< 3 April	5 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 Invalid nomination. Relisted at CfD. Mhiji 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category for only one article. Categories take into the article. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underpilot[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources and Google searches (web and news) don't return any results; absolutely nothing regarding the formation of this band. Possible hoax. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I listen to modern rock radio religiously, and would have heard of this band by now if it actually existed. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment Just because you haven't heard them on the radio doesn't mean they don't exist. It's just that they are not notable. But searching Google doesn't turn up any results aside from Wikipedia. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this band had been formed by the people this article claims are the bands members, the radio stations would have made a big deal about it. That this hasn't happened is, IMO, a very strong indication that the band doesn't exist. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not every rock radio station talk about everything. Saying "every" radio station is a bit generalistic. By saying that, you are saying everything in music has to be mentioned. That's not the way things work. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not trying to say "I haven't heard about this band on the radio, therefore it's not notable", I'm saying "The fact that I haven't heard about this band on the radio is a good indication that they don't exist". As the article claims that this is a supergroup (with Scott Weiland as a member), I would argue that a lack of discussion by radio stations is a very good indication that this article is a hoax. Furthermore, I would not argue that every band that is not discussed on the radio is unworthy of inclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, you are being generalistic. There are a great many bands that don't get mentioned on the radio and are quite notable. There are a great many bands who do get mentioned on the radio and are not that notable. Just because they don't get mentioned doesn't mean anything. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}

I think the consensus is comment, not delete : D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would definitely agree with that, but I think your missing my point in this particular case, which is, If a new band had formed, with Scott Weiland as a member, it would almost certainly have been discussed by most rock stations, as Mr. Weiland is such a high profile figure in rock music. I'm not using this argument to address notability, I'm using it to asses the likelihood that the article is a hoax. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So you are saying that a band or artist needs to be mentioned on the radio to exist. There are many bands that never get mentioned on the radio and very much exist. You are saying that bands or artists can't be non-radio friendly. That is just asinine. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI did not say that at all, and yes this is getting asinine. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, no indication of notability in the article, and at least one "listener" says no, when no, and no references to dispute that, despite a lot of ink spilled. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shadowjams....--Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete No evidence of notability presented for individual as an actress so comes down to WP:1E one event and no real sources to indicate notability presented for this event. Consensus view appears to be delete. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marian McGuire[edit]

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

It's old news, but it's still just news. Subject does not appear to have any notability beyond having filed this lawsuit. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is notable for only one event. Create an article about the event instead. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to the name of the court case or Marian McGuire privacy case Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At issue here is not whether McGuire is noted for a single event. Instead, it is the deceptiveness of the manner her photos were used. She posed for artistic reasons and yet her photos were exploited for commercial purposes . The article has legal ramifications which are pertinent today, for artist models and anyone who is victimized by agencies, etc., which use their images without discretion. The article may be renamed but its pertinence is evident.--Robert (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: If the incident had legal ramifications then it would obviously be notable, but in the absence of sources supporting this, it remains only your interpretation. The article doesn't even support that it went to trial, let alone influenced anyone. The act of a model suing a company by itself is non-notable and perusing the G-news items doesn't reveal any mention of this beyond the year it happened. If the incident was notable/influential, surely it would be mentioned beyond 1939 (in fact, it happened in April of that year, but the latest mention of it appears to be only the 1st of that May), but that does not appear to be the case from what I found. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing, from various searches, on free, public databases, about this lawsuit. Does anyone have a WestLaw, Lexis or Pacific reports citation? Bearian (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked up Marian McGuire on IMDb, hoping to find evidence that she was notable as a film actor. There are listings here for some female actors with similar names who were active in the early 1940s, but no exact match. I can't tell whether this is the same person as any of the IMDB hits. A Google search for "Marian McGuire" site:variety.com doesn't turn anything up. It is possible that she brought the lawsuit under her birth name and any records of her film performances use a different stage name.In short, I can't find evidence that this person was notable as an actor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: No this is not the same Marian McGuire as in the

the IMDB listing. She was likely a model/actress

Of little importance. It's the issue which is pertinent.

No the fact that it was not reported over

And over does not diminish it's significance.

McGuire may have settled out of court without

News reportage. The issue is still important

To legal students and to gender discrimination

As well as photographic rights. If you persist

In discrediting it's merit, it's your right.

Yet it is valid and multifaceted in its impact.

