatement, as I could find no sources whatsoever about it. It also fails WP:AUTO, as it was creared by User:Astronautas -- who, by the way, created the article in September 2006 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 (band) - and this is largely on account that, if the original author has done nothing with it since then, I don't see it surviving. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have declined the speedy deletion on the grounds that a notability assertion is present in the article. Whether that assertion can be backed up is for this AfD to decide. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing related on Google News. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Major fail of WP:BAND. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013[edit]

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

~~Article is about an event in which, though scheduled to happen, we have no information about right now and is thus crystal ballism.TM 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article now has 7 references, a lead, and two sections of prose. If there are references on a future event, it ain't crystal ball. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has withdrawn (see below), so I'm striking the nomination comment, but because three other editors have called for deletion and have not given any indication of changing their minds, I am not closing the discussion at this time. --RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority have voted to keep the article, and significant changes have been made to it, I move that the editors who recommended deleting the article remove it from the possible deletion list and the discussion be closed.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not how it works. AFD is not a vote, majority opinion is only interesting when it demonstrates the consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep:. The information in the lead is 100% factual and 0% crystal. There have been indications that each of those candidates will run, which are backed up by reliable sources. ~~Also, this is WP:POINT by the nominator to get back at me for my edits on Tim Cowlishaw~~ Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)}

I ask you to Assume good faith, Purplebackpack89. Without verifiable sources, the article is pure speculation and original research.--TM 15:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namiba, you've just been edit warring on a page I edited, I call you on it, and within minutes, you PROD, then AFD an article I created. That's more than coincidence. If you did it, say, a week later, it'd be different Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Regardless of possible WP:POINT breaches, this is still an unsourced article about an event which hasn't happened yet. It contains no proper text outside of a short lead, the rest is just pictures of "Possible candidates" with no sources to back them up. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References from newspapers and political site have been added for numerous candidates. I urge retraction of your vote. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have no problem with the topic of the article itself, just the lack of sources and content. If improved I will gladly withdraw the nomination.--TM 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement, but not quite enough. Four sources for twelve candidates still leaves eight pieces of original research. My other concern about a lack of actual facts in the text has yet to be addressed. I will consider retraction if a fact-based, textual article with little-to-no OR is created. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the pictures of potential candidates who either have expressed interest in a run for a different political office, or had no usable reference for a potential 2013 mayoral bid. These people should be added if future references can be found. The article now properly cites all information and should be kept.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Move to keep. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only fact is that the current mayor can't run for re-election because of term limits. A list of 12 "possible candidates" isn't enough to make an article upon three years before the scheduled primary. I don't see this is as a topic in 2010 or 2011, and probably not until December 2012 (assuming that the world doesn't end that month). Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References from newspapers and political site have been added for numerous candidates. I urge retraction of your vote. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sure there will be an article before election day. The first two sentences are a start. Information on "possible" candidates should be removed until a reliable source says they are that, or they announce their candidacies. Borock (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. WP:CRYSTAL sort of applies for the candidates, even if the election will be in 2013. However, without a list of candidates, I don't see a precedent yet. I say recreate it when the time is right - a year or so, maybe? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a 2012 Presidential election pratically the day after the 2008 one, and that was as much conjecture then as this is now, not to mention it was farther away from the actual election. Also, if this article is so bad, why did nobody care for six months? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal clearly allows for this type of article: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This event is notable and there is virtually no chance it will not occur. Butros (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butros, your point is taken. Reviewing, it's now also not an image gallery (bonus!). Changing !vote to keep as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article certainly needs to be cleaned up and include some citations. However, its absurd to delete this since we will soon have to recreate this article within a year.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this AFD started, a whole section of prose has been added; as have seven references. The unreferenced tag is gone, and the OR tag could probably be removed as well Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sure this article needs some improvement, but the race has already been discussed in the media and is relevant to Los Angeles politics. I would suggest removing the gallery, as it looks a bit tacky, and expanding it a bit (although it's already almost as long as the 2009 mayoral race article). Butros (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there should have been an effort to improve this article before it was put up for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Butros (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even further, this article is listed as "high-importance" for the the Southern California and Los Angeles (offshoots of WikiProject California) task forces. Butros (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a municipal election that is taking place three years from now? No prejudice for recreating the article closer to 2013, but at the moment it is too premature. Warrah (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw by nom Good job to those who expanded the article and made it useful to Wikipedia.--TM 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... There is enough sourced information--the date, the incumbent, the fact that he can't run due to term limits, one declared candidate, other possible candidates mentioned in the press--to warrant an early start of an article certain to be of importance later. Unsourced speculation should be rigorously kept out, however. I tagged a couple of such sentences.--agr (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is "notable and almost certain to take place", and appears to be sourced. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 17:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certain to take place, yes, but there is nothing substantial to say about this event now, and what little there is to say is speculative. Recreate in a year or so. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. No substantial content yet, just sourced rumors. Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article itself satisfies WP:CRYSTAL, as it is a notable event and is almost certainly going to take place. However, no info within the article passes WP:CRYSTAL...any list of candidates or political issues this far in advance is pure speculation. Without issues or candidates, it would be hard to even justify a stub. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the three of you who just voted delete...by the same logic, the info at United States presidential election, 2012 is also speculation and the article should also be deleted. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an argument that is more valid than hey, look over there!, I'm all ears. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a reason, it's that the election has already recieved significant media coverage, and that its election to decide the leader of four million people. Remember that OTHERSTUFF isn't always an invalid argument, it can be used as part of an argument Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, United States presidential election, 2012 is more borderline in terms of WP:CRYSTAL since there are verifiable things taking place right now (the Census and resulting redistricting) that will materially affect the election. That article does contain a lot of speculation, but even without the cruft there's enough for an article. That isn't the case with Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Tables (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just hypocritical Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with having this page. The speculative information is also natural. We have other pages that are chalk full of that sort of stuff anyways and they are still here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles full of chalk can make things very messy. Tarc (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Out of character for me a bit, since I like the Hammer, but I don't live in LA and I know about this kind of speculation, and there's plenty of media coverage about this particular election. One election out is a good guideline, and this seems to be within that range. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it needs to be policed to make sure everything is verifiable and speculation is stated as such--Tmckeage (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating in small groups[edit]

