< 18 April	20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Markup Language[edit]

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

No reasonable claim to notability; the article, its cited sources, and most Google results are written by the product's non-notable inventor. CoJaBo (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage about this in reliable sources. the article even states that the author of MML is considering submitting it to the IETF, but hasn't done so yet. This is way premature for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, I can't find any reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Darkwind (talk) 04:43, 25 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) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The four dimensions of distance[edit]

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

Essay on a relatively non-notable NEO (I figure maybe 100 GHits, it's hard to tell because the phrase pulls up a lot of stuff that doesn't actually relate to this article) discussion of one framework for evaulating paths of corporate expansion. It's possible that a signficant rewrite of this article, renamed, could be a useful encyclopedia article, but I'm not sure where I'd start, and the non-notability is still an issue. Joe Decker (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC) (concern clarified --Joe Decker (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, an essay of original synthesis, and likely stealth advertising meant to promote someone's non-notable book or consulting business: Expanding business in other countries is an important decision for corporations because it will influence the corporations’ success or failure in the future. However, to expand business, setting up a strategy is the most important part because it is a direction or a map for the corporation to follow. A good strategy forces the company to do more analysis and research, such as analyzing the four dimensions of distance: Cultural, Administrative, Geographic and Economic (CAGE). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Szzuk (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like pure spam of someone's pet management theory, and mostly OR as the key points seem unsourced.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO and WP:OR certainly. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this seems to be part of some sort of college project or other group activity. There are three other articles with very similar characteristics - see the Village Pump here. andy (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - awful, but I think it could be fixed; however, on the other hand, it looks like too much work. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fairly clearly case of WP:NEO to me. --Darkwind (talk) 04:46, 25 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 American Folklore Theatre. I have re-closed this as there was a fairly clear consensus to Merge and I suspect the Delete !votes may have gone this way if the issue had been raised before they commented. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians in Heaven[edit]

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

I do not see that any 3rd party reliable sources can be found to document notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin re merge: See Update at the bottom of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This suggests that the play's author might meet our notability guidelines, but nothing about the play itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged the article for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources to the article and formatted it a little. It was harder to find sources just for the fact that the play hasn't been done since 2001, but I managed it. Silver seren^C 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I'm not going to change my mind on this one... The sources are mostly trivial mentions and don't have much to base an article off of. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a trivial mention to me. Silver seren^C 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A school newspaper---from a satelite campus not the main campus no-less---is not a ringing endorsement of notability.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete the sources that were added do not demonstrate notability or importance, they only demonstrate existence. Non notable play by non-notable playwright. Don't see much hope of this one being salvaged.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this was a hoax based on 'Pakistanis in Belgium' and 'Turks in Pakistan' and 'Italians in India'. <g> Ran for a few years in a single place, and then never anywhere else? doesn't look notable to me.David V Houston (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources I added, it actually has run at multiple venues. It did play only for a few years at the American Folklore Threatre, but it has played at other places since then. Silver seren^C 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Following the links in the article, I only see one other production, and that's still in Wisconsin. Did I miss something more? David V Houston (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well it obviously played at the American Folklore Theatre. It also played at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville Center for the Arts and I believe one of the sources said the festival was at other venues as well. I haven't actually gone through all of the Google hits for it, so there could be more out there. Silver seren^C 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news results [1] show it gets mentioned in the news media. A play doesn't get mentioned if it isn't notable. Dream Focus 05:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mention" does not equal notable (read the actual articles). See my comments below. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best Merge with American Folklore Theatre. This was one of a series of articles created by User:Rmparke. This editor created American Folklore Theatre as a verbatim copyvio, which I reduced to a stub. They also started creating articles for each of their productions. The others are Beneath the Northern Sky, Packer Fans From Outer Space, Northern Lights, Loose Lips Sink Ships, Guys on Ice, and Lumberjacks in Love. The one genuinely notable play performed (but not premiered) by the theatre was The Spitfire Grill, a long and established article which the editor tried to over-write with this. I tried finding some references and properly formatting Loose Lips Sink Ships. But Rmparke immediately reverted them,[2] and I gave up on the rest. The article under question here, and the others I've listed, are not notable enough for stand-alone articles. They have have had only very local (and/or self-published) coverage, often just trivial announcements in local entertainment sections. The few performances outside The American Folklore Theatre (if any) have been student productions or by amateur theatre groups, as is the case here. Note that the Chicago Tribune article is about a completely different play which the reviewer recommends the AFT book after they finish Belgians in Heaven. I would recommend pruning the hype from the plot descriptions, keeping the references and then merging this article and the others into American Folklore Theatre. Here's a model from a similar article that I rescued from AfD: Family Opera Initiative. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the consensus is to merge, I'd be happy to do the work of merging this and the other productions into American Folklore Theatre and develop that article. I honestly think that's the best solution. It preserves the revelevant information and references and enhances the parent article. If any of these plays become independently notable in the future (which I highly doubt), the redirects can be returned to stand-alone articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Musical Theatre – Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Folklore Theatre, where short summaries of their original productions can be placed. This doesn't seem to have gone past Wisconsin. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into American Folklore Theatre, per Voceditenore's discussion above. I would also vote to merge the other play articles mentioned by Voceditenore into American Folklore Theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Folklore Theatre per Voceditenore. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've gone ahead and merged this article into American Folklore Theatre, although I haven't redirected yet. If the decision is to merge, Belgians in Heaven will then be redirected to the main article. I haven't merged the others, pending the outcome here, but I wanted to make sure this one didn't get lost in the shuffle. In the merge, I pruned the original hype and the wordiness resulting from attempts to lengthen the article. I also dropped two extremely trivial "references" which were merely ticket announcements, etc. If the AFT article becomes greatly expanded (e.g. a proper history, etc.) and the past productions becomes more developed (at the moment it isn't even in chronological order), it can become a separate list linked from the AFT. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 24 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) --Darkwind (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Simpkins[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor with a few minor roles. Woogee (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:ENT as he has multiple significant roles (yes as a small child, so not much actual acting took place but that is irrelevant). He also has been in the news on a fairly regular basis for his acting roles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which significant roles? Woogee (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guiding Light - 56 episodes, even as a toddler, is significant
Little Children - 6th billing
Family of Four - 4th billing
Prodigal - 5th billing
and possibly some of his TV "guest star" roles - no easy way to tell if these were bit parts or significant roles w/o watching the show --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are currently zero reliable sources. If created today, the articles fate would depend on finding such sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was easy to go through the multiple reliable sources available and actually begin adding some. Potential is a reason to improve, not toss. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing has begun. Allow continued improvements through the course of regular editing. Actor meets both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those roles seem notable to me. Dream Focus 07:44, 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) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Steinray[edit]

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

Contested speedy, contested PROD. Autobiography of non-notable individual. WP:COI involved as well. Editor is non-responsive to discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The "contested speedy" referred to in the nomination was in fact the author removing the speedy tag, so it could have been restored. The author has actually removed the speedy tag at least four times and the AfD notice once. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since no independent editor has contributed to it, there should be a strong presumption against notability. The only edits have been from the single-purpose account autobiographer and from others proposing it for deletion. According to the IMDB link, the films he has provided music for are 14 or 15 minute shorts, not even feature films (though the 2011 film in production is supposed to be over 80 minutes). No particular claim to notability. --JamesAM (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Even a Google search turns up subjects' website, subjects' myspace page, IMDb, and this article. Nothing of note. Padillah (talk) 16:56, 20 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) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. Training Ground[edit]

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

All of the (very little) content here is already contained (almost word for word) within the main Chelsea F.C. article. Therefore, unless it can be substantially expanded, this is purely a content fork. Jameboy (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely redudant due to the article being almost copied verbatim from the end of the section about Stamford Bridge on the Chelsea article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not inherently notable and is sufficiently covered at Chelsea F.C.. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've not seen any evidence that the subject of this article is notable. There may be content out there to enhance notability, but as far as I can tell, this place has not received anywhere near as much coverage as the Trafford Training Centre did when it was established (or since). – Pee Jay 07:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not worthy of a stand alone article. Giant Snowman 21:40, 21 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. Nomination and only delete vote have been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)[edit]

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

~~Once you remove the comedy websites and blogs, you find that the song has received no or little notable coverage. Sugar Bear (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep: Is being parodied on Saturday Night Live not notable coverage? After all, it does assume the video will be familiar to the audience. See also coverage in Slate magazine, The Portland Mercury, at MTV.com, The Boston Phoenix. Notability also suggested by comments on Something Awful. In summary, the video for this song has seem to have attracted a notable amount of attention, and even more so since its parody on Saturday Night Live. Moswento (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Portland Mercury and Boston Phoenix coverage is pretty trivial. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As far as the parodies go, I don't think that being referenced on Saturday Night Live and a comedy website is enough to form the basis of a Wikipedia article, especially not one that would eventually attain FA status. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"Sources are not currently up to FA status" is not a valid deletion criterion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this song does not appear to meet the criteria as described in WP:Notability (music). Kansan (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to me to pass the criterion "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the notability requirements. In addition to the sources mentioned above, the video is discussed in two separate billboard.com columns. One is viral videos, and the other is daily noise, which includes a video feature in which the reporter states that "everyone is talking about" the Insane Clown Posse video. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which notability requirements from WP:SONG this article passes? Kansan (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song meets WP:GNG: significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:SONG is not official Wikipedia policy, but from that criteria, the song has "been performed independently by several notable artists" (the cast of SNL) and "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A song about "Fuckin Magnets" (a shame you can't link to E.D. from here) is so epic that it must be kept. But seriously, it passes general notability guidelines as noted above. WP:SONG is there to provide an extra later for music that does not pass WP:GNG, but it is not necessary to reference in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)

Okay, it looks like there's enough coverage of the song to keep the article. I'm retracting my nomination. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Since there is still one outstanding opinion (Kansan) to delete, I think the discussion will have to run its course the full 7 days. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, we can keep it. Kansan (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, since I retracted my nomination, and Kansan retracted his deletion vote, can we close this? (Sugar Bear (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Um, what? I mean, I'm not going to close it as a basically inactive admin, but did we get rid of WP:SNOWBALL while I wasn't looking? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moswento; nomination retracted anyway. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per full disclosure, I'm the article creator. Multiple independent sources, plus internet meme status, plus SNL, plus Cracked.com (which is really popular apparently), etc. Aaron Bowen (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — The writer of the Cracked piece is not really all that notable. And that article was particularly poorly-done, regardless. And while the song is notable, there is no evidence that it is an Internet meme. The SNL parody is notable, though. (Sugar Bear (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  - I'm sorry, are we now judging the value of sources not merely on the notability of the publication but the individual author? Because if so, I know of next to no newspapers that would survive such a purge. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fucking notability, how does it work? (actually quite well; the SNL parody is enough, as it was for "Hide and Seek") Sceptre ^(talk) 11:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it takes something interesting for me to log-in these days, but I had to chime in on this. People haven't heard of this song yet? Miracle. --Bobak (talk) 16:55, 24 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 Withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Game[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a semi-professional footballer. Meets none of the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE. I could not find significant coverage of the individual. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, at a push, redirect to the club he is most connected with). Clear failure of WP:ATHLETE, no signs of meeting WP:GNG. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE, no other assertions of notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Keep: I missed that fact that Colchester United were in the league in the 1980s. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for Colchester United in the Football League in the mid-1980s. Thus meets WP:ATH See [3] [4] and a few other sources of varying reliability on google.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played in the Football League per [5]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beg your pardon, I assumed "semi-professional" mean playing outside the fully professional league. Keep per Mkativerata. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Jezhotwells agrees I'd like to withdraw the nomination, as Mkativerata's find shows that Game clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. Thanks. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:41, 20 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) 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan Construction Group[edit]

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

Construction company with unclear notability. The main assertion of significance in the article is that the company built the city hall of Snellville, Georgia. This cannot be confirmed by anything that turns up in Google News. In fact, the only item that turns up in Google News is this article, where the mention of the Hogan Group only qualifies as trivial. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ??? I count 15 articles, many of them from newspapers, about the company being awarded contracts. In particular, there were multiple ones covering the bid for 2 buildings, one of which was the new Snellville city hall. I don't know what you were searching, but I clicked on 'news' at the beginning of this article. Now. I don't know if 15 mentions of bids on 5-7 projects counts as notable, but there's far more than the nominator claims. David V Houston (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the link to my search results. As nominator, I didn't have the luxury of the link above before posting. I'll look into that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah. right. BTW, searching 'news' with "Hogan Construction" (dropping the group) bring up about 5 more hits in the first 3 pages relating to what seems to be this group. David V Houston (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I see the problem: what I did was not an archives search, but rather a recent news search. However, it looks to me like every single one of the hits that were hidden from me in my original search are to pay sites, and they're all like, "by the way, the company that got the contract was Hogan," and then they resume talking about their original subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You notice I didn't !vote keep<g> Just said the case wasn't quite as clear as you originally suggested. David V Houston (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the concern raised by Blanchardb about the quality of the articles referred to as sources, announcements that the company got contracts are not exactly convincing evidence of notability. I can see nothing that looks to me like evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability for this subject. Abductive (reasoning) 05:00, 26 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) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Janice Dickinson Fan Club[edit]