It is a diamond in the rust so to speak. -- Robertg9

Delete - There is no indication that the lawsuit was some sort of legal landmark, but I'm not a lawyer. Otherwise, this is just a news story. - Whpq (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard case of WP:ONEEVENT. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 12 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. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robson Rocha Costa[edit]

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

This Brazilian futsal player recently died in a tragic freak accident. While this is horrifying and sad, and while it did inspire some coverage in the news (e.g. this), Wikipedia is not a memorial. Because Costa did not meet WP:ATHLETE (the aforementioned source described him as a "local player"), I recommend deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:NOT, and probably a number of other guidelines. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good old-fashioned violation of WP:BDP1E. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my sincere condolences to his family and friends, but unfortunately he is not notable enough for Wikipedia, and clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of teams in The 39 Clues. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Kabra[edit]

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

per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Fictional character with no indication of why a dedicated article is required. Could be adequately covered in the article on the book series. Contested redirect. RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough content to warrant a stand-alone article. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Merge - I say we create a List of 39 Clues characters and have all of the characters covered there. The same applies for Amy Cahill, Grace Cahill, and Ian Kabra. Airplaneman ✈ 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike other characters listed in the 39 Clues article, Natalie Kabra is a significant character. If there is no individual article, there should be an article for each team. --mono 01:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Airplaneman- Amy Cahill is a protagonist in the series.--mono 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Derivative articles, "articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail". This can be adequately covered in the main article. There is nothing in this 2 sentence article that indicates that it warrants its own article. The fact that she is a protagonist does not gauntness notability. The only references provided are to tbe book series itself and not to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. There is nothing here that indicates that a dedicated article is necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 different characters, 2 different discussions.--mono 01:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into one big list. As a supporting character, does not warrant her own article. If she's "significant", at least put that in the article! fetchcomms☛ 01:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into a new article concerning the Kabra family. -Mktsay123 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into List of teams in The 39 Clues for now at least. The teams article is nowhere near requiring a split since it was just split from the main article itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 10 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. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Docpath[edit]

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

Article about a company. Apart from having some bold text highlighting some words and expressions in a quite promotional way (which is easy to solve), the article fails to assert notability. PROD was added, but removed by another user. A Google search returned several mentions but very few pages on the subject. There is a portuguese-language link from a not-so-well-known website with information about the company making a deal or something with InfoPrint Solutions Company, but I'm unsure if that's enough to assert the notability of the subject, so I though bringing the article to AfD would be helpful. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication of notability, but I do see a great deal of promotional material. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a non-notable company that obviously fails WP:NOTABILITY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Radio and Television[edit]

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

See Talk:Myanmar_Radio_and_Television#Some_research. IP editor repeatedly changed a number of articles about Myanmar TV stations to claim they were Thai, with no sources. There is lots of evidence for the existence of the Myanmar channels, but no evidence other than one blog entry to support the existence of Midnight Radio and Television, and nothing at all that I can find to support the existence of any Thai channels called MRTV, MRTV-3, or MRTV-4. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as a hoax, unless reliable sources are provided that the subject actually exists. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for deletion. This was created without any sources or references. The creator continues to vandalize the Myanmar Radio and Television article. The sole reference in the Wiki page points to a post on some Thai message board, definitely not a credible source. I can't find anything on Google except for the Wiki article. I happen to think it's a hoax as well. The user at that IP was modifying some of the facts in the Myanmar Radio and Television article for days without any citations before he/she moved the entire article to Midnight Radio and Television. (He's done the same to Myanmar International article as well. He's made so many little changes under the radar. Just saw in that article that he's changed the channel names to MTV from MRTV.) Hybernator (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Thorns I Lay[edit]

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

notability? even band website is dead Eqbj-mqas (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band website being dead is not in itself evidence that the band is not notable. If the band was notable once, then it is notable always. I do not recognize the record labels listed at http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0ifwxqtkldfe~T2 as having released the band's recordings. If at least two albums were released on major labels or notable independent ones, then the band passes notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Th band has multiple releases on the notable Holy Records. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band released SIX albums on notable labels including Holy Records. They are curently signed on Sleaszy Rider Records. Plus they are mentionned as a notable gothic metal band in a published book: the Stephan Legay's book Carnets Noirs in the "metal gothique" chapter" describing major and important acts of the scene including Paradise Lost, Moonspell, Theatre of Tragedy. (Stéphane Leguay, "Métal Gothique" in Carnets Noirs, éditions E-dite, 3e édition, 2003-2006, ISBN 2-84608-176-X p.225). The french "Hard Rock magazine" (september 2000 issue# 60 on p.3) includes a presentation of this band. (Oh, in case someone doubted what I'm saying I sure can provide scans without any problems). And of course sites like Allmusic and Gary Sharpe Young's Musicmight list this band and their biography on their website. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The label itself is notable. The label gives notability to bands only if it has a roster of performers, many of which are notable. Not counting notability through this label, not many of their bands are notable. Pvfi (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability requirements. see WP:BAND Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Crofts[edit]