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

The article gives advice on communicating in small groups, cited to a book on business communication. It may be appropriate for Wikihow, but is not encyclopedic. The page was prodded by DGG with the comment, "unencyclopedic tutorial". That prod tag was removed by an IP user with no other edits; no reason for opposing the prod was offered. Cnilep (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unencyclopedic. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYC which explains that you must explain why the topic is unencyclopedic rather than just asserting this. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an essay of original research, a "how-to" guide, a non-notable neologism to the extent that the title isn't self-explanatory; and in my opinion most importantly complete bollocks, and really, patent nonsense: an important skill today's highly group oriented environment. Individuals are expected to be able to work in teams and have the skills to cooperate with team members. As a team member, your success is measured by your ability to communicate with your team members, your boss and your peers. Ah. Today's environment is "highly group oriented", as opposed to, say, yesterday's? Wow, didn't know that. I think somebody may be pulling our leg. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, work groups tended to be more hierarchical and so communication would be a matter of doing what the foreman or boss said. Please see Team building, for example. Perhaps you have some foul-mouthed epithet for that too but the abundant sources demonstrate that it is the way of modern business. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It remains my opinion that where a text seems to have been improvised "by a mind gifted with sufficient leisure and vocabulary", and seems to have been written by the pound, what you have is "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." I will admit, American English contains a more precise technical term. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the contribution is appreciated, it doesn't pass Wikipedia's rules against essays and how-to guides. I have no proof that this is taken from somewhere else, although I think that the article's author has been using this in presentations of some sort. It's filled with buzzphrases, not quite nonsense or bollocks, but we don't keep "how to" articles here. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are all expected to be written in essay style - defining the topic and then expounding upon it. This article is no different - it just needs more work, being an early draft. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's a difference between writing an encyclopedia article in essay style, and writing an essay. The word "essay" can have different meanings, but if a person is advocating something (and how-to instructions or recommendations are a form of advocacy) it falls under WP#NOTESSAY as well as WP#HOWTO. As noted below, the topic is covered in small-group communication. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per per User:Ihcoyc: original research, a "how-to" guide, a non-notable neologism to the extent that the title isn't self-explanatory. The article might not be WP:CB, patent nonsense, but it is either an essay or OR or both and does not belong in this or any other encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the words making up the title is new and the phrase is clear, comprehensible and common, occuring in the titles of many works, as demonstrated below. The point about WP:NEO is thus completely refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Small-group communication which is the same topic. That article is more advanced and shows the potential of the topic. The title of the version we have here is notable, appearing in the title of works such as Communicating in small groups: principles and practices, Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Process, Skills and In Mixed Company: Communicating in Small Groups and Teams Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect as Colonel Warden suggested. Plenty of books about this concept, so its notable, but an article already existed for this. Dream Focus 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unfortunately, 99% of the content does not pass WP:NOTHOWTO. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An unimaginative April Fools' Day joke. Non-admin closure. Rankiri (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be about a clearly non-notable website. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittot Films[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources via Google. Provided links are either trivial or don't mention Pittot Films, per WP:COMPANY. Doubtful individual films pass WP:NF as guideline excludes IMDb and plot summaries without critical commentary as proof of notability. Rror (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP as availble web results do not show notability. The included section or "sub-article" about their film City of the Damned might later merit its own article, but it sure doesn't belong in this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N/WP:CORP. As a production company this is not a notable entity. Third party references in the article do not discuss the production company, and in any case are pretty shaky basis for an article about anything. Rogue Cinema is possibly OK for the actor being interviewed--though it should be noted that interviews aren't the best sources. The NY Times page (not article) is just syndicated data of unclear authorship. There are quite literally 109 ghits on this subject, many of which are user profiles or otherwise user-generated content. Admittedly, we may be looking at the "next big thing", but as is our practice we need to wait for that thing to become big before making an article about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Wikipedias. Black Kite 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia[edit]

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

1000 articles is not in the notability guidelines
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - likewise. Fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:DICDEF+infobox is not good enough to warrent an article. The only interesting piece of info that this article has is "There exists a version of WP written in Eastern Punjabi". That can go in List of Wikipedias (and it is probably already there (looking at it, it might actually not be -- article is tagged for updating)). --N Y Kevin @963, i.e. 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedias. Cnilep (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedias.--Tmckeage (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Inquisition[edit]

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

...NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!! -- Redfarmer (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Today[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. article looks like a complete copy and paste. could find no coverage of this organisation since it has existed in 2000 [16]. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a complete copy and paste, non-notable organisation. Whenaxis (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. It isn't even ranked by charitywatch.org. --Bejnar (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation[edit]