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

Subject of article fails WP:BAND. Further, no third party reliable source are presented (or can be found) to establish notability. Pinkadelica ^♣ 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When googling this name, if one excludes results from MySpace and Facebook, the number of ghits falls from nearly 59,000 to... 44... none of which qualify as reliable. Smells like googlebombing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this group meets any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:47, 21 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) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psi Phi Delta[edit]

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

Either way you look at this article, it's problematic. If you follow the title to say it's the Delta chapter of Psi Phi, then the article fails WP:ORG as it's about a local chapter of a wider organization. If you say it's about Psi Phi as a whole, then it fails verifiability for having no sources that mention anything other than the Delta chapter at SUNY Potsdam—and even that's minimal sourcing. Either way, there's not enough here to call this organization notable. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been added to the list of articles subject to deletion in WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fraternaties are notable, and the existance of this fraternaty is verifiable. Pooet (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources means it doesn't pass WP:GNG and it fails WP:ORG. Despite the above comment, they are not inherently notable. -DJSasso (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fraternities are notable, but individual chapters rarely are. WP:GNG has not been fulfilled by this article. NYCRuss ☎ 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual chapters are clearly not notable on their own. This article should not have been created. Enigma^msg 22:17, 23 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) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in music videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Synthesis. Nothing but a list of "music videos that feature nudity" with no discussion beyond "omg teh nekkid peepulz!" Very few sources, most of the nudity is "various actresses," most of the contents of the videos are unsourced. There is absolutely nothing in common except that all the videos have some form of nudity; it's not a discussion, it's a questionable list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tag for cleanup and keep.~~ There is nothing that suggests a list was intended here. Remove the not-so-notable entries, leaving only prime examples, and leave the lead paragraph as a stub. That part should be expanded. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Strong keep in light of the previous AfD. Whether it's a list or an article describing the phenomenon, it doesn't matter, it's still a keeper. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, article may need work but so does the rest of Wikipedia . Any musical video with a separate entry in Wikipedia is notable enough to be included--not just prime examples--that's our usual standard for such articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If at first you don't succeed in deleting an article, try, try again. Or not. After the last AfD the title was changed to be "Nudity in music videos" rather than "List of...": all that is needed now is for a motivated editor to remould the article using the vast number of sources out there on nudity in music videos. That motivated editor might be me (I added the existing references, and listed several at the previous AfD), or it may be someone else, but there's no need to delete a poor article on a notable topic. Fences&Windows 11:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:V and reliable sources are available. Erykah Badu's "Window Seat" video alone makes this article very notable from a music notability arising from other criteria - its first criteria is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. Her nude video superimposed on or around the Dealey Plaza has evoked memories of the John F. Kennedy assassination that caused a major reaction and was covered in depth by many reliable news organizations. Lady Gaga's "Telephone" video has caused a similar stir and received a dust up from Donny Osmond. A refimprove tag should aid this article immensely. --Morenooso (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTAGAIN (see recent AfD). Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, you're just VAGUEWAVING in the hope that one of your acronyms will stick. I listed several articles discussing the issue of nudity in music videos at the last AfD, so the argument of OR or SYNTH is totally invalid. It's a topic with a list tacked on, not a list per se (note the title change after the last AfD), but we don't require that for lists to be valid the entries must have been listed together off Wikipedia (don't invent your own rules in order to try to delete articles). Of course its verifiable! Did you even spend a single second looking for sources, several of which are already included in the article? Thinking the current article is poor is no reason to delete the article: it's a reason to write it properly. Fences&Windows 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment : Similar concerns have been raised about Gavin Collins view on OR at his talk page. Codf1977 (talk) 16:28, 25 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Make My Heart and redirect to Pulse (Toni Braxton album). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make My Heart[edit]

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

Toni Braxton single. Lacks the significant coverage asked for by WP:NSONGS, and fails the litmus test of having charted on a notable music chart. Previous redirect to parent album was undone. Amalthea 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I Can't believe that you are teasing me like that!!!! I GAVE THE RIGHT REFERENCES TO YOU!! THE MUSIC VIDEO PREMIERES!!! THE OFFICIAL COVER ART IS AVALIABLE ON AMAZON AND ITUNES!! WHAT DO YOU WANT MORE??????????????????? - User:Loveableone
Already replied on your talk page. Amalthea 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as it has not charted or recieved extensive coverage. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until release date It's only two weeks until the album is out. If the song charts, then we're good and the article can be kept. Silver seren^C 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd just restore the redirect, revisions can in place where they are a bit more accessible. Amalthea 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per WP:NSONGS and per Silverseren. (BTW, Loveableone, take a chill pill.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - which allows an easy reversion if the song actually becomes notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete article-space one It's been a tough decision between this and redirecting for me, but look at the pluses. If the song charts, the user might be able to write 1,500 characters of prose about it, and, If the user finds an interesting hook, the user might get a DYK. Nice gift. I was happy when my first one passed. Secondly, it would teach this user how to work on articles in userspace, ask at WP:FEED and so forth. Net benifit. Buggie111 (talk) 00:08, 27 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) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FMTA (band)[edit]

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

The band released one EP in 2006 and has not done anything since. They have virtually no notability. They are also not listed on allmusic.com. Xe7al (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, the band's official website hasn't been updated in four years. I don't even think they exist anymore, which makes them unlikely to be notable any time in the near future, if ever. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources and one EP that I can find nothing about either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. PK T(alk) 11:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2 members of Industrial music group have found virtually no notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argolin (talk • contribs) 01:28, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fex[edit]

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

Subject not notable. Being a candidate for city council does not guarantee notability through WP:POLITICIAN, and the subject does not pass WP:GNG (the sources given mention the subject only offhand). There certainly isn't significant coverage addressing the subject directly. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'd say delete. As per the nomination, being a municipal candidate is not in and of itself sufficient to establish notability. If more materials (i.e. sources) were provided that show that Fex is a notable arts advocate in Ottawa, I might reconsider my position. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Reasons (Please correct my formatting if it is unacceptable):
- 1) Satisfies criteria of WP:Entertainer since he "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". WP:politician is secondary. Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — Andwats (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - 1.1) Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company is notable. As Director is significant. As Director twice nonetheless.Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1.2) Lake Side Players is marginally notable, it is included in the article Pantomime. As Director.Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1.3) Tara Players has won numerous awards [6]. As Director and actor.Andwats(talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1.4) The bio on the Tara website I have cited [7], states he has worked with 15 companies, that's multiple. Andwats (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) WP:SIGCOV is satisfied as numerous interviews, regarding Don Fex directing, in credible sources are cited.Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2.1) These sources include Ottawa Xpress on multiple occasions, one is an hour.ca reference, see: [8].Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2.2) Furthermore, the subject is mentioned regarding theatre in several credible sources, including quotes Ottawa Citizen. The Citizen apparently considers him notable enough to see what he thinks about a lack of stage space in Ottawa. Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2.3) Furthermore, the reviews span a five year period of time. This is a feat since newspapers archive content after short periods of time. This constitutes notability. And, so WP:NTEMP is not violated.Andwats (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2.4) There is a notorious lack of secondary source material regarding Canadian Theatre.Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 2.41) This is noted in Wasserman's "Modern Canadian Plays" (ISBN: 9780889224360). In the preface he notes that at the time of writing "An anthology is a sampler, and one might expect to be able to sample the best or most successful or historically most important work of whatever the subject- in this case, the Canadian theatre. Unfortunately, no single publication provide that perspective". And, that's for the best! Later he notes that "Margaret Atwood pays virtually no attention to drama in her thematic study of Canadian literature, 'Survival'". Wasserman himself relies on reviews. Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 2.42) In "The Penguin History of Canada" (ISBN: 9780670065530), there is one mention of theatre, (p.37). It takes up one sentence and describes only that theatre was private due to the censorship of François de Laval.
- 3) Precedent I modeled the article off of the Ike Awgu article which was nominated for deletion and subsequently protected. It appears in the discussion that while nomination for a city position is not notable, Awgu's function as a journalist is. However, no sources are cited whatsoever for his journalistic work. I tried to find stuff online and couldn't.Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 4) I'm not trying to defend the notability of nomination, however, I think including articles on incumbents in minor city positions while excluding nominees fails to provide Objectivity (journalism). This concept is included in the see also portion of WP:NPV. Many of the articles on city councilors in Ottawa lack sources, and otherwise cannot establish notability via WP:Politician, since they are not mayors, and rarely mentioned beyond local news. Consequently, removing a nominee but leaving a barely notable incumbent could construe bias. I plan to start a thread in WP: Politician along these lines but to do so now would be interfering in this nomination.Andwats (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry. I'm unclear as to which part of WP:GNG is not met by "Jesus of Tim Hortons". Ottawa Xpress. December 5, 2005. in respect to my contention concerning the subjects primary notability, as a director. Second, I'm unclear which part of WP:GNG is not met by "The race is on: arts advocate challenges Holmes". Centretown News. April 18, 2010. as regards the secondary issue of the subjects notability, i.e. candidacy.Andwats (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To make Fex a notable director, we would need significant coverage. The fact that Fex directed one play which was reviewed by a newspaper does not make him a notable director; it doesn't even make the play a notable play. Same thing for the candidacy—one article is not significant coverage. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary the fact that a review from 2005, and another from 2009 are still online is evidence of significance. See also, WP:NRVE regarding credible sources. One of the papers is Ottawa Xpress. For instance, Richard Rose, directed a theatrical production of Michael Ondaatje's Collected Works of Billy the Kid at the GCTC. But I doubt you'll find a review of it anywhere. So, on the one hand I have several links and articles. Not just one. Some are solely about the subject and others mention the subject in context of theatre work. So, that's half of your objection met. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to meet your standards for uncontroversial theatre artists. So, I don't have any Falsifiability criterion to work with. So, that's the other half. Likewise, I have multiple sources for candidacy. Andwats (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' From, WP:SIGCOV. It does not mean your opinion of what counts. It means multiple and clear. Interviews are clear. Two interviews are multiple. Don't mean to sound rude, just trying to be precise. Andwats (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Sources are demonstrably insufficient to establish separate notability as a director. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG for a theatre director or for a political candidate. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to see more mainstream media coverage. The Centretown News article while entirely about Fex is a free school newspaper "produced by third and fourth-year students in the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada" and published 12 times a year. [9]Eudemis (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. None of the posted links provide major independent coverage as required for notability. Maybe if he wins (but not even necessarily then, since city councilpersons are not automatically notable). Good try, Andwats; you have worked very hard on this article and it could be recreated if he later receives more notice - either as a director or as a politician. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 26 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) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hand in Hand Ministries[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. I found there are several other organisations of the same name but not operating in Thailand and completely separate from this one. in any case, there is almost no third party coverage [10]. one of the sources in the article is its own website, the other is a press release hosted by a company that published press releases, this is not a third party source and WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 5 April 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, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 April 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) 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adding Thailand to the news search terms generates 0 hits. David V Houston (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources - press releases don't count -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 20 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 as spam, spam, green eggs and spam. Blueboy 96 22:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inolyst[edit]

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

Contested speedy, non-notable company, no GHits of significance, no GNews/Books/Scholar hits GregJackP (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7 or G11, take your pick. The last edit by the creator brought the article into this shape, and no improvement has been done since. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only self-published stuff on Google Search, and three very old hits (LA Times classified ads) on GNews, which must be from a different company. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Speedy contested by whom? A single-purpose account obviously made for the occasion. This is spam. Haakon (talk) 18:43, 19 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. copyvio/neologism/trademark -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekute[edit]

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

Implicitly contested prod. Neologism with no assertion of actual usage apart from the group that coined it. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Tagged. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable promotional neologism, unless speedied as above. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has become apparent, from this page, of which the article is a copyvio, that the neologism is a trademark, thereby making the article's very existence a violation of our policy on promotional material. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:50, 19 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Arab-African Super Cup[edit]

Article was created for a competition in 2009 that has quite clearly never been played. Article should simply be deleted Druryfire (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to add Arab-African Super Cup to this AfD, but it appears that a deal was signed. However, that other article should be edited to address the reasons why the deal didn't work out. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in that the game never happened. As with things like the 1943 Indianapolis 500, which also never happened, it could be mentioned in the article about the competition itself.Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - should be mentioned in parent article. Giant Snowman 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - Subject is not inherently notable and therefore does not merit an article of its own, however it is definately worth mentioning at Arab-African Super Cup. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comment since it is already mentioned in the parent article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's already mentioned in the parent article so a merge is not necessary. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:10, 23 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. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Nightingale effect[edit]

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

First the information the article was started with is wrong

Florence Nightingale effect is a term used when people interpret an amiable bed side manner of a health care provider as affection.

The "Florence Nightingale Syndrome" is a term used to describe a situation where a caregiver typically a doctor or nurse falls in love with a patient. This reference is from Nurse Link published by Loyola University; http://www.luhs.org/feature/nursing/Images/Nurse_News%20vol1_issue%202.pdf

One paragraph and an erroneous interpretation of the term used in the movie Back to the Future does not warrant article status.
The term is mentioned (erroneously defined as well) in the article Florence Nightingale, and one correctly defined and referenced paragraph there can sum up the "Florence Nightingale effect".