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

No assertion of individual notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician; nothing of encyclopedic nature to be found. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no decent references. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:14, 10 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 per G3 by Graeme Bartlett. Smashville^talk 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never Back Down 2[edit]

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

Lack of sources for a film that is not in development FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. I could find no sources for even the idea of the movie, and all the links in the article are to the original Never Back Down. (The creator also has a history of creating hoax articles.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Delete concur with above, already released in October 2010? I thought we just started April. fetchcomms☛ 21:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted all the signs of hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Fashion Day[edit]

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

prod removed; no claim to notability and minimal google hits. . . Rcawsey (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nine Google hits, all Twitter, Facebook, blogs and Wikipedia. Even the first external link leads to a blog. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the idea has not seemed to have spread much beyond the conceiving organization. It has received little mention in any sources not directly tied to it. It may yet become notable (it looks like it was just announced two weeks ago), but right now it is not. Icewedge (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be given time to be improved. As Icewedge mentioned it may yet become notable and its principles appear to have some merit. Bream1 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though set for March 21, 2010, it attracted no attention on that day nor in the two weeks beforehand. Worth a mention, perhaps, in the MOCA article. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps for now the article content can be inserted in the Moca Asia article. Bream1 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Requesting courtesy of time to substantiate article in coming weeks. KWongtawan (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The festival day is a great idea and obviously has universal appeal. Kirovsky (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Kirovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- That the festival is a great idea doesn't make it worthy for inclusion. And KWongtawan, a subject should have an article after it becomes notable, not before. Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This holiday does not seem to be old enough to have gained notability. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ to allow time to gather more information. It would be worth revisiting this article in 6 months to see its progress.Kirovsky (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Please don't "vote" more than once. There's no limit to the number of comments that we can make in a discussion, but after a person has labelled their first comment "keep" or "delete", everything they say afterward is labelled "comment". No harm done, and it's a mistake that all of us have made at one time, but it makes it easier for the administrator to see how many different people have registered an opinion. Thank you. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kirovsky and KWongtawan. Richter100 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Worth a mention in the MoCA article, but beyond that topic, the day has no apparent significance. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having the potential to be notable in the future does not itself qualify as notability, nor does being "a great idea" or being subjectively deemed by some to have "universal appeal."Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Presence in Hudson County, New Jersey[edit]

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

Reason Djflem (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Reason: While the subject may be of merit, the article itself makes unverified claims, is incorrect, is casually written, and cites not one reference. The original author has not done any work on the piece to clarify these issues since its publication in December.Djflem (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination does not include any reasons. You may want to review the criticisms posted at Talk:Latino Presence in Hudson County, New Jersey. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's reasons are arguments for cleanup rather than deletion. Erroneous material can be removed without deleting the entire article. Demographic change is a notable concept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not really present any good reasons for deleting this article. There are plenty of reasons to keep and improve the article to which I say: So fix it. This is certainly a valid topic for an article, as the nominator himself admits. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:24, 10 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. JForget 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin Lars[edit]

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

Delete, utterly non-notable unpublished fanfiction. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a non-notable character in unpublished (and likely unpublishable) fanfic, no references in reliable third-party sources, fails any possible guideline for inclusion. - Dravecky (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable and utterly non notable. Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wilipedia is not the place to post info on your fanfic character. Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the Spirit Trilogy has been deleted via PROD. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Bagwell[edit]

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he seems to fail WP:ATHLETE as I can't find evidence that he ever stepped onto a professional field of play, and as to WP:GNG he has no more coverage than your typical above-average Div II player. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-open. No sources cited. Any questions?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that no evidence has been presented that he meets WP:ATHLETE nor separately WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:37, 10 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. JForget 01:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Ancient Evil[edit]