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

The foundation isn't notable. No sources are provided in the article. Google doesn't return anything. Its a non notable organisation. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link to the foundation [17] can be included in the article about Calvin Coolidge, but the foundation seems to be as laconic as Silent Cal was. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't belive someone took the time to create this Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they created it in 1960, when there were still a lot of people who were around when Calvin Coolidge had been President a mere 31 years earlier. I'd say that people will feel the same disbelief about Jimmy Carter in 2060-- and many would now in 2010. Still, a Google news search suggests it wasn't notable even then. Mandsford (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Didcot Town F.C.. Redirect rather then merge at this time; he's clearly not notable enough for his own article and the sources are all trivial. Black Kite 00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Peace[edit]

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

Football player and manager who has not played or managed at a fully professional level; clearly doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline. There are a fair number of sources, but I don't think these satisfy WP:N as they are mostly trivial mentions; i.e. "Stuart Peace's men". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was originally against deletion based on the assumption of notability that came with moving the team up through those promotions along with the decent amount of silverware. However, sources have not been provided to satisfy the general notability guidelines at this time. This is a perfect candidate for rescuing or recreating if someone wants to put the effort into finding the sources asserting that his work on improving the team is worthy of notice.Cptnono (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's done a good job, but at a very low level of the football pyramid. Fails WP:ATH (if it extends to coaches) and the general notability guideline. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: done a good job with his clubs but unfortunately fails both ATHLETE and the GNG. Big Dom 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this point, but leaning towards a weak keep. A Google News Search returns a number of results from the Oxford Mail about Didcot Town results mentioning Peace specifically ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22]), but these are all from local papers. However, there is coverage in the Telegraph ([23]), and from the BBC (for example Didcot Town manager Stuart Peace aims for consistency, Peace to stay as Didcot manager, Didcot want manager Peace to stay). The last two of those BBC stories deal exclusively with him and his managerial tenure. While he certainly doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, a look through the Google results, especially those BBC stories, may well be enough to establish notability under the GNG. Even if this page gets deleted, I agree with Cptnono that this article should be userfied, as there seems to be some chance that he may eventually meet WP:ATHLETE. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Didcot Town F.C.--Tmckeage (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tmckeage, WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union[edit]

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

In Soviet Wikipedia, articles delete YOU!! –MuZemike 07:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to close this, but I undid the edit on Soviet Union, because it's a clearly absurd request--Dr Zimbu (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close AfD is too public, this should be discussed at a secret trial. cab (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these edits show that the article is unsalvageable. Happy‑melon 11:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bread[edit]

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

As a religious Jew I'm offended that the article Bread is allowed to exist for the duration of the Passover holiday. The article should be locked in a closet and sold for the next six days until the conclusion of the holiday/AfD period! Valley2city^‽ 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed the AfD notice from the page. If we go around advertising this publicly, how can we expect to limit participation to members of the Zionist conspiracy? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why single out bread? Nearly every single type of food has a Wikipedia Page. Gabe19 talk 1 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but bread can't even be SEEN on Passover. And it especially cannot be owned by Jews and seeing as the Zionists control Wikipedia, bread's gotta go. Burn it! Valley2city^‽ 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameRatio[edit]

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

Unremarkable video game website with no assertion of notability; I can't find significant coverage in any reliable source. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources have already been given. Google search does not mean much in Wikipedia. The website has the same caliber as Metacritic, MobyGames, and TopTenReviews. --Majorphase (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC) — Majorphase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article's references are not reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please see WP:RS and WP:WEB. — Rankiri (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Reach Out to the Truth 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any WP:RS coverage either. — Rankiri (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided in the article are enough to guarantee the notability.--Sesu Primer (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC) — Sesu Primer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please check up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Or, just look at the three citations provided ([1], [2], and [3]) and try explaining what you could possibly see as significant about them. Thanks— Glenfarclas (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom - I can't find anything that shows meets WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything that covers WP:GNG either. --Teancum (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taylor_Swift_discography. Black Kite 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taylor Swift songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Taylor Swift songs

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

Don't call me a hater, but this page makes absolutely no sense to me. The albums articles already have the songs listed there, so why have another article listing all of the songs together? Makes no sense to me. Gabe19 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather pointless and redundant catalog listing. Newsflash: We are not a directory. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also there's a category. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 07:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists and categories serve different purposes. Rlendog (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift discography, an article which, paradoxically, has less information but takes up more space than this one. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taylor Swift discography, which already links to singles and her charted songs. PDCook (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her discography and album articles mention everything already. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her discography and album articles? Sorry 10-lb., that's a terrible idea. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response, I believe you mistook what he was trying to say by reading it wrong. he meant delete this article. Her discography and album articles are enough.Gabe19 talk 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. TenPound is a friend, and I was just kidding with him. Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taylor Swift discography. Nearly all of her songs have charted and are listed in her discography—and those that haven't are listed on her album articles. liquidluck✽talk 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift discography, per Mandsford, seems to make most sense. If someone is looking to find information on a song, no reason for them to have to hunt through each album article to find it. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift discography --Tmckeage (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero drop[edit]