The ref given states "This has been known to take place among patients who misinterpret their healthcare provider's pleasant bedside manner as affection, referred to as the 'Florence Nightingale effect'." This is from the journal of advertising history. [11] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude it was before the whole truce thing, but I really don't think there is enough information to fill an article.7mike5000 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I only created this article as someone had requested it at the request medical article page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sounds like article needs improvement, but two sources are already cited above. I'll see if can improve this during the AfD.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This source on economics link uses this metaphor to describe different levels of altruism in women. While this book seems to use the phrase as a synonym for Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. I'm unconvinced that any particular use of this phrase is common enough to write an article about. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could just redirect it to Medical_ethics#Sexual_relationships? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is not really medicine but more rather literature. One finds this saying in numerous novels. Would be happy with a redirect and combining the content into somethings else.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect But where? The RWJ link points out another aspect: nurses neglecting their own well-being in deference to their patients. This aspect does not fit the medical ethics redirect so neatly. Unfortunately, Back to the Future trivia is going to cast a shadow over anything. I've looked at Countertransference, but it is too field specific. A literary target does have some merit.Novangelis (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could add this too Florence Nightingale Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but the Back to the Future connection gave me a gut impression that it would have a trivia section feel. On the other hand, eponymous entities aren't the worst offenders. I think this might come down to least unsatisfying target. Something life this additional usage might tie the term back to the source.Novangelis (talk) 05:40, 20 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2010[edit]

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

nominated for AfD as it fails WP:CRYSTAL, does not even have a specific date or venue for the event established. Even the official website for Miss Universe, LP reads "coming soon" if you try to click to get any information on the upcoming pageant. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it currently seems to pass the other parts of WP:CRYSTAL which says, "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Just because the date and location of the actual pageant has not been finalized, there seems to be citations in the "Venue" section listing possible host cities. Also, the majority of the rest of the article goes on to list the several national pageants, whose winners do qualify to compete in the main Miss Universe one. So to basically sum up, there are citations for both speculated venues (like 2020 Summer Olympics, which lists possible host cities, but no final date yet) and possible candidates (like United States presidential election, 2012), which WP:CRYSTAL does permit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Zzyzx11: You made an excellent point in the Miss Universe 2011 Afd, that "what is cited now could easily be merged into the main Miss Universe article." I think the same comment applies here. In fact, rather than cluttering Wikipedia with separate pages for each impeding annual installment of an annual recurring event like this, why don't we just have a section in the main article for giving information on the very next pageant, that gets updated every year?Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zzyzx11 (GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I disagree myself to this comment This should not be deleted as the contestants are currently being worked out. Doesn't matter about the venue, last year it tooked even longer and no one was bagging it themself. Miss Universe is a great contest not delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhpham (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Manhpham - AfDs based on notability of an article do not place a judgement on whether or not the subject is "a great contest" (a subjective opinion, anyway), merely on whether or not the article meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not a value judgement.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that the AfD template was removed from Miss America 2010 on 9 April. Since the page was protected on 13 April, I cannot re-add the template. Would a passing admin please re-add the template? In light of this problem, it might also be advisable to extend this discussion so that all interested editors have a chance to see the template and comment here. Cnilep (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if this article was deleted, then it will ruin everything because then we just have to make up a new one and the pageant i coming up in August. You don't see Miss World 2010 getting deleted because the venue isn't even announce yet or Miss Earth 2010 where it is held in Vietnam but the venue isn't know yet so why bother with this. Miss Universe article should stay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhpham (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With enough digging, it shouldn't be too hard to find enough sources to figure that, barring a major unforeseeable issue,

the pageant will take place;
it will be a major event;
there's already a lot of hype about it.

Just because the venue is not yet known does not mean the event fails to meet WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it will be held this year, and if, like the previous ones it will be notable, it's sufficiently soon to have an article to put the information as it accumulates. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Willking1979 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TNM The contest will be held this year and for the next four years. I think we should be careful in citation information an example is MISS HAITI. That is not a valid source. This page change TOO much based on opinions not FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.13.99 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is awash in unreliable sources and unsourced speculation, is a magnet for edit warring, and seems to be in constant need of clean-up. But none of those are reasons to delete. The pageant itself is notable, and there is already some news about competitors, etc. being published in independent sources. Cnilep (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the consensus is to keep, and as the person who nominated the article for deletion, I am fine with keeping it too now, I did template it for cleanup and improvement of referencesMmyers1976 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - likely to be held, and will likely be notable. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 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 keep. Shimeru (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windell D. Middlebrooks[edit]

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

non-notable actor, article unsourced - wikipedia is not IMDB... the possibility of being a co-star in *future* sitcom (hence not notable) with a notable actor is not notability... Cerejota (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and improve through the course of regular editing. While the actor's career began as a standup comedian, he made the cross over to television and film... though, like many actors, he has many single appearances in multiple shows. However, his 2 episodes in 2005 as a named character on Weekends at the DL and 2 episodes in 2008 as a named chaaracter on Chocolate News have blossomed more recently into (so far) 7 episodes as a named character on The Suite Life on Deck (2008-2010) and "guest-starring" as a named character in 6 episodes of Scrubs (2009-2010), as well as his being interviewed as himself in 2009 on both The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Yes, it needs sourcing, but I believe he meets WP:ENT and that the article will benefit the project through its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOrry the autotagger borked.--Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets see WP:ENT:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

I don't think they can be described as significant. If the new project becomes notable, that would be his first significant role, hardly "multiple".

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Cannot find it. And the intertubes make this easy.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Definitely not.

Wikipedia is not IMDB. Just because your publicist got you on Ellen and Jay Leno (along with dozens of other non-notables) and you gig on TV it doesn't mean you are notable.--Cerejota (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Cerejota: While it is understandable that you wish to spread and space your comments, it is bit confusing in reading a discussion though. But interesting. Breaks up the monotony.

No one in this discussion says Wikipedia is IMDB. Repeating it in refutation of something that no one asserted only gives an impression of IDONTLIKEIT, even if you personally do not have any such feelings toward this specific actor.

What IS important in consideration of this individual, is his recurring roles in multiple notable series and in notable mainstream media, which do indeed speak toward his notabilitry.

And noted below by User:Eudemis, are samples of continuing coverage that show meeting of GNG. In reaching a concensus through polite discussion, other editor's understanding of WP:GNG and WP:ENT and WP:BIO might not be the same as yours, as guidelines are not written to exclusionary, but as guides in determining how and if someone may be worthy of note. It is appearances in mainstream media and recurring roles in notable television series that indeed DO create a guideline encouraged presumption of notability.

So no need to be dismissive of his appearances on Ellen or Jay because of an unfounded presumption that his appearances and interviews on those two notable shows were "only" because of a publicist getting him the gig. Unless you are already worthy of note, all the publicist's calls in the world will not get someone on Leno. Trust that Ellen and Jay have production people who determine if someone is worthy enough of note to be scheduled. They have sponsers and ratings to consider. Both notables themselves have staff that proactively search for guests that are worthy of note. Scheduling a "Mister Nobody" does not improve ratings nor make sponsers happy.

Thank you for re-stating your opening opinion Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep He might interest some readers as he does generate some media attention. [12][13][14][15]and he is cited occasionally as a celebrity, "the face of Miller High Life Beer" [16]Eudemis (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That's what my own searches have shown... Pushing nicely at at ENT and making it through GNG. Article simply needs work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two different superbowl halftime shows have had him doing beer ads, the second one showing more footage of him. [17] His work in other roles appears after a quick click of the Google news search at the top of this AFD. Dream Focus 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs improvement, certainly, but deletion? I think not. Add those sources found by Eudemis and you've got an article which meets WP:GNG. Also note that it is no longer unsourced as one reference has already been added. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:57, 26 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) 10:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 2008 (Album)[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence that this 2-track myspace-released demo (an album of some 6 minutes?) is in any way notable. Redirecting to the band article is not really useful with such a title (it's not as if there were no other demos by other bands in 2008). No reliable independent sources about this release. Fram (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This demo is a valid release by the band. I don't see why other bands can have pages for their demos and you want this one to be deleted? [18] --Lesterklaassen (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, other demo articles are deleted as well (with the exception of some demos which have received lotsof attention, mainly those by very high profile musicians). However, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here, but that haven't been noticed yet, giving the impression to others that it is alright to creat similar articles. WP/MUSIC states that "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." We are not imposing some new rule on tha article you submitted, but are trying to have the same rules applied to all articles. Fram (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC#Albums, singles and songs. — Satori Son 14:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From WP:NALBUM: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no significant independent coverage in reliable sources - just downloads, bloggy things, Youtube etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 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) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oyaji[edit]

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

Article has had problems with WP:NN and WP:OR for quite a long time. I also argue that it violates WP:NOTDIC to a fair degree, since it's mostly just a definition of a term. I'm having trouble discerning any sort of notability for it, or finding any decent sources about the subject. G-Flex (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR to the nth degree, and lacking for possible secondary or even primary sources. tgies (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not to the nth degree -- the first two paragraphs are pretty clean as far as original research, despite the [citation needed]. The term's readily verifiable in even limited dictionaries. It's after the dictionary and cultural associations, when it starts analyzing literatures, that things get dicey. I'd whack everything else and require rigorous citation for anything put back. As to whether the remaining is sufficient for an article, even as a stub, that depends on whether anyone can find a citation for something in the second paragraph -- which ought not to be too hard. Withholding final vote pending further findings on that front. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None being forthcoming (admittedly, I haven't had the time to do more than barely poke at this), delete without prejudice for recreation if reliable sources can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop searching in English. Search in Japanese. Oyaji is everywhere as an art/fetish genre. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't read Japanese, so I'm not a great judge of that. However, if there is good material out there that's verifiable and establishes notability and can be used to back up the information in the article, then they should be mentioned, because claiming that there are sources doesn't do much good if they aren't actually cited in the article text. If there are, then by all means, properly base the article on those sources and cite them, but if that's the case, I'm not sure why you haven't yet. In short, something doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion just because you say it does: Go out, prove it, and edit the article accordingly. G-Flex (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a particularly poor rationale. You've just proven that おやじ is a Japanese word that exists and is somewhat common. Not all Japanese words that exist and are somewhat common warrant a Wikipedia article. A certain quantity of foreign-language Google hits for the word that is the topic of this article do not prove the topic's notability and are irrelevant to the problem of the article's verifiability. If anything, the burden of proof is upon you to comb through these Google hits and find viable sources among them, and reference them in the article. tgies (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a former PRODder of this article. Even supposing this topic were notable, its current contents are entirely OR and more importantly are irrelevant cruft. Compare with ja:親父, which is frankly more likely to be written by people who actually use the word - that article focuses on the perception of fathers in Japanese society, and the evolution of the word and in what contexts it could be used over the years, and what connotations it had during different eras. This article talks about "the rustic appeal of Sean Connery". Honestly, this is ridiculous. Even if "Oyaji" is notable in a particular Japanese sociological context, "Oyaji" as "an art/fetish genre", as Gilgamesh puts it, is totally non-notable. — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article does seem rather poorly written... Whether or not this article is deleted, perhaps at a later date it can be rewritten using the Japanese Wikipedia article as a basis. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a preponderance of Japanese web pages containing the word - or even dedicated to discusion of - おやじ support the claims of this article any more than English web pages talking about Dad would. It's a common word, but its notability is not really distinct from the concept of Father. That fathers hold a somewhat different position in Japanese versus other societies does not make this a particularly useful article. Cnilep (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition puffed up with way too much original research. --DAJF (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely original research, unless references to reliable sources can be provided. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary what can be transwikied, then delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:55, 26 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. If anyone feels it is an appropriate transwiki to Wiktionary, let me know and I'll temporarily undelete it. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoge[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism/fancruft. Has been tagged unsourced since June 2008 and probably always will be for lack of secondary sources. tgies (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has had the non-notability and original research templates up as well (in some form or another) since 7 Sept. 2008, and that's terrible. There's a point where enough warning is enough, and there's no real prima facie evidence to support the notion that this is reasonable to include as an article (particularly its own) to begin with. If this were going to get fixed, it almost certainly would have happened by now, and, well, it hasn't. One editor tried to remove the templates themselves instead of improving the article, but I guess that didn't work! Poor guy. G-Flex (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thats more then you have done, clearly. Also, since when is posting something like "This is immeasurably unconscionable and I thrust my indignation upon you without pause or remose" on an articles talk page considered appropriate? Anyway, as I said on the talk page feel free it condense the article into a larger work. Also feel free to do the work yourself since you clearly think that the work of others is without merit. Lando242 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:BOP) The contents of the entire article has been challenged for nearly two years[19] with not a single reliable source added to the article in tall that time. You claim that the Japanese article has sources, but I see no sources listed there, or any other language Wikipedia except for one that references another English language Wikipedia article as a source. I'm calling BS on on your chastising other editors for not doing YOUR work on sourcing the articles contents for you. —Farix (t | c) 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "BS" and "chastising" comment G-flex made on the articles talk page and get back to me. I'm not the one that started the bizarre tone of this conversation. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I did find an anime terminology article on the 'pedia, seen here. If anyone would like to tranfer some of the info over go ahead. I guess at this point I would be considered biased as to weather it should be kept at all so I'll leave it up to one of you guys to do it if this article is deleted. Lando242 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lando242, please stop trying to make this into something personal. tgies (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just thought that G-Flex's post on the articles talk page was offensive and that his tone was very condescending and rude. So I responded in kind, I'm sorry if it came off badly. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and seemingly fan-made term; no extensive coverage in reliable sources, no coverage at all really. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Japanese loanword, not a fan made term. Please do a little bit more research before making decisions next time. Lando242 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it.. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn/214075/m0u/あほ/%20 http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn/214075/m0u/あほ/ has a basic definition. Hope that helps, but since its in Japanese I kinda doubt it. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotHair?from=Main.Ahoge is a more detailed English article but I don't think TV Tropes is considered a reliable source. Then again many people don't want you using Wikipedia as a source, so YMMV. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 275,000 Ghits for "アホ毛" and 13,300 for "アホげ". I haven't the faintest idea what any of them mean, but maybe someone who speaks Japanese can check and see if any are relevant or notable? -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on what I see, this should be further looked into before being deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Can you point to any reliable sources supporting any of the article's claim? No one denies the word "exists", but so does every other word the moment its spoken or written. That doesn't make them notable, nor does it mean that the article is making a factual claim. Yes, the Japanese have a term for "foolish hair" and "looking stupid", that doesn't mean that either is actually an anime/manga concept by any stretch. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that not every single concept in the universe belongs in its own Wikipedia article (or any, necessarily) as per the site's standards. People have had years at this point to "look into" it and nobody has. How long do we have to give it, exactly? G-Flex (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no deadline" is not meant to serve as an excuse for keeping an article that will never meet the criteria for inclusion on life support. tgies (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if you aren't willing to make the effort to improve an article you'd shouldn't bother to try and get it deleted either. You've clearly made no effort to do anything to the article to improve it, yet you blame other for them not doing the work themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do" sums that up pretty well. Lando242 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman. Nobody is "blaming" anybody. And why on earth would I "make the effort to improve" an article that I believe is tacitly unimprovable in the sense that it will not and can not meet the criteria for inclusion? That's nonsensical.