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

Delete, utterly non-notable unpublished fanfiction. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable unpublished (and almost certainly unpublishable) fanfic, zero coverage in reliable third-party sources, not eligible for inclusion under any guideline I can think of. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. I prodded the article (and two related ones). Unverifiable, and completely not notable. Fram (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post info on your fanfic. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narcoleptic Aluminum Powerbook Syndrome[edit]

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

Delete For so many reasons. Neologism. Sourced only by anonymous forums and personal blogs. Not notable. Not encyclopedic. Etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It can not be verified that the problem is widespread. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting and good to know, but not encyclopedic. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Immigration to Canada. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business immigration canada[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#MANUAL; Wikipedia is not a place for play-by-plays of immigration. In any case, I fail to see the use of having an independent article on business immigration. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge to Immigration to Canada. Immigration to Canada, like immigration to the United States, is a complicated and complex issue, and there has been much criticism of the Canadian immigration system. That having been said, I think that the material in this article could appropriately be added to Immigration to Canada. See this and this for coverage in reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eastmain. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Immigration to Canada. The Business Immigration Program is already mentioned in the target and the sourced parts of this article can be merged there, minus the hype! Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:09, 10 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Parsons[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, failing wikipedia policy at WP:BAND. The only "independent" references are from a Christian website which rather bizarrely describes itself as having a "mandate is to be strong and piercing into situations in our locality of North Staffordshire" - scarcely the kind of scope envisaged at WP:RS - and promotional material on an internet radio service based in the same town of Stoke-on-Trent. andy (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from his personal website, the sources are United Christian Broadcasters and Cross Rhythms, both of which seem to fall short of the requirements for independent sources. Web search doesn't turn up anything interesting, and news search nothing at all. All in all, he fails WP:MUSICBIO. Favonian (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andy you are incorrect in your statements about independent references. Cross Rhythms is a completely independent website that reviews gospel music from around the world and has 4 Radio Stations in Stoke, Coventry, Plymouth and Teeside. You only partially quoted Cross Rhythms "vision" above, leaving out the words Nationally and Globally. If you want an independent authority on christian/gospel music in the United Kingdom, you will struggle to find any more influential than Cross Rhythms. United Christian Broadcasters broadcasts across Europe on Satellite and DAB digital radio and operates 5 radio stations. You are wrong to call them an "internet radio service". The fact that both independent sources are based in Stoke-On -Trent is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Particularly as Steve Parsons is from Cornwall and resides in Cheshire. Within the scope of Christian Music in the UK, Steve Parsons is a notable musician and is worthy of inclusion here. PatStrumer (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's see some reliable sources please. It doesn't look like the two sources you quote can be seen as properly independent either of the subject of the article or indeed of each other - they both originate from the same town, are in the same genre and work in partnership with each other. andy (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been written using reliable sources. In terms of the sources being independent of the subject of the article I quote independent which states "for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release." You are basing your argument for deletion on the opinion that Cross Rhythms and UCB are not reliable sources and I do not agree with you on this. Once again I contend that the fact that 2 sources originate from the same town is irrelevant, even if they do "work in partnership" at times. They are still independent organisations, United Christian Broadcasters being "the largest Christian Media Company in the UK." PatStrumer (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you address the substantive issue, namely the notability of this person according to wikipedia's requirements. andy (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article meets Wikipedia's requirements on the issue of notability. PatStrumer (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Favonian about the lack of independent references. I've just waded into Google, but not found anything much. Admittedly, there is a plethora of Steve Parsonses and I'm very hungry... Also, that a 'radio' station plays something doesn't necessarily confer notability - especially in specialist musics. If he got played on Radio 1, maybe. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family2.0[edit]

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

This article's lead suggests two possible meanings. A google search for the term shows relatively low adoption by non-bloggers, in which circumstance it refers to various sites which focus on family development and such (child-rearing sites for new moms, family counseling forums, etc.) The article, by contrast, implies this term refers to a growing online genealogy community, and/or a neologism. It further comprises a table of purportedly notable sites, without foundation, or substantiation, and whose selective nature represents WP:OR/SYNTH issues. ThuranX (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V verifiability test - there is nothing to confirm that the concept actually exists or is used as defined here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article itself is a bit vague. Doesn't appear particularly notable or to be in common usage, and would probably fail WP:NEO, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

parts with List of genealogy databases or List of genealogy portals if needed and redirect/delete page. Term not used as far as I can see.. gioto (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep

The comparison table is now moved into List of genealogy databases. A google search on geneaology+"family 2.0" gives 1320 hits. However, in google books and google scholar similar searches (e.g. on "family tree"+"family 2.0" only gives about 5 real hits. Mange01 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Microprojects in Vietnam[edit]

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

an unreferenced article that makes lot of claims but I can't find third party references to back it up. fails WP:ORG. one hit in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. Promotional article created by single-purpose account that hasn't edited in over a year. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Judging by the abcense of decient Google hits, this fails WP:CORP. Author has a pretty obvious conflict of interest going on. Basically unreferenced, unless you count the ~~links~~ link to its website, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Silk[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability of the subject. Mentions of the magazine in Google Books seem rather trivial. EuroPride (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the magazine never got a truly wide circulation, it set some standards for erotic literature (real literature, not a euphemism), along with the "best american erotica" series of books. ive added the book anthologies derived from the mag, all of which were published by major trade publishers. the authors can all be shown to have published in this magazine, as the mags website lists all the issues contents. i can tell you this was a classy magazine, with excellent production values for a smaller publication. of course, as with many notable books and magazines, third party mentions are often hard to find online, except for the big guns. publishers weekly will have reviewed many of the books, and local bookstores will have written about them. the magazine and the editor are highly notable in the san francisco bay area, where a renaissance of such types of writing has flourished for a couple of decades.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are some newspaper articles that I could find in just a couple of minutes: [2][3][4][5][6]. Each of those has this publication as its main subject, and there are plenty more such sources availiable here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes, NAC Umbralcorax (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remidus E. Kissassi[edit]

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

I can find no trace of this person in google (other than wikipedia) or google news. I would expect to find a mention somewhere if he's part of the pan-African parliament. Creator has stated here that he doesn't expect there to be any sources. Given the potentially comedic surname, I assume and very much hope this isn't a hoax; the creator is a long-term contributor here. At any rate, this appears to be unverifiable unless someone can find something to back up his existence. Beloved Freak 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, see this official African Union document. (p.5) &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adorno found it before I did. I've gone ahead and added the link to the article. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - thanks! Adorno does indeed rock! --BelovedFreak 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And apologies to Mr. Kissassi for questioning the validity of his surname!--Beloved Freak 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netwatan[edit]

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

Looking through a google search for Netwatan, I can definitely verify that Netwatan exists. That is all I have been able to do, I can not establish that there is anything notable about this social network. As far as I can tell no reliable sources have ever discussed it. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia notability guidelines. &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely even asserts importance. Can see no significant coverage in reliable sources and nothing that meets WP:WEB guideline.--Beloved Freak 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to creatine. JForget 01:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dicreatine Malate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dicreatine Malate (2nd nomination)

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

Promotional article. Principal claims are unsourced. Note: The first deletion discussion for this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L-Arginine Malate where multiple articles were nominated. Result was "Each article should be judged on its own merit". ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe this chemical is notable - it was quoted in a US patent as an example of this type of dietry supplement. See this. &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between this chemical compound and creatine itself are not important in the context of effects on people because the active ingredient is the same regardless of salt form. Any notable information about this specific salt can be mentioned at the article for creatine, if necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with this suggestion. &dorno rocks. (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to creatine Trivial salt of creatine; article is full of bad chemistry. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to creatine per Rifleman 82 – claims in US7129273 patent are dubious and cannot be considered a reliable source. Boghog (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Redirect as long as the bad chemistry Rifleman mentioned is lost in the process. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Boghog (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to creatine per Rifleman 82. Anything useful can be merged. — Scientizzle 14:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer that the promotional and inaccurate information be deleted. A redirect can be created afterwards. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia's gentlemen's clubs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Australia's gentlemen's clubs

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

Contested PROD - This is a list of mainly non-notable "clubs" - fails WP:V as the majority are un-sourced. Also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's cruft. The best that could be done is that the non notable clubs are deleted and a prose article made from those that already have a page. I can't see anybody wanting to do that. Certainly not me. Szzuk (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR. the definition of "gentleman's club" is a loaded term anyway. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Padrino (software)[edit]