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

I previously prodded this one. However, it got restored for being a contested prod. Looks like sneaky spam for runnatural.org, judging by the external links included in the article. Alexius08 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-primary sourcing (ie sourcing that can be easily sourced back to runnatural.org) is non-existent, as far as I can tell. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially an advertisement for runnatural.org. Apparently "zero drop" is a term used to describe some running shoes [24][25], but I can't find that the term is notable enough to warrant its own article. If someone can find more sources that this term is in fact notable, and the article is rewritten accordingly, I might reconsider. PDCook (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an Advertisement. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry, but the Cabal is going to have to work a lot harder to exact domination of the Wikipedian world as we know it. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human[edit]

Not notable. Humans have not been written about by anyone who is not human him- or herself, therefore there are no independent sources. Without reliable, third-party sources on Homo sapiens, this article does not meet our notability requirements. Delete. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google returns an astonishing 90 million articles, but all of them were written by humans. Fails WP:V. —BradV 01:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clear conflict of interest. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All sources are self-published. Clear violation of WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources have been written by humans. Sorry, we need neutral sources. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humans use crack - Scarian is a crack whore ^{Will give barnstars for crack} 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote delete Wizardman 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not enough Google hits. 100 million is ideal. Mike H. Fierce! 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna turn around and desert you. --Sir Gregory Carmichael Lewis-Pitts 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So negligent! Bearian (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Violates WP:NPOV, WP:COI. How did this article slip by for so long? Rgoodermote 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My friend Blake wrote an article about humans and he's distinctly not. Though that would fail WP:NFT so only a weak keep. You! - Crank dat Soulja 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Murder – obvious conflict of interest and flagrant use of sockpuppetry to edit own article. --slakr^\ talk / 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, fails WP:V, who's ever heard of this human thing? Google hasn't. I think it's a hoax. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy eat I love human steak. Majorly (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep EARTH HAS 4 CORNER

SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION.

4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1

DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.

Believer is far more EVIL than a False God, for Google cut back my Site from 34,000,000 to 4,000,000 in 1 night for the above Statement. 1 Day1God exists only as Evil.

I thought Google was free of such evil bias, predjudice

and shenanigans that block real truth from being known.

Once before, Google cut back my site from 89,000,000 to 34,000,000 in a single act for something I said, that/s Evil Google is ONENESS EVIL as I experienced and you can see. Evil people propose Time Cube Trim.

I call down a Demonic Curse upon the Evil Americans who ignore Earth's 4 Corner Days within a single rotation of 4 quadrant Earth. Believing in a God when there is proof that there is no God, dooms humanity to a Hell of Horror. America is 1/2 way to it's Hell. The American "Bill of Rights" - "Freedom of Speech", is BullShit. MisEducators suppress The Time Cube Principle and will not allow Students to discuss or debate it's merits and application. Also, the Academic bastards will not even allow Time Cube on their web sites. On Yahoo, Time Cube - 81,000,000 and on Google was once 89,000,000 - until

cut back to 3,000,000 by ignorant believers.

 Ptolemy said Earth was center of Universe.

Ptolemaic System was correct, but why? Because the BINARY of the masculinity SUN and femininity EARTH revolve as the Cubic Creation center of the Universe.

ONEism is Evil Mathematics, & DEATH OF HUMANITY. All Creation Born of Opposites.

More reasons later. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wiwaxia. Ottoia (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited content to monkey, dump the rest at Intelligent design, start an edit war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wiwaxia and Ottoia. Aysheaia (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Earth - Cruft, no secondary sources. Not notable outside the solar system. Star dust 8212 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wiwaxia, Ottoia and Aysheaia. Dinomischus (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No reliable third-party sources. Possible merge to Alien or Diety. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the cabal lives! Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clown. WODUP 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Humans are more notable than Pokémon. Some cool guy (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An American In India[edit]

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

Not notable: Couldn't find any secondary sources for this film and no IMDb article. —Mike Allen 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim to notability in the article (could be an A7). I failed to find any secondary sourcing on Google. Film is unreleased, which isn't in and of itself a problem, but is a possible explanation for the total lack of sourcing. I'd recommend to the author that they recreate the article when the film has been released and has sufficient secondary sourcing to pass notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax or a promotional article for Akksar Allahabadi. All sources are posters/posts made up the alleged script writer himself--Sodabottle (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of any RS coverage toward production makes this textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL... and as the article itself says "Shashank Entertainment Pvt Ltd is making..." makes this fail WP:NFF as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japan-exclusive video games[edit]

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

This list does not provide any further information than the corresponding category (Category:Japan-exclusive video games). The argument for an article's ability to include redlinks is null since redlinked articles would most likely not be notable enough for inclusion in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, worthless list. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:CLN. The list can be improved. — Rankiri (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it does actually contain more information for some entries, and as Rankiri says, it can be improved further. Polarpanda (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rankiri. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole criterion makes the potential population far too large and guarantees that the list serves no real purpose whatsoever, hence why it's so incomplete and scarcely browsed. If it is so achingly necessary to provide a trivia dip on this subject the category works fine and at least doesn't demand editing time which it isn't going to receive. Someoneanother 03:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had to sit and mull this over for awhile (I like video game related lists, they just need to have a purpose). One thing that did crop up is List of Sega Mega Drive games which could be used to fulfill the same criteria (except within a realistically small population) - there's a "regions released" column and the table is sortable. These games-by-system lists are a hell of a lot better target for maintainence since they kill a lot of birds with one stone. The problem is, there's no guarantee consensus would agree in a column of that nature being rolled-out, and currently all of the lists have different set-ups/columns. Anyhow, just wanted to point out a possible alternative and example of time being better spent. Someone another 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it can be improved further. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poorly constructed articles do not have an expiration date--Tmckeage (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bored now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