"I don't think this article can ever be appropriate for the encyclopedia."

"Well, why don't you FIX IT."

Doesn't make sense. tgies (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, if you're that certain that there remains some hidden merit in this article warranting its inclusion if only we'd all go and "make the effort", why don't you do that yourself and return to the discussion when you have? tgies (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel the need to reply to yourself? Just asking, I thought it odd, so don't thinking I'm trying to call you out or anything. Anyway, I did try to find sources, I even posted them on the articles talk page and no one ever commented on them. Since I couldn't get a peer review of their reliability I didn't add them to the article. I guess next time I make an article I'll just add them and see what happens. It'll give me something to think about if I ever try to re-add a better version of the article in the future. Lando242 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the burden of proof is on the one who's adding the information. In other words, you should already have sources available when you add the information, as opposed to trying to find them later. Seriously though, citing sources you're slightly unsure of is better than adding information for which no sources are cited at all. G-Flex (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I will be sure to do that in the future. Lando242 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is entirely original research and cannot be backed up by reliable sources, therefore failing the core policy on verifiability. —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:G-Flex; I also can't find any reliable sources to substantiate the article or show its notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First GHit in Japanese] is the Japanese language Wikipedia article. It has the same problems as this article: 独自研究, and a dearth of 情報源. While there is no deadline for sorting these things out both here and on jp.wikipedia, can we wait that long? Yes, I do see the lack of logic in this statement. What's more, this once again highlights a number of my gripes with the WP:AFD process, etc, etc.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google translate on the talk page of the Japanese article for this [20] shows a similar discussion as this one. The expression is used a lot to refer to hair like this, in the beauty industry. Google results for the Japanese name of it, shows many hits. [21]. This can be verified as a real thing, and thus meets all Wikipedia requirements. Japanese Google news search shows results [22]. This [23] is one of them, the expression used in relation to Anime. If Google news says that is a reliable site for news, and they use the expression in relation to Anime with that sort of hair, then that should prove its a notable genre. Many other sources could probably be found, but that's good enough to convince me. Dream Focus 01:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with Google book search not translating things. [24] It does find hundreds of hits though, including an art book, and a book for hairdressers. I see manga also appearing in that search. Anyone who speaks Japanese can sort through that probably, or the many news results. I suggest searching for the Japanese words for what we're looking for, as well as the Japanese word for manga or anime. That will help narrow down the results in Google news and Google book search, should anyone want to find additional information. Dream Focus 01:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we know that it's a word for something, and that the word is commonly used. This does not mean that it's a notable "genre" of anything. It's obvious the word isn't completely made-up, but a word existing and being used by people commonly does not mean that it deserves a Wikipedia article. G-Flex (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A notable aspect of various series. Just like cat ears or big eyes are common characteristics found in many works of manga and anime. Dream Focus 02:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It being an aspect of anime character design doesn't mean it deserves its own article by any stretch. It would be rather absurd to include every one of these multitudes of character design quirks/features as independent articles on an encyclopedia; an article on character design in anime would be perfectly sufficient to describe them in enough detail. G-Flex (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary as it doesn't belong here. It's never going to be anything other than a dicdef, which fits in surprisingly well over at Wiktionary. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 26 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) 10:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Court[edit]

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

Article about insignificant driver, written like advertisement. Link to site that propose to sponsor racer is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Also article is orphan. Cybervoron (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator and author of most of this article, I had just the other day been considering getting this deleted, as I had contributed to the deletion of Glynn Geddie, who is far more notable. However, I am not happy with the way the nominating user has gone about this, as an act of revenge. Please see WT:MOTOR discussion for full details. I'd have rather been able to tag it for deletion myself, but now I can't. As for being like an advertisement, that link text was not added by me but by a more established editor, and as the rest of the text, yes it was modified from his own website. It was my first article - check the quality of the rest of my articles since and they'll be fine. Creating this was a mistake, hence why I was about to delete it anyway. What's wrong with a link to a driver's website? It's where I found the information, as can be seen by the references. I have no affilliation with him, I would not want to advertise the site, just provide it as a link for people to get more information. That is the whole point in external links. Besides, why are you adjusting your nomination to match the edits I made? The nomination should be about the article as a whole, not my edits. - mspete93 16:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular desire to talk with you. Only to refute blatant lie. Because that add you isn't official site. Official site was added by other editor, that perfectly seen in your diff. Cybervoron (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This petty squabble has no place in a deletion discussion. Who added the link does not matter one damn bit. Discuss the merits of the article, not the editors. And Cybervoron, do not edit other people's votes or reasoning, no matter your reasoning. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete? If the author of the article agrees that the subject is non-notable, does that qualify this for speedy delete? David V Houston (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and author's recommendation. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the article and the subject, this article doesn't meet inclusion criteria. May I suggest that some of the participants in this discussion take a moment to have a look through Wikipedia:Civility and remind themselves of the standards expected of them in discussions with other editors. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G7 (see mspete93's above comment). Khoi khoi 02:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like his only claim to notability is having a cool idea and then failing at it. While sometimes failure can be notable, in this case it is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 24 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) --Darkwind (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenwich Trio[edit]

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

A non-notable classical trio. Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A young, award-winning ensemble. I've added sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relevant data is complete.HenryXVII (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above comments David V Houston (talk) 23:16, 19 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) --Darkwind (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Trotovsek[edit]

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

An unreferenced biography of a non-notable violinist. Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A young but notable Slovenian violinist, member of a notable ensemble, soloist, recipient of multiple awards. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I looked up the Slovenian prize she is said to have won [25] and she doesn't appear in this list. Although there may be a distinction between the main prize and the student prize. (I don't read Slovenian and the 'translation' is a bit iffy.) Note that the comment in the article about the prize being handed out rarely is ... odd. There seem to be multiple recipients every year, albeit spread out over multiple fields. The bio in the reference [26] speaks more strongly to me of her notability. David V Houston (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked up on it. She won the student Preseren award [27] for playing with the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra and George Pehlivanian as the conductor. Couple that with the two British awards (one playing with the BBC Symphony Orchestra) and we got ourselves a notable person. Luka666 (talk) 10:19, 23 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. A further looking into this subject's merge prospects would be encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Remperas[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Only "reference" is a dead link, and I cannot find anything which could have been the intended target. Searches have failed to produce any significant coverage in reliable sources. (Note: Article was previously prodded. Also was previously tagged for speedy deletion, and speedy-tag removed with reason given as "small amount of notability has been asserted".) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources to the article. They actually have a significant amount of coverage about her personally, more than I expected when I started my search. Silver seren^C 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per silver seren. I am surprised that this much coverage exists for who has essentially starred in one reality show (which explains the "weak"). --Sodabottle (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notability is established, but no IMDB profile!!! notable to en.wikipedia, but still notable! - Gabby 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~enough independent coverage,~~ Just needs better sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references which Silver seren has added are two links to pages on the website of the company producing the television program on which she has appeared, and so are not independent sources, and exist essentially to promote the program. These pages give fairly brief coverage of her. There are also 5 external links. One of these is to imdb, which, apart from the fact that it is not a reliable source, does nothing to establish notability, since anyone who has ever had any role in any film can have an entry there. Two of the external links are again to promotional pages on the website of the company producing the television program. That leaves two externally linked pages which could be considered as independent coverage. These two give fairly superficial chat coverage. I do not see this as coming anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. I do not understand Gabby's comment at all: what does "notable to en.wikipedia, but still notable" mean? And there is an imdb profile. Finally we have Narutolovehinata5's comment: "enough independent coverage, just needs better sourcing". Independent coverage is sourcing: if it does not have adequate sourcing then there is not adequate evidence of independent coverage. Thus I remain quite unconvinced by the "keep" arguments: it still seems that there is inadequate evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two other external links are articles entirely about her and they have a tremendous amount of information about her on them. Silver seren^C 11:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment But it still needs better sourcing; I found some sources but get this, it comes from the Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up Multiply page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I see is the standard reality show contestant coverage. That makes it a one eventer for me. And the coverage, such as it is, isn't all that much either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A show is not a single event, just as being cast in a movie would not be considered a single event. Silver seren^C 18:25, 20 Apr::::il 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know some Wikipedia policy that states that? If so, please do link it to me. Silver seren^C 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our polices and guidelines provide direction for editors to follow. Being a contestant on a single season of a reality show does not make for notability. The coverage for contestants die off once the season is over after the media machine that drives it is on the next season. This all in line with WP:N. It does not need to be explicit statements covering every situation and eventuality. Editors are to use the common sense and judgment. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make the assumption that the news will die off, considering that it is still ongoing as it is. Have you read WP:NTEMP? Silver seren^C 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read it, and I'll also point out that you can't assume future coverage. However, typically those who aren't the season winner receive no further coverage. We don't write articles for people who might become notable in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that she's notable right now. Your argument that she isn't notable is based around the fact that the news now is just a short news burst, except you can't prove that because the news is still ongoing. Silver seren^C 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which is why right now she is not notable. The coverage is because of one event, the Big Brother show. Now if she can parlay this appearance into a television career, then by all means have an article on that. But it hasn't happened yet! -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references that show that she was and is involved in other shows. Silverseren^C 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out the significant coverage? Because I'm not seeing it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage was already given in the articles about Big Brother. You don't need to have significant coverage for every single thing you do (that would be ridiculous for any article), you just need some significant coverage to cover GNG and then the rest needs to be coverage of any variety to verify the other information you are putting into the article. The sources I added are verifying her involvement in other shows, thus explaining that she is not just known for or actively doing only the Big Brother show. Silver seren^C 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for significant coverage for everythuing she does. I'm asking for significant coverage that demonstrates she has made it past the one event bar. Passing mentions in articles do no demonstrate that this is so. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge does not appear to meet "significant coverage in third party sources" - the only significant coverage is in primary promotional sources, with any third party coverage being trivial. And regarding an earlier comment if "she is notable now", Notability is not temporary, however "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. " (emph added). But this appears if anything WP:ONEEVENT. Active Banana (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!!! She is notable now, established her notability! - Thanks!!!! - gabby 14:46, 24 April 2010 (PST)

Wikipedia has a notability guideline WP:N - if you would like your !vote to be considered, you may wish to elaborate on how exactly the subject of the article meets Wikipedias notability criteria. Active Banana (talk) 17:03, 26 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) --Darkwind (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Božena Angelova[edit]