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

Unremarkable software, Google search returns only false positive and not the software. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability hasn't been demonstrated. Its a new article so the author could userfy it and add relevant cites. If they exist (probably they don't). Szzuk (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article. I would argue that a simple search for 'Padrino Framework' shows many results on Google for our framework. We have an article published about the framework on RubyInside, a notable ruby news site (http://www.rubyinside.com/padrino-sinatra-webapp-framework-3198.html/comment-page-1#comment-41456). What do I have to do to prevent this from being deleted? I am referring to the 'Padrino_Framework' page specifically. The other page at (software) I agree can be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesquena (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have searched for "Padrino Framework" on Google, and while there are ghits, they are mostly only sites that simply mention them and the article has a page in them with information that likely isn't from a NPOV. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Padrino is a legitimate web framework but was only just announced. We have 300 followers on Github (http://github.com/padrino/padrino-framework) and if you search twitter for "Padrino Framework" there has been a fair amount of buzz. I am not sure the rules for having a page but I would argue we have enough results on Google and Twitter that it isn't outrageous for us to have a page. Please explain to me if I have simply misunderstood the rules or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.132.58 (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if the article's subject does have gHits, there is not enough independent coverage out there for this program. The only independent coverage seems to be mere pages on article websites. Even if those are reliable and can be on external links, those do not qualify as sources. And even if there is independent coverage, I doubt if this framework is notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Nesquena and 24.43.132.58, see the article on notability for rules on notability--twittering and web buzz aren't sufficient, what you need are reviews from reliable and verifiable sources. Think of these terms as class definitions. Also, please be aware that you apparently have a conflict of interest. If you have questions about all of this, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rajkumarbarathi[edit]

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Author removed prod, original prod said "No references to establish notability". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references to establish notability, google news search does not help. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact I think it should really be a speedy delete. There is no credible claim of importance. "The music composer of the year from the APAC" might at a glance look like a claim of significance, but what is "the APAC"? A Google search for APAC gives as its first hit APAC Packaging Ltd Gifts and Sundries, Trade only website, as its second APAC - Play Therapy Training Programme, as its third the Wikipedia article for Asia-Pacific, as its fourth the Wikipedia article for a town in Uganda called "Apac", and so it goes on. Nowhere do I find anything that could be the "APAC" referred to in this article, so if it is true it does not look very notable. A Google search for Rajkumarbarathi APAC gives this Wikipedia article and nothing else. Various other searches for Rajkumarbarathi plus other selected relevant words (eg Rajkumarbarathi Trichy or Rajkumarbarathi Tiruchirapalli) also produce nothing but this Wikipedia article. The article looks to me like a hoax, and if it isn't then it is about a totally non-notable subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akhzivland[edit]