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

NN website, not even in the top 4 on Alexa plus major COI, all editors to this page frequent the website CTJF83 chat 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. If any old Pokemon can have a page why can't this? Rehevkor ✉ 04:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Mostly unencyclopedic, but does have a notable employee. ;) American Eagle (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear conflict of interest from authors. Alexius08 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just about some stupid fork of Nupedia. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 04:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace. Self-references do not belong in article space. Reach Out to the Truth 04:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per nom CTJF83 chat 04:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST POSSIBLE NEUTRAL I HAVE NO STRONG FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT WHATSOEVER!!!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hearty Chuckle ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- not an encyclopedia article. Kenrick Talk 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MediaWiki, this is only an application of a notable product. :) 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wikipedia. Clearly a better place for it. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 06:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates NSR, inherently impossible to maintain a NPOV, and is really just a target for vandals and an overbearing pop culture section disguised under the banner of "cultural significance". Perhaps I could overlook some of these problems if we had flagged revisions installed, but we just can't seem to get our act together as a community to even make that happen. Delete *.* JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Furthermore, there are thousands of ((unreferenced)) tags all over the place, indicating that reliable sources might never be found. --Pgallert (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solrac (Soul-Rock) Music[edit]

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

This article is attempting to define a genre of music. I can find no significant coverage that uses, defines, or discusses the genre (see here and here. Besides that, all references given seem to be promoting a book which, from what I can tell, has nothing to do with the musical genre. OlYeller^Talktome 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing which supports keeping this article. Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:V. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of action video games of the 1990s[edit]

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

This is a non-notable cross-section of two categories: action games and games of the 1990s. It also seems to just simply be a list of "action" games that the author likes, despite practically of the games falling into other genres. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, pointless cross section, and completely unsourced to boot. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to list of action video games. Polarpanda (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Action game' is a blanket term which could refer to any kind of twitch gaming, IE most games which aren't turn-based. That makes this "list of most video games from the 1990s", which is meaningless. Contributors have built up a vast array of categories and lists of games from different years/time periods, from different genres, on different systems and with different settings - all of which can help readers find what they're looking for a hell of a lot better than this list could ever hope to. Someoneanother 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's silly to suggest that Category:Action video games can help readers find what they are looking for better than a list which includes the year, system and publisher on the same page. Polarpanda (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be silly to suggest that, which is why I didn't, did you read my !vote? That category is a dumping ground for games which have not been or cannot be classified in a more descriptive sub-genre (beat 'em up, shoot 'em up, platformer, action adventure, FPS, third-person shooter, lightgun game, fighting game, maze game, the vast majority of survival horrors etc. etc. ad nauseum), it does not represent the population of action games which is likely to be more than half of all games released on all computer and console systems as well as the vast majority of all arcade games. This list was not designed as a counterpart to it, which is why most if not all of the games within are not in the action game category but instead located within sub-genre categories. Someoneanother 16:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry we obviously have different understandings of the word "all". I presume you mean something like List of platform game series which is no help at all if I'm looking for games from a particular time period. Polarpanda (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So which do you build up/create? A list comprising of most video games from the time period, or lists/chronologies by sub-genre? As a group, 'action games from the 90s' is so massive and wide-ranging that including a few extra data fields like publisher etc. doesn't even scratch the surface. Chronology of platform games: 1990 to 1999, Chronology of beat 'em ups: 1990 to 1999 or expanded versions of lists like List of beat 'em ups are much more wieldy. Someone another 18:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as Axem and SomeoneAnother have noted, the concept of "action game" is used too vaguely for this list to be in any way discriminate. It also suffers from no sourcing and original research. Reyk _YO! 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Action game is clearly defined, all defining characteristics listed in the article for that genre. The list can be added to over time, it surely a long one. Someone could perhaps make a bot to find all video game articles that have in their info boxes that they are of the action game genre, and then add those to the list. A bot could perhaps even read the date released, and other information to compile this and other such list automatically. I'm going to go make a bot request for that now. Dream Focus 09:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The broadest genre across all platforms for an entire decade? This is too broad. Refine the criteria and start again. Marasmusine (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, now go play in the real world. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wife selling[edit]

HAPPY APRIL FOOLS DAY EVERYONE!!!

Funny. I've removed the tag from the page, though, per policy. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD A7. Tim Song (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric aviles[edit]

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

Non-notable person :) Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 03:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3, blatant hoax/vandalism. Tim Song (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Freedom[edit]

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

Made-up ship. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 03:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same thoughts here. Full throttle DELETE!. Buggie111 (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Lester[edit]

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

Non-notable litigator lacking GHits and GNEWS hits of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find substantial reliable-source coverage of her. Looks to be just part of her marketing effort. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just your average broadcaster only with a law degree. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Lawyer 1st and foremost,expert media trained legal spokesperson for the Law society (normally 1st call for breaking news).Contributor to BBC video nation in personal capacity. Lvadmaker (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)— Lvadmaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – please explain how this meets the criteria in WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment reply – I am new to this, but I think? I have added a secondary source i.e. NBC as a publisher in the last added web link this was found on google video search, there may be links on utube to other tv news articles but I'm not sure if they can be linked to, as they may breach "copywrite" of original broadcaster. I also added the Pope John Paul 2 link from the BBC website. Lvadmaker (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment – Unfortunately being quoted by the BBC is not the same as being the "subject of" the coverage nor is it substantial coverage of the individual. Please see notability and reliable sources for more information. ttonyb (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabhta Lámh Liathróid ( BLL )[edit]