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

A non-notable Slovenian violinist. Unreferenced BLP. Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) Listed as violin 2nd prize winner of 11TH INTERNATIONAL JOHANNES BRAHMS COMPETITION 2004[28]. Had she won 1st prize, she'd be definitely notable. 2nd prize. Hmmm.... OK, WP:MUSICBIO says "9 Has won or placed in a major music competition." I think this counts. David V Houston (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of her achievements in violin and the awards she has won, I do feel like she is notable for inclusion and meets WP:MUSICBIO. Silver seren^C 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has performed with notable orchestras and has won notable awards. If American Idol contestants can meet WP:MUSICBIO then this certainly does. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If nothing else, she has won national awards. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran the Google news results through Google translator, and it is her and her violin playing they are talking about. Russian news media finds her notable enough to speak of. [29] Plus if she has won notable awards, that makes her notable as well. Dream Focus 07:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dream.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:12, 24 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) 17:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wagga Wagga Floor Hockey League (WWFHL)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Contested speedy (from a probable sockpuppet, but still...) This is a non-notable organization, which the author of the page itself admits has no media coverage whatsoever on the talk page. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Not a single one of the "references" is a reliable independent source. Could well be a speedy deletion (A7), but certainly deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. David V Houston (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Local league with no independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mega-Strong Save! All sources are reliable and credible and you can all go get fucked!124.176.84.64 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 124.176.84.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - While your opinion is welcome, please remember to strive to remain civil. Thank you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest to the above anonymous editor that explaining why he/she thinks the sources are reliable will be more likely to persuade the closing administrator to keep the article than telling us to "get fucked". At present the only sources cited are a facebook page and the web pages of the league and its members. None of these is an independent reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I believe the editors and administrators are clearly over-reacting. Too many itchy-delete fingers going here, in other words. This seems to be a legitimate floor hockey league that is in throws of birth. And there has been significant expansion and growth since the article was first written. Also, the fact that there has been little or no media coverage of the Wagga Wagga League has absolutely no relevance here. Floor hockey, street hockey, ball hockey, roller hockey, road hockey, and beer league ice hockey by their very nature have little media coverage, other than local sources, but enjoy great popularity and hunderds of thousands of participants worldwide. I myself was one of the founders of a street and roller hockey league in Southern California back in the 1970s which morphed into several well known and respected leagues state and nationwide. But we began as a local league of only 3 teams. Here is some advice for the Wagga Wagga league. Instead of a stand- alone article,(which I think should not be deleted anyway), perhaps it could be included in an article about the larger geographical/municipal area or general article about other floor hockey/street hockey leagues in their area, NSW, and perhaps, the country. And as to "scalper's" comments...it would do you well to remember sir, that deletions are some of the most un-civil of actions yet devised by the mind of man.Garagehero (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments made in the above post are not arguments for keeping, and some of them are actually arguments for deletion. If it is a "league that is in throws of birth" then it has probably not yet achieved notability: time for an article if and when it does so. The statement "the fact that there has been little or no media coverage ... has absolutely no relevance here" completely misses the point of Wikipedia's notability criteria: the fact that there is little or nor coverage is exactly what is relevant to those criteria. As for the suggestion of including coverage in another article, while the standard of notability required is somewhat lower than for its own article, I see no evidence that even that has been demonstrated. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE!!! This page is one of the more established pages i've seen on the net. All references are working and are relevant. The information is well structured and is continuing to expand. Thus i vote the page should stay.
Delete No evidence of any notability. The sock puppetry/canvassing in this discussion is pretty obvious. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A five year old club that is "still in the throes of birth" is unlikely to meet notability requirements, and indeed not a single independent source is provided. Does your club garner international attention (per WP:CLUB, or do your athletes compete at the highest amateur level, or the professional level (per WP:ATHLETE)? If so, it should be easy to provide a newspaper source confirming this. If not, it fails notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE, PART 2 Let me clarify my earlier message. While it has been, when first posted as an article, "in the throws of birth", it is now a legitimate full fledged league in NSW, which in itself, should qualify it as a Wikipedia entry. There are many bogus entries here on Wikipedia, much less deserving than Wagga Wagga, yet because they are a pet project of some of the admins or editors, they remain and expand. And while it is encumbent on the Waggas to provide links to any coverage, the notability criteria has been met, in my opinion, by the notoriety the league has achieved in its own geographical area and/or municipality. It should also be encumbent on the admins/editors of Wikipedia to find a balance between the world of make-believe and cyberspace, the digital internet arena which is their domain, and the actual physical world of real acts, persons, athletic contests, and notability in the real world, which is the domain of the Waggas. Thats my opinion and I hope you folks decide to keep it.Garagehero (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a subjective concept in the real world, but not in wikipedia. Does ~~your~~ this Club satisfy the requirement of the general notability guideline of appearing in multiple reliable secondary sources? I would not expect google news to turn up any results, but Wagga Wagga is a big town and I expect it has its own regional newspaper? If it satisfies notability then I'm sure it will appear in such a publication. Could you provide us with something like that, Garagehero or others? Otherwise it really has to be deleted due to a lack of reliable sources. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Yeti - fair call I guess, I will get some media coverage for the WWFHL in the coming weeks and then link them to the article, and then try again. How do I retry again? Do I just create a new page or should I link it to this discussion somehow? And just FYI, I have no idea who garagehero is. Thanks for your help garagehero. --[[Shadsmabucket (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)]]][reply]

Strong delete no coverage in gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in, for example The Daily Advertiser. St Anselm (talk) 10:28, 26 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) 10:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Studio Project (Britney Spears Album)[edit]

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

Alleged, untitled, upcoming Britney Spears album. No reliable sources, WP:HAMMER. Amalthea 08:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. Also, no name - so fails Wp:HAMMER - and, since the articles states that, "(Dirty Girl) will hit radio waves on September 27, 2010", fails Wp:CRYSTAL as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL and borderline WP:HOAX. The "confirmed tracks" section seems to be made up (as does the album's apparent working title, Sweet Freedom), and none of the three references (which lead to blogs anyway) verify anything in the article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Obvious WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per points made above by User:Erpert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperatore (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bee. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological importance of bees[edit]

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

unnecessary fork, editors of the bee article say there is nothing worth incorporating and have even rejected a link to this page in the "see also" section. Anything worth salvaging in this article can be included in the bee article. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article might have been an attempt to write an essay with an editor's opinion on whether we should worry if bee populations are greatly reduced. At any rate, its content is just a jumble of points that are properly covered in other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to bee article because it would be a shame to see something that was beginning to look like a good article become deleted instead of at least a redirect. GVnayR (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per editors of bee article. This doesn't really add much - the author doesn't even distinguish between 'bees' and 'honeybees', and it's really the latter this 'article' is about... David V Houston (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd certainly welcome an article whose content matches the title, but this WP:OR isn't it. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an essay. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:CHEAP; a recent book has been published on the topic. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (per WP:CHEAP) any useful info to colony collapse disorder. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment There is nothing worth merging to either bee or colony collapse disorder. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:30, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kartik Sawhney[edit]

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

This article fails WP:N and WP:BIO because I am unable to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party sources, and he does not appear to have won a notable award, nor is he notable within his field. None of the sources discuss him in any detail, they are either primary sources or passing mentions of his name. Them From Space 06:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references make only passing mention, and the others are not independent sources. Also several of the references do not in fact support the statements to which they are attached. I have not fond any evidence of substantial coverage. It seems he is quite a bright boy, but the article is promotional, and makes exaggerated claims. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough non-trivial coverage of subject to establish notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in reliable, independent sources. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in verifiable, reliable sources. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per GregJackP. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article not to be deleted: The child is a multitalented achiever, who has excelled and made wide contributions to diverse fields. He is truly a roll model, as he was the first boy in India to use computers for his school studies, in place of Braille. Consistently topping and leading the class of normal students by a blind boy, and that too four four years, in a school like DPS, R.K.Puram which is the most sought after school in the country, is really an exceptional achievement. Winning the `National Child Award for Exceptional Achievements` wherein only top 25 child geniuses out of a total of about 1 million children in India, are honoured, is a testimony to his excellence. NTS is yet another achievement, wherein only top 1000 academically gifted students are awarded. It is wikipedia which mentions NTS as the most prestigious scholarship in India. Besides, he is gifted in IT and Sciences, and a proof being that this boy has won several national and international Olympiads and competitive exams, where millions of students participate from across the world. Not only that, he is also a great singer, who has won several laurels. He is so talented that even the former President of India, Dr. A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, blessed, honoured and congratulated him on his stupendous achievements and success. There is no great personality in India who has not honoured and blessed this multifaceted genius. At the same time, he is also amazingly creative, and again his qualifying for the National Bal Shree Awards, wherein only top 150 creative young minds are invited. Pt. Ravi Shankar requires no introduction. He chose top 10 vocalists from across Delhi for a special project, and Kartik was one of them. There is hardly any newspaper that has not covered stories on him: to name a few, Hindustan Times, Times of India, the Hindu, Asian Age, Dainik Jagran, Pioneer, Sahara, DD-Bharti, Sadhna TV, Sony Entertainment Television and many more. Magiktuch was a choir of blind singers and musicians from across the country. It consisted of teng vocalists and musicians fro across the country, Kartik being one of them. His school has honoured him with all the great awards like student of the year, red blazer for extra curricular excellence and blue blazer for exceptional academic excellence. He is a scholarship holder by the school. Besides, he has also traveled to Austria and performed before the President of Austria. He has also been blessed by the Princess of Thailand and the First Lady of mlaysia, besides the PM of India, Vice President of India etc. IGNOU and DD Bharti have even made documentaries on his achievements, and he has also been interviewed on various radio stations and news channels. He is also a good speaker, and was selected to address the National Conference of School Principals on Information Technology and also presented his school annual production. artik, himself blind, is actively contributing towards the welfare of other people as well. A young social servant! He is actively working on child rights and has undertaken great projects. He has recorded radio programs on child labour, education and corporal punishment to reach out to a wide audience, published a 6-monthly newsletter titled `Our World` which is circulated in several schools of Delhi and NCR. Each time, a different issue is taken up. The issues include child labour, education, corporal punishment, social responsibility of media etc; conducted sessions in various prestigious schools like DPS Mathura Road, D.L.D.A.V. Model School etc. to sensitise children of the issues concerning them and how to overcome those; conducted competitions with underprivileged children at organizations like Udayan Care to manifest their verbal, imotional and written skills. Under Plan’s global advocacy campaign, `Learn Without Fear`, CAB organised a signature campaign with the help of Plan partners against bullying and corporal punishment in schools, and received an overwhelming response of more than 26000 signatures from children across seven states. Besides, he is the Resource Person for the Computer Literacy Program of the National Association of the Blind for their teachers. Besides, heh as also represented an NGO Human Care Foundation at various forums. Today, it is quite rare to find such a widely talented child. I think that he is certainly a source of inspiration for all. He is a perfect example of `where there is a will, there is a way`. Further, most of the newspapers and magazines who have covered stories on him are available as hardcopies, and not on the net. Hence, it’s becoming exceedingly difficult to incorporate the references. I don’t feel there is any exaggeration, and the achievements have been backed with reliable sources.— 122.177.60.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:59, April 24, 2010 (UTC).
Delete. Only trivial coverage, not enough to establish the notablity. Salih (talk) 08:21, 24 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) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannahic Covenant[edit]

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

Original research. A google search shows that "Hannahic covenant" is a made-up phrase. In fact, the word "covenant" does not appear at all in the narrative of 1 Samuel 1-2, while googling "Hannah's covenant" yields only one source. In fact, Hannah made a vow, not a covenant. St Anselm (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Phrase does not occur in GB or GS, and article contains no references to any literature -- merely scripture verses and a vague reference to "Philosopher Isaac ben Judah Abarbanel, Lisbon, 1437 – Venice, 1508." Key claims such as "Hannahic covenant is created between a Jewish Prophetess Deborah and God" have not even a scripture reference. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:DEMOLISH

We must tread cautiosly in treating Torah discussion with clinical detachment of science discourse. The seeds of the truth never come as fully grown trees. --Aslepoy (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It indicates some uniqueness to the topic, even if it is unreferenced.
- The notion of an unspoken covenant should prove interesting. In Vayeira, God visits Abraham and has an apparent discussion with him, while clearly speaking to Sarah through Abraham as an intermediary. God indicates openly that Sarah is listening ^[1] and also that He hears her responses ^[2]. God also grants her wish for a child, while refuting Abraham's request on behalf of Ishmael ^[3]. Clearly, negotiation is between God and Sarah, yet she is not openly addressed. --Aslepoy (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — Aslepoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Nobody is saying is that it isn't interesting. The question is, are their scholarly sources clearly identifying the covenant. We wait a week, of course, with this AfD, but I don't think further time will bring any more sources to light. So I don't think WP:DEMOLISH applies here. Of course, in itself, the lack of the word "covenant" in the text is not an impediment to the concept being notable (the Adamic covenant has been much discussed, for example), but this subject is simply not one that has received any attention in scholarly circles. St Anselm (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR While this is an important part of Shoftim and understanding Nezirus Shmuel vs. Nezirus Shimshon, it is not article-worthy in and of itself, and especially under this neologistic title. Delete as NEO/OR/SYNTH violation. Avi (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: to the extent this article describes Hannah's role in 1 Samuel, it's already adequately covered at Hannah (Bible) and Books of Samuel#Contents. To the extent it's about anything else (including the very concept of a "Hannahic covenant"), it's pure synthesis and non-notable original theorizing. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no such thing. This violates WP:NOR; WP:NEO; WP:MADEUP and probably even WP:HOAX. IZAK (talk) 09:22, 23 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) 10:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Correspondence of the Early Naturalists[edit]

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

This is pure, uncut WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The material and sources could be the basis for an expansion of Science communication, though, as long as the author does not draw his own conclusions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essay. tedder (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add to user space and suggest that cited contents be added to the specific personalities involved. Shyamal (talk) 06:10, 26 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Dimensional Signs[edit]