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

WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. No reliable sources cited. Tagged for PROD but page creator removed the tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a new sport invented three days ago by an 11-year-old boy clearly won't be notable at the present time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infobox tells us: First played: Never - ( rules written March 29, 2010 ) I must get back to revising my set of rules for playing dodgeball with shotputs. My game, when first played, will definitely make history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estaticed[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of an apparent neologism with no assertion of actual usage. Delete per WP:MADEUP. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Blanchardb. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary --[TINC]-- 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by There Is No Cabal (talk • contribs)
Delete. If only we could delete Urban Dictionary too. I don't just mean the Wikipedia article... JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - let's face it, we need a new speedy cat for WP:DICT violations, or at least WP:NEO ones. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:NOTAGAIN. Nominated last year twice. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth[edit]

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

Please be aware that the world will end tomorrow. BTW, it is April 1. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 01:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless. StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...mostly. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we delete articles on dead planets, we'll also need to remove all the biographies of dead people. Seriously, though, I'm not sure this kind of mock-deletion is funny 4th time around. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article is a mess, it says the Earth is 4 billion years old, says it is a sphere, and that humans are a cosmopolitan species. I call BS. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All no, not all the "earth articles". i mean delete all articles. reality is a barely held together consensual hallucination, the word "is" as an equality between a logographic idea and any other collection of logographic ideas is (the one time you can use this word) meaningless. open mouth, already a mistake. time to rake the leaves, watch the sun set.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It clearly exists, nothing else matters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EX-TER-MI-NATE!!! EX-TER-MI-NATE!!! EX-TER-MI-NATE!!! –WikiDalek 01:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 42. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidalek has it wrong. We should not be EX-TER-MI-NATEing this article. This article should be DELETED.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and EX-TER-MI-NATE there problem solved=)Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Something something something, you would destroy with just four daleks? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Didn't you see Doomsday? There was a Genesis Ark that contained millions of them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fry A planet filled with idiots that nobody cares. But I hear that it's juicy, so let's have it for lunch. Blodance the Seeker 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment- oh, and has anyone else noticed, ALL the references are from inhabitants of the planet. Can we say obvious conflict of interest?Umbralcorax (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, let's look for Martians who could write this article for us. Alexius08 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIsn't this just the UK term for Ground and neutral? And yes, some references from reliable sources outside the subject locality would help in demonstrating notability. This is a step in the right direction, but some would call it a passing reference. Edison (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been nominated four times it's obviously not notable. Let's just blow it up already. Reach Out to the Truth 04:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might as well beat Al Gore to the punch. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Moon. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Save our Earth ! Kenrick Talk 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
peeK the Eart will last tow moer yaers at leest! Didnt yu watkh tuh movee? 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've grown accustom to it CTJF83 chat 06:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, Merge to Sun per Homer Simpson "The sun? That's the hottest place on earth." (THOH X) CTJF83 chat 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, improper listing; AFD header is missing from the article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save... the planet! Valley2city^‽ 07:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or else I'd be unable to fulfill my election promises. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and run a checkuser on all the keep !votes - I'm rather suspicious that some of them may have an undeclared COI and will turn out to be from that rather average (gravity = 1, orbital rotation = 1) planet. WereSpielChequers : Chat 08:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The earth is not going to blow up...or is it? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 12:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mostly harmless ~~planet~~ article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to humorless administrator. Last April 1, the nomination of Earth was the April Fool's Day joke, so "I've heard this one". Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malformed request (thank goodness) since the template wasn't placed on Main Page. That, and the nominator did this "for teh lulz." So... if you feel like getting some giggles, why not start a pillow fight at random IRL or start a bogus bomb scare IRL? WIKIPEDIA IZ SRS BZNS, TEH CABAL HAZ DESIDED, etc. etc. Non-admin closure. (did you notice I participated in this AfD too? CoI! lulz!) Allison Tragedy (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Look at this thing. Do you SEE what it is! Some corporation using article space to advertise itself! Wikipolicy does not allow that. If this was not full protected, I would have tagged it as db-spam, but it seems not. Cmon, fix the wiki already! And don't let the evil cabal get in your way! Buggie111 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, blatant advertising. It's been deleted several times in the past as spam; see Here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra strong super-strength delete per mine and User:SirFozzie's reasoning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to stop new vandals. –MuZemike 01:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt (maybe chuck in some garlic, noodles and some other stuff) per TPH. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 02:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page currently isn't tagged. The nominator should fix this ;) Them From Space 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll go start an RfA right now. Buggie111 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice- with a troutslap at whoever created it again. Seriously. Who keeps creating it? SALT THIS MOTHER!Umbralcorax (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Target locked Open fire. Buggie111 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 60K and not a single reference! —Soap— 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE no references, very large DESTROY Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Sumsum2010. The thing has been deleted more than a dozen times, and yet it's still around? Desysop those wheel-warring admins! _sdda ^sbag yonaled.J 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references at all to support notability. Edison (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra-Fast Speedy Delete In Only 1 Second - Material not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 04:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been tried many times. Perhaps this time we will succeed. — BQZip01 — ^talk
DELETE- not an encyclopedia article. Kenrick Talk 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe moving it to the project namespace would solve the problem. Alexius08 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate that page. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to portalspace, or projectspace. This is a selfreferential non-article. Portal:Main Page or Wikipedia:Main Page. Also per MOS:CAPS, this should be Main page/Portal:Main page/Wikipedia:Main page. (no, I don't really care actually, just being ridiculously anal for le poisson d'avril) 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep improper listing; AFD header is not posted on Main Page, as it should be. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to 'cover page'. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP one day, apparently by one User: Jimbo Wales. --Pgallert (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of cowbell. Allison Tragedy (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect cross-wiki to this Uncyclopedia page. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Deletionist Jihad has gone too far. This has been mentioned on many livejournal entries.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Today's featured picture and Today's featured article are in violation of WP:UNDUE; In the news fails WP:NOTNEWS, and Did you know... and On this day... fall under WP:TRIVIA. — Rankiri (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space and create a disambiguation page listing all Main Pages. Meta content does not belong in article space. Reach Out to the Truth 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - You just want to DESTROY useful information!!!!!1!1!!one! --Explodicle (T/C) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP AGAIN - Voting twice because everyone but me is doubly wrong! --Explodicle (T/C) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Explodicle (talk • contribs) has made way too many edits outside this topic.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bardsworth[edit]

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

Currently the page consist of pretty much exclusively plot detail and gives no references except for the comic itself and its creator. The general requirement for a stand alone article as stated in the general notability guideline is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this instance I cannot find any evidence that this comic has received any coverage from reliable, third party sources and per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an internet guide and third-party sources are necessary to give any article an appropriate critical and historical context. Guest9999 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2010 (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, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G11 or A7 may be applicable. Appears to be a fan page. Article relies solely on primary source web site. No assertion of notability whatsoever. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Music[edit]

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

No sources found. "Crazy Music" + "Bamacher" turns up nothing in Google News. Tagged for cleanup forever and a day. Definite claims to notability but I can verify absolutely none of them. Ad-like tone, created by COI editor (user name Bamacher). Note that, despite all the namedrops, this seems to be only a small distributing label; none of the acts listed was actually, officially signed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2010 (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) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to recreation. Any rescue would essentially be a rewrite anyway. Shimeru (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleft Lip and Palate Association of Ireland[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no real significant coverage [26]. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 07:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and also added in some links. Silver seren^C 07:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. I would support speedy, but it appears there could be a chance for rescue. If appropriately rescued, I wish for this delete to be treated as a keep. Dew Kane (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it is advertising? Silver seren^C 08:31, 26 March 2010 (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, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon's Milk in Six Phases[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moon's Milk in Six Phases

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the presumption against unreleased albums at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independnet sources for this allegedly upcoming release. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2010 (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) 00:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lew[edit]

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

Good faith media search identifies no significant coverage in reliable sources, nor evidence of meeting any of the topic-specific inclusion criteria. ^Bongo_matic 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2010 (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) 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched as well, also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any additional coverage of this Internet personality beyond the one review on Allmusic. Delete unless some other sources turn up. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note – There was no AfD tag on the article, so I added it just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 26 March 2010 (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, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting twice due to the article being a BLP and the late addition of the AFD tag. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Doesn't seem to meet the requirements for notability. Lots of words and sources on the article but it seems to really all be fluff. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palotai Vineyard and Winery[edit]

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

This winery fails criteria for inclusion specified in WP:CORP, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:WINETOPICS. Sources refer to awards at fairs or local/regional contests. Such awards, or having a review in a local newspaper, doesn't confer notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Young winery with no signs of notability. Tomas e (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any significant coverage. Camw (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is coverage of the winery up here in the Pacific Northwest among wine blogs and wine club listings that do not pass WP:RS and do not merit keeping on its own. I will keep an eye out on anything that indicates more significant coverage that would merit inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per nomination, comment below and author request (repeat blanking of the page) Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebVixxen Design[edit]

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

. Claims to be award winning but no awards specified or referenced. References given consist of unreliable sources such as web forums, press releases and directories. Google only gives 109 hits - nothing to establish notability. Prod contested with addition of Awards section that links to webbyawards.com with no mention of this company and a site called Americandesignawards that mentions the company in a one line link. noq (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, spam. Hairhorn (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortess[edit]

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

Fails WP:Company. Unable to locate any verifiable sources with significant coverage. Article contains no implication of notability. Aka042 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find significant coverage of this company in a reliable source either. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace the spam-filled article with a redirect to Fortification. I think it is a common misspelling of Fortress. Alexius08 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Victor Nelson[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - has not been elected to anything Codf1977 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not held any public office. Support recreating if elected.--TM 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a mere candidate for statewide office. I can't see anything sensible to redirect to, so I don't think the standard redirect option for candidates is viable here.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as politician. (GregJackP (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Antiporda[edit]

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

Very little assertion of notability, and most google results I find are variations upon the information presented here. Creation of single-purpose account. Does not meet WP:Creative. Lithoderm 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lithoderm 16:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as things stand, but WP:HEY could change things. Some coverage in Google news. In 2008 he was a semifinalist in the Penguin Books/Amazon.com American Breakthrough Novel Award. Ty 23:31, 29 March 2010 (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) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Downloader[edit]