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

Not notable according to WP:Company. References do not prove ongoing notability. ~~Content is mostly marketing.~~ Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pared it down to its encyclopaedic content but it still fails to meet WP:Company. Author seems to be trying to make it into a mirror of their home page. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~undecided~~(formely was of the opinion delete) As it stands, I can't see any support for the company being unique. My opinion may might change if there was information to support the rarity of its techniques, but at the moment it sounds like marketing. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the original statement, the article has been tidied up (removing promotional material). I think information on signs is underrepresented on wikipedia, so dont want to remove just because I dont know much about it. That said, it would be good to have a few references for context of notability (ie if this technique is rare and unique in Australia, notability is probably there). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the artist becoming notable before the artform. Open to changing my mind when wikipedia has more info on signs (dimensional or othewise) to provide context for notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Placing first in an international competition is an indication of notability, especially since the company is Australian and Signs of the Times (which appears to have run the competition) magazine is American. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are confusing Signs of the Times (Australian magazine) with Signs of the Times (magazine). — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes the magazine cited IS American based with an address in Cincinnati, OH. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G11. "You wouldn't class the work of Colorado Dimensional as signage; 'works of art' is a far more fitting description..."; I'm glad they put in a link so that I can learn more about how Colorado Dimensional can work for me and grow my business, do they take Visa? If someone wants to make a bland encyclopedia article about a notable corporation, that's fine, but this is as close as one can get to "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; advertising, "referenced" only to coverage in trade publications with only limited circulation and interest, and won a non-notable award. I find myself wondering what a non-dimensional sign might look like. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In this context, a "non-dimensional" sign is a flat one. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional might be less ambiguous terms for flat and carved signs. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment RECONSIDER This page has now been cleaned up devoid of any marketing. It contains only verifiable fact. WP:Company states ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice." Colorado is one of only three creaters of this new signage to Australia. Their finished works have been published and recognised both Nationally and Internationally - judged against the best in the world. Consider the size of Australia is the same as the USA with only 1/10 the population shows a quite notable niche craftsmanship worthy of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimaki (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Mimaki (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — Mimaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue is that this kind of signage doesnt have a page on wikipedia, so its hard to see how someone who does it can be more notable than the artform itself. I'm still not convinced Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They are one of only several signage companies....". Wow! I'm one of several multi-instrumentalists. I must be notable! (Sorry...) Apparently this type of sign is relatively new to Australia - although there must have been carvers of wood and producers of overlaid and jointed signage since the first commercial establishments were set up. I'm not at all sure as to the status conferred by winning the award - what are the criteria for taking part? I can't get into the Visual Impact link (not having Flash player), but a comment like that quoted makes me think they must have led very sheltered and excitement-free lives. OK, I live in the UK where signage of this sort is commonplace - the winning sign just looks like a pub sign to me. As a worker with flat print, I may be missing something of a technical nature here. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To Peridon: "Apparently this type of sign is relatively new to Australia - although there must have been carvers of wood and producers of overlaid and jointed signage since the first commercial establishments were set up". NO... CARVERS FOR THE FIRST COMMERCIAL SETUP WERE "IMPORTED" FROM THE US. THERE ARE NO AUSTRALIAN BORN CARVERS IN AUSTRALIA.
  "I'm not at all sure as to the status conferred by winning the award - what are the criteria for taking part?" BEING JUDGED VISUALLY, COMPLEXITY, DESIGN, AND APPLICATION OF MATERIALS USED AS - BETTER THAN ALL OTHER ENTRANTS.
  "I can't get into the Visual Impact link (not having Flash player), but a comment like that quoted makes me think they must have led very sheltered and excitement-free lives." UNECESSARY PERSONAL ATTACK BUT OK, WHAT EXCITES ONE DOES NOT EXCITE OTHERS. CARVED SIGNS EXCITES US."I live in the UK where signage of this sort is commonplace" LUCKY YOU- the winning sign just looks like a pub sign to me." EITHER YOU VISIT A LOT OF PUBS AND ARE IN A PLACE TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT - OR YOU HAVE NO ARTISTIC ABILITY OR YOU ARE DENYING THE TALENT OF THE JUDGES - WHICH ONE? "As a worker with flat print, AH... THERE'S THE ANSWER. YOU HAVE NEVER MADE ANYTHING THREE DIMENSIONAL AND HAVE NO IDEA OF THE ROTATION REQUIREMENT OF LOOKING AT SOMETHING FROM AN X, Y, AND Z AXIS. "I may be missing something of a technical nature here" OF COURSE YOU ARE THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU TECHNICALLLY UNABLE TO MAKE COMMENT. Mimaki (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — Mimaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Calm down, Mimaki. Stay cool and comment on the issues, not the editor. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that sentiment entirely. I've gotten anonymous postings on my talk page with the same tone [31], and I think that other persons who have argued for a delete are getting the same. We tend to be a little more tolerant of this in new users, since being introduced to the Articles for Deletion forum can be a jarring experience, but criticism of an article is not the same as a "personal attack" against the author. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem is not lack of knowledge regarding the subject, but the lack of reliable sources that provide significant coverage about it ... articles about the subject in The Sydney Morning Herald or The Daily Telegraph (Australia) would be meaningful, but all of the references (currently) are from publications that are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles of their own, so it will be hard to convince the other editors that it meets the criteria for inclusion, which in this case is WP:CORP. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as stated earlier, you would expect an article about dimensional / carved signs before an article about a company that makes them. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References not sufficient to meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 24 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) 10:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slothbear[edit]

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

Delete. NN, fails WP:Band. Freewinona (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator's single edit to the nominated article, and their two edits creating this AfD are their only contributions to Wikipedia. The account appears to have been created specifically to nominate this article for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a first time at AfD. Only registered editors can complete the three step nomination process (Step 2 requires the creation of a discussion page that IPs cannot do). Unless there is sockpuppetry involved, a new user account should not be an issue here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure available for IPs and non-confirmed editors by which the AfD process can be completed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only third-party Ghit I can really find is their MySpace profile. Their record label website hardly mentions them (let alone a release date for an album), and their EP was self-released. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Erpert; straightforward non-notable aspiring band. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:51, 19 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of converting the article into a disambig can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Capital of the World[edit]

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

Article has been a stub for 4-1/2 years with no significant improvement. Topic is mostly a bit of trivia, and completely unsourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert into a disambiguation page. If I'm not mistaken, Titusville, Pennsylvania, has also been called the Oil Capital of the World. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not as a dab page (there are no other articles with this title). There are just too many references to the phrase to ignore. I'll add some. And let's not forget that mighty claimant Cleveland.[32][33]. P.S. Whatever happens, do the same to Oil capital of the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My nominee would be Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In that Clarity is adding some sources, however, there's the potential that this can be improved. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oil Capital. of the WORLD? in the US? hardly, not since US peak oil, anyway. At minimum it needs work. I think there are serious POV issues, perhaps. David V Houston (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can question the POV of the cities' boosters, but the article itself only reports what they claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. A phrase in long use by civic boosters in various places; plenty of sources available to make a decent small article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB - Multiple cities lay claim to the title. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 20 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blink dog[edit]

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

Non-notable DnD creature. All sources are owned by the publisher of the game it is from. Fails WP:N — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons unless some third-party sources are found. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better to redirect it to where it actually ought to be mentioned (and indeed already is), in List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. It was hard to tell where to more accurately redirect this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - where was the discussion to delete this? There is nothing on the talk page to indicate that this page should be deleted. Let's have a discussion first and see if any sources can be turned up. I have turned up 100s of sources in the past (check my logs) so they are there, I just don't have to time to find them all by the end of the week. Web Warlock (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to discuss anything on the talk page before bringing it to AfD. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - iconic D&D monster which has appeared prominently in every edition of the game with the exception of the most recent - all the way back to the original 1974 edition, to the third edition which ended in 2008. I trust Webwarlock's judgement that sources can be found, and agree that discussion should have happened rather than taking it straight to AFD. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books appears to have some relevant, non primary-source hits for this. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Web Warlock and Jclemens, it is not likely that establishing notability by coverage will be difficult. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I think it'll be practically impossible. Not counting primary sources, there are about 2, very passing, mentions in that google books search JClemens linked. One could find further references by looking at print sources. (White Dwarf magazine for example is a magazine that's independent of WOTC and will certainly contain relevant discussion from some issue before issue 93. But its independence could be challenged because at the time of publication it was a house organ of TSR, the then publishers of D&D.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, White Dwarf has always been published by Games Workshop, which is not TSR. For a long time (before Warhammer got popular) it covered D&D, but never exclusively, always along with other, non-TSR RPGs: Traveller, RuneQuest, etc. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The early history of Games Workshop and TSR (UK) Ltd. is murky, convoluted and substantially intertwined. The two organisations tended to contain the same people at a senior level, particularly in the 1970s which is the time we're talking about. Games Workshop were at the time of White Dwarf 17, the British importers for D&D. In 1981 the relatively newly-formed TSR (UK) Ltd. published a book called the Fiend Folio which comprised submissions people had made to White Dwarf.
GW and TSR (now WOTC) have a long history of being rival corporations, but that's not how they started and it's not how things were at the time of publication.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Companies in the same business interact. Consider Intel and Microsoft, for example; in some ways associates, in some ways rivals. They're still independent companies. But even by #17 White Dwarf was not a solely TSR games mag. Here: RuneQuest scenarios starting with #14, and Traveller articles since #9. Would happen to know if Games Workshop were also the British importers for RuneQuest, and most other RPGs? I wouldn't be surprised. They were the biggest British RPG company, and, I believe, still are. --GRuban (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here, White Dwarf #1. [34] Last page. That particular issue only covers D&D, but on the last page, you can see that Games Workshop distributed Chivalry & Sorcery (FGU), Dungeons & Dragons (TSR), and Traveller (GDW), which were, at the time the main Roleplaying Games extant, among a number of board and war games. D&D was the most popular RPG by an order of magnitude, but Games Workshop owed no special debt to TSR beyond that. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you and I are both recommending a variant of "keep", I'm not sure there's any benefit in further discussion on this point. I don't agree that White Dwarf is an independent source for early TSR material but since you and I both think the outcome of this discussion should not be "delete", there's no reason to parse the argument in detail.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I'm convinced that very few D&D monsters are notable by Wikipedian standards. Which is not to say Wikipedia shouldn't cover them -- I do think Wikipedia ought to have coverage of these critters, and there's no need to stretch Wikipedia's notability rules to achieve that. Individual items on a list do not need to be notable, so one could merge all the existing (very short) articles on D&D monsters into the relevant lists. Which leaves us with a smaller number of longer articles, each reviewed and watchlisted by more editors. That's not a bad thing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then my suggestion is remove the delete notice on this article and move this discussion to the talk page. If no third party sources can be found then re-list. Otherwise an article that could very well be sourced will get deleted because of a timeline placed on it on a whim. Web Warlock (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't know that that's necessary. Here's one likely source for you: http://www.bookofratings.com/dndmonsters.html. Especially if it's in the print version. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is not Wikipedia's purpose to keep articles where their notability may exist. Until such time it is proven notable, there is no reason to keep it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lore Sjoberg's hilarious, but I'm not sure he meets Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.
To Web Warlock, I would say that I shouldn't think the article will be deleted out of hand on this nomination. First, there's a rule called WP:BEFORE, which says that other possibilities should be exhausted before deleting the article. In this case, redirection is possible, so deletion is inappropriate. QED. Second, to date we have 100% "keep" consensus. (The "redirect" recommendations from Erpert and myself are technically "keep" outcomes.) Therefore, unless there's a remarkable about-face in subsequent discussion, I would be amazed if anyone closed this as "delete". Having said that, unless someone actually finds significant coverage in a third party source (and I really don't think they will), this material will quite rightly remain vulnerable to deletion nominations on the grounds that there's nothing notable about blink dogs. There's policy that says we are to preserve Wikipedia's material on these creatures, but in view of the notability objection I think we need to accept that blink dogs aren't best covered in a separate article with this title.
Removing the delete notice before seven days are up would not be appropriate unless there were so many "keep" !votes that the debate can be closed under WP:SNOW, which I don't think is very likely at all.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One independent ref. I have at least two others but can't access PubMed at home to verify. Web Warlock (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a total of 4 3rd party refs. I have 2 more I am tracking down. Web Warlock (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - especially on that White Dwarf article! BOZ (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that D&D animals are noteworthy and merit their own entry. It might be one thing if the articles could show real world outside significance, but I this is fancruft at the core.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant WP:CRUFTCRUFT ignoring General Notability Guideline. If fans don't get to include things just because they think they're awesome, irrespective of sourcing, you don't get to exclude things just because you think they're stupid, irrespective of sourcing. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As predicted, notability by coverage is now firmly established. Cheers. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I see no evidence of coverage in independent sources. Reyk _YO! 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those are independent sources. Not all the ones listed, but all the ones I added after 1 hour of research. Web Warlock (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, please describe, and preferably provide evidence for, how Garth Sundem, Random House, Tamara Rivers, Tate Publishing, White Dwarf and/or Games Workshop are affiliated with WotC and/or TSR. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Dwarf -- as I explained earlier in this debate, while it's currently owned by Games Workshop, at the time of publication of the relevant issue (i.e. issue 17), was owned by TSR (UK) Ltd. who were at that time the IP owners. The Guardian of Hope by Tamara Rivers is a recently-published fictional novel that contains a passing mention of the creature on one page. These two references fail WP:RS by a substantial margin. But having said that, the Garth Sundem reference is more substantial (he's a university professor referring to the creature in a nonfiction book) and worth digging into. I don't own that book. Can anyone who does confirm that the mention is more than trivial?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You "explained" that TSR owned White Dwarf, I suppose, but the problem there is that this is not true, per GRuban. It was a Games Workshop house organ even when it was "Owl and Weasel". See White Dwarf (magazine). The occurrence in The Guardian of Hope isn't really a "passing mention", either, I don't think; a passing mention is "oh, yeah, I used to have a blink dog", not a conversation that contrives to nail down physical appearance and the exact limits of teleportation range. Sundem does look like a passing mention, though, unless the quiz in which blink dogs appear has an answer key that isn't in Google Books's preview and says something about the creatures involved. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, my favored term for conversations like the one in The Guardian of Hope is "expositolicious". —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boz & WebWarlock.--Robbstrd (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is about an iconic D&D creature that is noteworthy and, as noted above, has been referenced plenty of times in 3rd party sources. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Original concern has been addressed.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 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 redirect to Cinema of the Faroe Islands. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karrybollarnir[edit]

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

No indication that this film is notable; no sources. Author removed notability and unsourced tags without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible. Non-notable, no content, no references. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Appears to be a YouTube-only film with less than thirty Ghits; most of which aren't in English. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the hits aren't in English is almost irrelevant. The fact that there's not many hits is, and I didn't SEE any that looked like reliable independant secondary sources.