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

No indication that this software passes WP:N. A web search only found mentions in blogs or software lists, but certainly no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tagged for notability for over two years, created by a WP:SPA. Amalthea 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (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) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too small time. Szzuk (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Landings Aviation[edit]

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

Fails WP:Company. Sources mentioned and linked to in article focus not on company, but instead the two founders and their endeavor to create a start-up. Sources are also local or are media of limited interest and circulation. Facebook page listed as a source. Aka042 (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: tag on page also notes possible WP:COI. --Aka042 (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Lacks coverage in 3rd party source RadioFan (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2010 (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) 00:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Them From Space 20:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan "Bill" Evans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Morgan "Bill" Evans

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

Delete, three news articles do not make this person notable. I did a search and very little is on this man. Also not wp:memorial. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources. I got 299 hits on Google News, most of them having articles completely about him. He is extremely notable. Silver seren^C 19:41, 25 March 2010 (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) 00:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references and external links now in the article clearly substantiate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, the references and external links that were added, prove notability without any doubt. Dream Focus 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Braids (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. ^Bongo_matic 00:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2010 (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, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a myspace band that has won a minor award and doesn't quite pass WP:BAND or WP:GNG yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 F.T.T.W.. Redirecting on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faster Than the World[edit]

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

Non-notable song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (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, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent album, F.T.T.W.. I cannot find significant coverage for this song in independent reliable sources; it does not meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy's multiple worlds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sleepy's multiple worlds

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

Delete. Fails general notability guidelines and verifiability as well, lacking substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2010 (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, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found Studio Tracks[edit]

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

It's unclear if this was even released. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (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) 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it says in the infobox and in Steely Dan discography, it was released in 2007. Cjc13 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cjc13 is correct. For example, the album is on sale at the Amazon MP3 Store (source: http://www.amazon.com/Found-Studio-Tracks/dp/B000UGJ4WE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1270605393&sr=8-1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metsfanmax (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Champ (album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Can't believe someone made that article. Gabe19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. There is an album title, but nothing else. Wait until we get a tracklist and date before rushing to make an article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Can't Change the Past. Redirecting as a personal editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highfives & Stagedives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Highfives & Stagedives

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

Non-notable song —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. DFW makes a decent argument for keeping but unfortunately, one !vote isn't a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for International Development/Relief[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. only 2 gnews hits [27]. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources here and here and what appear (from Google searches such as "FIDR Viet Nam" and "FIDR Cambodia") to be a profusion of relevant foreign language sources, many of them government-based. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additionally, WP:ORG provides the following alternative criteria for notability, deeming an organisation notable where (a) the scope of their activities is national or international in scale (FIDR operates in multiple countries) and (b) information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources (which it can). Essentially it drops the "significant coverage" criterion in favour of a "wide scope of activity" criterion, which is good as there's plenty of reliable sources on FIDR but not a lot of English-language significant coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana High School Forensic Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Indiana High School Forensic Association

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

Non-notable organization. Only sources are from organization itself, no outside sources. Google brings very few sources as well. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the main organization governing high school speech and debate in Indiana. It runs the official sectional and state tournaments. If school articles are notable, this one certainly is too. The article itself just needs several more sources. Bootstoots (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Temporary until some other school initiative takes its place. Szzuk (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilltop Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination for IP: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Hilltop_Radio. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources of this radio station. The article is not verified by the single source provided, which merely mentions Hilltop Radio. Most ghits I could find for it refer to a different radio station in Earl Shilton, Leicestershire, or are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Refrences needed to verify the statements. Edison (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because I said so! Non-admin closure and a Happy April Fool's Day! :) Warrah (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales[edit]

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

This is clearly a vanity page about some non-notable guy and his idea for some internet thingamajig. Surely this isn't notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - Need I say more? This user is making a WP:POINT that is pointless. --Morenooso (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did I say keep? I meant creep. --Morenooso (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Gets no ghits, is a loser and his article (if you could call that an article) is WP:MADEUP. --Morenooso (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so?!? I think my point has significant merit! I strongly urge you to change your mind! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reopened per [28] — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earth ! Kenrick Talk 05:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Jimbo Wales. Then, the subject could continue writing about himself on that page. Alexius08 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedia:Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, since this is selfreferential to Wikipedia, and WP:BLP1E , also WP:COI , and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone remind me what Jimbo Wales actual date of birth is? Again? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - His birth certificate reads the 7th but his driver license reads the 8th. As per the note on his made-up page, he prefers the 8th. --Morenooso (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tagged his article with [[WP:MADEUP]]. Somebody made that thing up in one day. It ought to be courtesy blanked. Beep, beep - my a$$. --Morenooso (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the Om Nom Nom Machine Kwsn (Ni!) 07:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Someone ought to nominate User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. Talk about WP:OTHERCRAP. It's WP:DUCKSEASON. --Morenooso (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per MY nom. Yeah, that's the ticket. I came up with this nom. Being Wikipedia:BOLD, I get to vote twice. Let it snow. --Morenooso (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:BEARDKEEP and delete WP:BEARDMUSTGO Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy beard per WP:BEARD. Reach Out to the Truth 13:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly notable individual. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is there any evidence this guy actually exists outside of this site? Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Rachel Marsden 75.70.221.14 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After Party !vote: Rename to User:Jimbo Wales. I agree with Alexius08. That way, the subject can promote himself. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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