The fact that the language is Faroese (total 75k speakers) rather than e.g. German (total 75M+ speakers), does pretty much preclude the possibility of 'widespread' secondary coverage<g> David V Houston (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting problem. At what point do we disregard Wikipedia:NF#Other_evidence_of_notability #1? Do the Faroe Islands have a film industry? Do the have a movie theater? Do they have any kind of distribution for a feature film other than Youtube? Are articles in a Faroese paper to be disregarded because of WP:UNKNOWNHERE? Considering that this film might notable ONLY to readers in the Faroe Islands or only to those that read Faroese, Where does Wikipedia draw the line? Most of the criteria set out in WP:NF are couched specifically to deal with Western media... and such suggestions as "reviews by nationally known critics" have no meaning if we're discussing a film from South Africa or Ecudor or in this case, the Faroe Islands. Again, at what point do we willingly say notable to Faroe Islands is not notable enough for en.Wikipedia? At if that happens, when do we decide that population or language becomes the deciding factor as to whether something might be notable enough for the English Wikipedi. Ouch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinema of the Faroe Islands. Struck my comment above. If there's notability to any film from the Faroes, this is where a reader might expect to find it. If or when the film itself gains coverage in reliable (even if Faorese sources), consider allowing recreation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 20 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulette[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable DnD monster. No sources outside Dragon magazine, which is owned by the same company as DnD, so the source is not independent of the subject, and the primary sources of the monster manuals. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, where it's mentioned.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - where was the discussion to delete this? There is nothing on the talk page to indicate that this page should be deleted. Let's have a discussion first and see if any sources can be turned up. I have turned up 100s of sources in the past (check my logs) so they are there, I just don't have to time to find them all by the end of the week. Web Warlock (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - iconic D&D monster which has appeared prominently in every edition of the game all the way back to the original 1974 edition, to current fourth edition which began in 2008 (although Basic D&D somehow missed out). I trust Webwarlock's judgement that sources can be found, and agree that discussion should have happened rather than taking it straight to AFD. This one is particularly notable in that nearly all early D&D creatures were inspired by mythology and literature, while this one was an original created by Gygax. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jclemens findings on the blink dog AFD, it's likely that there are also some hits for the bulette on Google Books (although I'm susprised at how much filtering I had to do - never realized Bulette was a last name!) BOZ (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am confident that Web Warlock will be successful in RSing this article. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. I considered the appropriateness of a merge, but note that there is RS'ed information that would be lost in a redirect or merge per S Marshall's recommendation. The "creature" has appeared in multiple fictional works of a huge franchise spanning three decades, thus accumulating the references it has and meriting its own article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that D&D animals are noteworthy and merit their own entry. It might be one thing if the articles could show real world outside significance, but I this is fancruft at the core.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:CRUFTCRUFT, not an argument founded in policy or guidelines. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added reference to the Bulette's occurrence in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, from Paizo Publishing (not TSR and not WotC). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- after looking at the references, I am just not seeing substantial coverage in independent sources. Reyk _YO! 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for how Paizo, Mapventures, Tricky Owlbear Publishing or Joseph Wu Origami Inc. are affiliated with WotC or TSR? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Paizo source is a verbatim copy of stats from the rule books, a photograph of a folded up piece of paper cannot be regarded as substatial covergare by any stretch of the imagination, and the other two seem to be fan created material. I still see no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Paizo source's stats are a verbatim copy of anything (I'd like to be shown what), it does not just have stats, but extensive text describing what a bulette is; that is, it's an independent source describing the fictional creature and its behavior. I don't know if Joseph Wu is reliable, but an (apparently professional) artist choosing to make a sculpture of a fictional creature (your dismissal of origami as "a folded up piece of paper" is really very rude and tasteless, and I wouldn't care to bet that that sculpture took less time and effort to create than the average newspaper article), which he labels by name, seems to me to demonstrate that the fictional creature is relevant outside its native context. The other two being "fan created material" seems a stretch given that they're demonstrably products offered for sale; when you start selling your material, this generally takes you out of "fan" into "pro". —chaos5023 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Bulette is not notable even within the context of the D&D Universe. Nutiketaiel(talk) 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be interpreting the word "notable" differently than how it is used in the Wikipedia context.—RJH (talk)
Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Original concern has been addressed.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BOZ. Unlike many of the monsters in the first editions of D&D that were drawn from legend (goblins, dragons, werewolves, sphinxes), or prehistory (dinosaurs, mastodons), the bulette is an original creation that has been updated for every subsequent edition.Guinness323 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm less sure about blink dog, but in this case there do appear to be reasonable 3rd party sources. Paizo (post-Dragon contract), is certainly independent. The Enworld interview is too. I'm less sure of the value of the others for WP:N, but they are reasonable sources, meeting WP:V. Hobit (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that this is effectively a second nomination, as there was a previous nom for Bullette with the result keep and move. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "move" had a lot to do with the fact that the original title was a misspelling. :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Basically, it could have been deleted at that point, and typo correction was opted for instead. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)r[reply]

LOL - Oh, how the flying fickle finger of fate goes. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known about such a nomination, I likely wouldn't have nom'd it in the first place. When a decision is made at an AfD, a template is usually left on the talk page of the article referring to said AfD, with a note on when it happened, a link to the AfD, and what was decided. There was no such link at the talk page, hence the nomination.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. BOZ (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong article. I was thinking of Blink dog.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:00, 26 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) 10:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power Cable[edit]

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

I'm not sure this fictitious town passes WP:FICT. All the Ghits I found are to blogs and Wiktionary-like websites. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A relic from the "who-needs-sources" days of Wikipedia. No proof, and a dumb redirect as well. Originally, the article was called "Power Cable, Nebraska", since it's ostensibly about a phrase used (apparently by some people in the United Kingdom) to describe a generic American small town, kind of like "Podunk". What possessed someone to change the title to something that looks like "power cable" is beyond me. Nevertheless, nothing to back up the claims made, put the article in the garage next to your set of spinning hubcaps, it ain't 2004 any more. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional place. Edison (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find any evidence of notability, either as a fictional town or as part of a figure of speech. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:56, 19 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. Helpful changes completely re-created meaning of the article. Further deletion discussion should be reflective of current article content and would require additional AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another World Is Possible[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation that does not disambiguate any existing, similar sounding Wikipedia pages. Until I removed them with this edit, the closest to actual items it disambiguated were inline external links. It did formerly link to a similar sounding WP page (Do You Believe? Another World Is Possible), but that page was deleted last year per this AfD. I proded the article, but the prod was removed without explanation. Novaseminary (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:D. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as a "snow delete" when only two or three editors have commented. See WP:SNOW. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SNOW doesn't mention anything about the number of editors that need to comment. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not, but when you posted, you were the first editor to post a recommendation in this discussion. At that point, there was no "foregone conclusion" as mentioned in WP:SNOW. In addition WP:SNOW is actually discouraged for early closes, and since there is not unanimity in recommendations, the Snowball Clause cannot apply here. B.Wind (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to World Social Forum, as there is article that can be associated with the title. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean retarget to World Social Forum, or are you advocating the deletion of the redirect's history as well as a retargeting? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Armburst. We have a viable redirect target, so that seems to be the best option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure somebody would more likely be looking for the World Social Forum if they searched for this phrase than looking for any of the several works that actually use this title but which do not have articles (or had an article deleted). Of course, if multiple articles ever are created with this or a similar title, then this would be a proper disamb page. As things exist now, though, I would leave the article deleted/empty/not redirecting so that if any of the individual works are notable -- and it is not clear that any are -- a new article is more likely to be created. Redirecting a particular, not overly unique phrase because it is slogan seems too attenuated to me. It would seem to violate WP:R#DELETE #2 (it might also prevent people from finding notable authors of books with this title via search making it violate #1, too). Regardless, redirecting is certainly better than leaving this a disamb page. Novaseminary (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:RFD#KEEP also states that different people search in different ways. World Social Forum is a valid redirect target under the redirect guideline for deleting and keeping as many organizations are identified by their slogan. I have not made any recommendation here as I have not checked the Wikipedia search engine to see if a dab page can still be maintained (this is the gist of this discussion), if this page can be converted satisfactorily into a list article (I have my doubts, though), or if a redirect should be established as we have one valid blue link. I will not be recommending a deletion as the slogan cannot sustain a standalone article. B.Wind (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have cleaned up the disambiguation page by removing inappropriate entries and adding appropriate ones. I believe it is now useful and correct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But it still does not disambiguate any existing Wikipedia articles that have a title anything close to this page's title. Per WP:D, disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that refer readers to other Wikipedia articles." If the one book you created a redlink for is the only candidate for its own article, why not delete this disamb page and then, if that book ever does get an article, make this a redirect to it? We don't have redirects to nowhere. Is there any reason to have this disambguation page to nowhere? Novaseminary (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It disambiguates topics that are on Wikipedia that would have article titles that are ambiguous with the page's title. The disambiguation page does refer the reader to other articles (the blue links), not to nowhere. We need the disambiguation page so readers reasonably looking for the film series or the anarchist network can find them. The book is red linked because the article linked also red links it. That doesn't mean it's the primary topic, but if it is determined to be the primary topic, the dab page would be moved to Another World Is Possible (disambiguation) and a ((redirect)) hatnote could be added to the author's article. The MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION sections cover those types of entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as cleaned up by JHunterJ, who also saw the appropriate use of a "See also" section, a resource that is too often ignored when it comes to dab pages. B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHunterJ and his/her helpful changes. No longer seems to have a reason to delete. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:53, 27 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, the photo (uploaded by the article author) is a modern head photoshopped onto an old picture. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lyons[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX. No mention found in sources. Of the cited sources: Matthew Lyons is not mentioned in The Civil War by Bruce Catton, The Raven: A Biography of Sam Houston, nor in online searchable books of Red-Blooded Heroes, or Turmoil in New Mexico]. Although he was supposedly a Captain who died at the Battle of Glorieta Pass, Lyons is not found in the comprehensive list of casualties in this book. I wonder who that is in the photograph? — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:42, 19 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 nominator withdrawn, with no opinions favouring deletion. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable comic. Previously deleted via PROD and CSD, but I don't think WP:A7 quite applies here - it's not a company, person or web product. Nonetheless, I can't find even an assertion of notability here, let alone any evidence of it. A search for sources finds coverage in blogs and forums, but nothing by what we would consider a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the idea that the comic isn't noteworthy. Weapon Brown is noteworthy for the manner in which the characters are parodied. Unlike Robot Chicken, which simply uses the original designs of the characters in a manner designed to mock the source material, Weapon Brown takes the characters, modifies their designs, and places them in all new settings and situations, presenting a parody that re-imagines the Peanuts gang in a way that, so far as I can tell, has never been done before. While it may be an independent comic, and a one-shot compiled from the first four issues of Deep Fried, the new material created specifically for the book, such as new material within A Peanut Scorned and the wholly new back-up story A Weapon Brown Christmas, makes Weapon Brown noteworthy as a comic, even if it didn't become a nationally known independent comic.

When one considers that there are articles for films, TV shows, and comics which are little known outside of particular areas, and in some cases may be so obscure many viewers of wikipedia don't even know they exist until they stumble across the article, I would consider it a disservice to this comic to delete the article on it just because it isn't a nationally known work. Furthermore, although it may not be the best argument for it, a search on the Weapon Brown comic I did, did produce a listing for an article- or so I would assume- for an article produced in a college magazine for the SUNY buffalo campus called Generation, which, if the link is still accurate as it appears to have a listing of various articles from the same issue, should be here: www.subboard.com/generation/articles/104615028054665.asp, that details information about the comic. If it will help matters, I will gladly post the link on the article itself. There are two other articles that came up in related searches, found at the following links: www.whatisdeepfried.com/2010/01/19/who-let-you-in-here/ and www.experiencefestival.com/weapon_brown.

While neither goes into extensive details about the comic, the comic itself is mentioned in both, indicating that people did find it noteworthy. In addition, I have a copy of the comic myself (I was the one who provided the scan of the cover for the one-shot) which I purchased while out in Buffalo, and can, if necessary, make listings within the article of references to where in the one-shot that the events listed in the article can be found, for anyone else who may have a copy to verify.

Furthermore, the comic is listed as having been published by the Death Ray Graphics company, and has the address to the author's website within it, which was provided within the article itself after I located it in the issue. The website, the last time I'd seen it, had been offering copies of the various issues of Deep Fried and the Weapon Brown one-shot for sale. Granted, this was a few years ago when I had seen the site and purchased anything from it, but this still notes that the issues are available through a website that produces items for sale via mailing distribution, giving people the possibility of purchasing copies of the issues themselves if they so wish.

I apologize in advance for the lengthiness of this reply, but after having gone to the trouble of creating the article after finding the comic in my collection again after years of disuse, I feel it is a disservice to simply delete it for not being well known when there are just as many other items that are likely as equally unknown by people until they see articles for them on Wikipedia, and which they may not feel to be noteworthy either, but remain on the site.

Warwolf1 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Warwolf, the nominator is saying the comic isn't Wikipedia:Notable as per that link, which has a set of criteria. The easiest way to show something is notable is to show that reliable sources write about it. Generation Magazine, [35] which you list, is one. Others include Comics Bulletin [36][37], Reporter (Rochester Institute of Technology student newspaper)[38]. Less notable but still not nothing: Jazma Online[39]; Webcomic Overlook [40]. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good job finding sources, guys! OK, I can now accept that this comic is notable. Unless anyone else disagrees, consider this AFD withdrawn. Robofish (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're a good man, Robofish. :-). --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 20 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) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon James Collier[edit]

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

Promotional/possible autobigraphical article for an individual of questionable notability. Books appear to be largely self published through subject's own company. No significant coverage provided from independent or reliable third party sources - all but one of the provided references are primary sources. Deleted last month as CSD 12. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 11 April 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, 12 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his books are self published & if the rest of his work is comparable, he's not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can not find any indepth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:40, 19 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. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Greenbaum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as an article about a non-notable comic. This article does contain additional references, but nothing to meet WP:RS. Comedy Central, Comic's Comic, and NY Times information are blogs; most of the sources are only cursory mentions, quotes, etc., and a few of the links are press releases and/or dead links. Nothing to show that the subject has gained notability since the previous deletion discussion, and nothing to indicate that the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kinu - I believe the article meets WP:RS on at least four grounds. Firstly, he is clearly a contributor to MAD Magazine (there is a link showing that his work has been published in the magazine multiple times). Secondly, there is ample evidence that he was a co-host of the ball drop in Times Square, which is definitely a notable accomplishment. Thirdly, there are no print magazines dedicated to stand-up, so the best one can find are industry-standard comedy blogs, of which Comedy Central Insider (the official blog of the comedy channel, Comedy Central) and Comic'c Comic (an official part of Comedy.com) are both. Fourthly, as mentioned in the article and confirmed on his website, Harrison has performed in over 700 shows in 2009; clearly, he is a notable comic, having performed in that many shows. Strong keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by No1CurlingFan (talk • contribs) 10:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, many of the links are dead. For example, the one used as a citation for the MAD Magazine note is a 404 error. Likewise, I contest the assertion that there are no more reliable sources about comedy out there; for example, an article on comedycentral.com or in the New York Times arts section would be reliable, but blogs don't usually meet WP:RS. Also, WP:BIO doesn't necessary state that notability can be determined by number of shows; besides, if indeed he is notable because of that, then a WP:RS should report it first. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, saying "many of the links are dead" when only 2 out of 11 links are is an exaggeration. However, both of those links were right, just missing one letter (the MAD Magazine link ended in ".ht" instead of ".htm" and the Times Square press release ended in ".htm" instead of ".html"). I fixed both of these minor errors and now none of the links are dead. The MAD Contributor list reference (now with fixed link) makes a strong case to Greenbaum's notability. Furthermore, I added an additional citation - an interview in the print addition of amNew York (with link to a .pdf version) - in which the interviewer notes some of Greenbaum's accomplishments, including being a writer for MAD Magazine. Thus, Greenbaum's notability is verifiable on at least two accounts: the now-active link pointing to Greenbaum's contribution to MAD Magazine and the print interview in a major New York newspaper listing some of Greenbaum's accomplishments. Also, Comedy Central is a TV channel. It only publishes articles through the Comedy Central Insider, its official blog, so an article on Comedy Central Insider IS an "'article' on comedycentral.com (it would be like saying that an article on Hulu's official blog is not reliable, only an article on Hulu.com - that doesn't actually make sense).No1CurlingFan (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)No1CurlingFan[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, 12 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not casting a vote one way or another at this point, however I want to point out that one of the nominator's policy arguments is incorrect in my view. The policy on blogs as sources for BLPs(WP:BLPSPS) is not a blanket prohibition on anything rather referred to as a blog or formatted like a blog. Rather, it's restriction against self-published blogs. It's not that blogs are viewed as evil by their very nature. Rather, it's that the reliability of self-published blogs can be dubious because of the lack of editorial/institutional oversight. So by it's very nature, a blog maintained by the New York Times would be treated like a self-published blog. --JamesAM (talk) 02:30, 19 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Miceli[edit]

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

Unreferenced autobiography by User:Avenue5th. bender235 (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't know Italian, but he does appear quite a few times in the Italian press. [41]. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 April 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) 00:11, 12 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My Italian is limited, but the news search shows lots of references, which seem reliable and independent. The first one lists him getting a "Premio Internazionale Pugliesi nel Mondo" (which looks like International Prize for Global Apulians???). Still, his ?province? thinks he's notable. David V Houston (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable performer with various orchestras in multiple countries. I've added relevant sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:00, 19 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) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another non-notable mixtape in a series of non-notable mixtapes. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 already deleted for the same reasons. Fails WP:ALBUMS, no evidence of significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources. Also see WP:Articles for deletion/Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3.1 for the next in the series. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS: mixtape with no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 12 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NALBUMS: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no independent coverage in reliable sources, only coverage on blogs and promo/download sites. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:22, 19 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) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3.1[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3.1

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

Another non-notable mixtape in a series of non-notable mixtapes. Fails WP:ALBUMS. First 2 in the series were deleted (and recreated by this author, currently up for CSD). Never charted. No significant coverage by reliable third parties. Also see WP:Articles for deletion/Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3 Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 ghits and no indication anywhere that this is even as notable as the other non-notable mictapes. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 12 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NALBUMS: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". I can find no independent coverage in reliable sources, only coverage on blogs and promo/download sites. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:22, 19 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. Merge may be undertaken at editorial discretion (just see me so I may restore the history). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agalmics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An earlier version of this article actually failed at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agalmics in 2005. This article claims more and different citations and I thought it was more appropriate to re-nominate it here rather than speedy-tagging it as a repost, given the amount of time that has passed. However, I still don't find enough evidence to indicate that this neologism has been taken up in any significant way. The primary citation is apparently a self-published essay; none of the references to fictional use seem to mention the word and what's left is entirely references in blogs. My searches revealed nothing but blog entries. Aside from the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there just doesn't seem to be enough notability here to me to warrant an article. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's inappropriate to call something that was coined at least more than a decade ago a "neologism". As a contrasting example the "Tea party movement" has been around less than a year and it is not stricken with the "neologism" tag on wiki. There is sufficfient, and verifiable, use of "algamics" in fiction, academia, and culture to warrant an article. Locutus42 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nomenclature aside, evidence of that "verifiable use" is precisely what's being requested. Feel free to add those references directly to the article and mention them here. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does cite the specific uses in fiction and in various academic seminars (with references/links).... are you wanting something more?Locutus42 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locutus is mistaken in that this is not a neologism, in fact many words that are decades old can be considered neologism if they do not gain wide usage, be it in specialized form (as argot or jargon) or in the general language. The comparison with "Tea party movement" is fallacious: a neologism is always one word, never a phrase, in the case of "tea party movement" all three words are clearly defined and widely used words that put tofether instantly provide the average person with a descriptor. A neologism is usually a completely new word, usually using previous words, or words from other languages as a basis.

The links in the article for the most part are primary sources, completely innapropiate in establishing notability - that is wide usage of the term in the field of economics, or in the specific, the speculative field of post-scarcity economics. --Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't find any references via Google news, and not much in general on the web. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:31, 18 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Post scarcity - there is no sufficient use in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals to have enough information for its own article, however the concept does verifiably exist as related to post scarcity - and thats where it belongs is a shortened form. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as such if we cover a topic it should be in the context of explaining its usage: this goal is best done by merging into "post-scarcity". --Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third party sources about the subject. Read's like an old neologism that someone is trying to promote. Essentially it is a word, so before it could be considered here, it would have to be eligible for inclusion at Wiktionary. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion and get it listed there before trying here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 23 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) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture References on Causality – Variety of Scenes in Hell[edit]

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

Non-notable artist and artwork. JaGa^talk 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 17 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to meet WP:N. The article text does not inspire confidence they will or can be found: "Now the pictures of this painting are being republished on many Chinese web sites[1]. Mr. Jiang is providing these materials for free sharing as a contribution to morality teaching. English materials on this painting are still very few." Ty 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 20 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) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appletalker.net[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet entity. Does not meet WP:WEB requirements. Warrah (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:35, 18 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:47, 19 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. WP:NOTNEWS - nothing to truly merge, some information may be "useful", but not in this article about an email address (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag@whitehouse.gov[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This has received no media attention since August 2009. Prezbo (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTYELLOW. No enduring notability. — Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even a blip on the radar screen of events. Everyking (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge a innovative and interesting approach by a innovative and interesting administration. This should either be kept or the information moved elsewhere, either way it should not be erased. - Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 13:47, 13 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about an email address that was dead after a month? This is a case where it was in the news cycle for a week or two and then forgotten quickly and with no notability. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge slightly into Health care reform debate in the United States or a similar article, or delete. This e-mail address is not a significant topic in its own right, although it could be worth a mention in some article to which it is relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the daily news. JIP | Talk 06:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR. Edison (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Worth two lines in the health care reform article, and might just be searched for. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Non Dairy Creamer. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting, but does it pass NOTNEWS? — Rankiri (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it clearly passes NOTNEWS. The article does not go onto detail, but it is a complex story. Please see; Sen. Accuses White House of Creating "Enemies List", Who’s Behind the Internet Snitch Brigade?, and Target of White House 'disinformation' attacks responds demonstrate some of the complexity of the story. In addition, this is NOTNEWS as it is now a part of political history to be reflected upon. Please see the 2010 text A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts for an example. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree. These articles (one of them is a blog entry) were published immediately (August 4-7, 2009) after the White House's announcement. They essentially discuss the same story (the White House mentioning the email address in its blog and Sen. John Cornyn consequently accusing Pres. Obama of "monitoring American citizens' speech") and are hardly evidential of enduring notability of the subject. The book's coverage seems insignificant. — Rankiri (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very harsh oversimplification of the narrative. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Darkwind (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The nominator also stated that there has been "no media attention since August 2009." This is not correct. As one of the sources I provided above shows; this story continues to be discussed in 2010. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically correct. I can find a few columns and blog posts from September 2009[42] and one column from January 2010[43], but basically the media stopped paying attention to this in August 2009. All of the articles you linked to are from August 2009. You also found a 2010 book that mentions this topic on three pages, but that's the only result for it on google books.Prezbo (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that that book was published in January 2010, which means the writer had to submit a final manuscript some time before that; the book doesn't appear to mention any events that happened after September 2009.Prezbo (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GRuban. Not notable enough for its own article, but nonetheless worthy of a mention in a relevant article. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:39, 27 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) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Dealers Manual[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Most Ghits are due to the existence of a bittorrent download. Author does have some marginal fame. Pichpich (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto. No evidence that this meets the books notability guideline. If it's from Paladin Press, odds are it's a fringe publication with little mainstream interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 13 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 02:46, 19 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 The Far Side. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The farside[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable youth group. Multiple external links are given in the article, but none of these appear to meet the WP:CORP criteria: they all appear to be mere mentions in passing, directory entries, or links to topics related to, but not mentioning, this specific group. The Anome (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Revert - I found no press coverage. Until March 2010 the page was a redirect to The Far Side comic strip. Can that survive the AfD somehow? John of Reading (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly can. -- The Anome (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 13 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted and redirect to The Far Side. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:22, 19 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. There is a rough consensus to delete. The redirect !votes made a reasonable argument, but I think that it was refuted sufficiently to justify this result. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Hooten[edit]

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

This individual seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT and does not seem to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MILPEOPLE. This seems similar to several other recent AfDs (here, here, and here) of people failing ONEEVENT for the same event. Novaseminary (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Novaseminary (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination and per the precedent cited, I don't feel these two articles satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE or WP:GNG. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across another article that I think should be deleted for the same reason as the two above, so I am also nominating the following:

Novaseminary (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and redirect. Per nome, they don't have sufficient notability outside of the ONEEVENT to warrant an article, but they have recieved enough independant coverage to warrant more than just a passing mention in the article on the battle. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:39, 15 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated beyond the OneEvent. N2e (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and redirect. Alcarillo (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the desire to merge and redirect these three articles instead of deleting them. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of participants in this battle, though. It would be haphazard at best to redirect some the players in this battle and impossible to name and redirect all of them. And dozens (if not hundreds) of participants received coverage in the books written about the event. If a given person's participation was significant enough to cause them to be mentioned by name in the article, searches will bring up the article without the redirects. If they are not, then I don't see why a redirect would be useful or where we would draw the line. Novaseminary (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't tell you how many of these I've been in lately. Rin tin tin (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:BIO1E case. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 27 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) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eivan "Ricco" Bj[edit]

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

Has apparently produced one track on one album, but there are no reliable sources provided and I can't find any, other than listings of his name in the track listings, and even then, none of the sources is a reliable source. Woogee (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 13 April 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, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, there are insufficient sources to adequately verify that the subject is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any Reference. N2e (talk) 02:43, 19 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.