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

Nonsense, self-described non-existent and unrecognized country. Gimmick for vacation resort. Shuki (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Shuki (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silly, perhaps. Nonsense, no. Notable enough to be referred to in websites, news, books. Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable as any other micronation. This article needs expansion, not deletion. Unrecognized countries such as Somaliland, Venda, Sealand, and Northern Cyprus have Wikipedia articles. While the Israeli Ministry of Tourism now promotes Akhzivland as a tourist attraction, its history indicates that it didn't originate as one (this is repeated in several sources). B.Wind (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli Ministry of Tourism makes an off hand remark and does not promote it. In fact, the self-described king has been to court many years. He does not issue passports, or stamp those of visitors. --Shuki (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unique within micronations - in fact, the last sentence is true of most of them. The citations of the micronation's "existence" are there (thus meeting WP:V, WP:RS, and even WP:CORP). B.Wind (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this thing was never a nation, and he contradicts himself: "Avivi declared the creation of the State of Akhzivland with himself as president. “This way I can stay in Israel, but in my own country," [7] So if he was in Israel how was it a separate nation? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be conflating micronations with microstates - see List of micronations for explanation in its lede. B.Wind (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles about it and it has its own entry in the book Micronations. It doesn't have to be logical, just notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not doubting that this place exists, but rather that it does not warrant a separate article. Perhaps, it should be in a list of self-proclaimed localities or an article about the phenomenon of self-proclaimed states. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of micronations perhaps? Note. I've added another source that I hope will help quell the ongoing WP:Edit war between nom and another editor. Clearly the additional source (from an Australian newspaper/web site) bolsters the argument that the entity meets WP:CORP. There are several other worthwhile sources, like this one from Google Books that someone can use to expand this two sentence "stub." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a stub that seems expandable. Dew Kane (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as a micronation. The claim that there are any micronations which aren't gimmicks is contentious. &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my assertion and two additional sources above. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that source does not prove at all the the Israeli Ministry of Tourism is promoting the site. Their is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, which until a source can be verified is false. The claims in this article fails WP:V. The source that is brought in fact relays information that the State of Israel has prosecuted the owner of the resort a few times over many years. Claiming that the Ministry of Tourism promotes this micronation is a lie. Removing this information from the article is not edit warring. This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied, directly supporting any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is merely a seaside resort with a colourful owner. If --Shuki (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ministry owns the copyright and the www.goisrael.com site itself (the bottom of each page of the site shows "Copyright © Israel
Ministry of Tourism - The State of Israel. All rights reserved 2005". So you have a site owned by the State of Israel, whose Ministry of Tourism owns the copyright - this is, by Wikipedia's definition of WP:RS is a reliable site. Assuming the contrary almost borders on nonsense, saying that the site owned and copywritten by the State (and thus has editorial control by the State), is not part of the State. I have noticed that Shuki has not offered one reliable citation refuting this except his claims that it is "a lie." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. the rest per dew kane and especially b.wind. Outback the koala (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelos Tsiaklis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CSD G4 rejected, because administrator got confused between FC United of Manchester and Manchester United. Fails the same as what he did in the previous AfD (now playing at a lower level too). He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of siginificant media coverage past the odd WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo^[online] 08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In terms of notability, not much has changed since last July. He still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. In my opinion, this is a clear G4 speedy deletion, but since that's all ready been tried and rejected, a slower deletion is perefectly acceptable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the inclusion criterion for athletes or the primary inclusion criterion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully-pro league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No significant third-party coverage fails the wider scope of WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the so-called "admin" who declined the G4 speedy on this one, and I would like to thank the nom for pointing out my mistake. However, the fact I will probably not be the only one making that mistake is the only thing that prevented me from reinserting the G4 tag I removed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. However, as the other so-called "admin" who removed the speedy tag, I'd point out that the db-repost tag was in fact invalid because the article included a credible enough claim of significance (a lower standard than notability) relating to events postdating the initial AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has never kicked a ball in a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to remind the above that Tsiaklis is a footballer, and WikiProject Football's notability criteria is widely held as supplementary to WP:ATHLETE's criteria when describing footballers. Tsiaklis passes two of WP:FOOTYN's notability criteria: he has played a game (albeit a single game) for a fully professional club at a national level (the Conference National is the lowest level of national football in England, but it is still a national level league, hence the name) and he has played a competitive game between two fully professional clubs - Wrexham A.F.C. and Cambridge United F.C.. Thus, Tsiaklis meets the criteria to be kept. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATH. --Carioca (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Opting for AFD was a good idea, though I agree with Naru's assessment. This was in CSD territory, and Google searches certainly didn't turn up anything to the contrary. Jamie S93^❤ 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trade in console[edit]

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

This is a band with no published sources. I was about to go for the speedy deletion, but I was hesitant to do so because of the last sentence. Even though they recorded this track, is it notable enough to escape deletion? Minima c (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I myself am Filipino but I have never heard of this band and from the looks of it, it seems to be so non-notable that even here no one knows it. Also, I have tagged it as A7 as non-notable band. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Namma Metro. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Line (Namma Metro)[edit]

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

A directory entry (WP:WINAD) sourced form one random website of unknown reliability that doesn't actually use the name "purple line" as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sister Green Line (Namma Metro) must be discussed here, in one package. May I also point at the existence of Template:BMR Green Line. NVO (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Green and Purple lines. BMRC itself calls the line The East-West corridor [8]. It is not operational yet (thus no established popular name). There are plenty of independent sources on the system itself (like Jane's which uses BMRC naming convention). Both Purple and Green articles may be deleted for now, they add nothing to info in Namma Metro. P.S. Reliability of data collected by Robert Schwandl may be discussed separately; but in this case there's nothing to discuss: he simply reproduced the BMRC statement. Assuming good faith, I regard your view of Rob as "unknown" and "random" as a belated April 1 joke. NVO (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Namma Metro until some evidence of the actual lines are available. ----DanTD (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until a firm naming convention for the lines is established. This applies to Purple Line (Namma Metro), Green Line (Namma Metro) and the already linked to in the article Line 1, Bangalore Metro redundancy, which violates every disambiguation rule in its title.oknazevad (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not participating in the debate earlier. Here is a reference where the BMRCL MD N Sivasailam talks about names of the two lines in the INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS section.[9] A link to the webpage one of the contractor for the UG section of NM.[10] --Johnxxx9 (talk) 05:53, 11 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. JForget 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos canteri[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, contested prod. Unable to find reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. Appears to be written by the subject of the article. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article. Eeekster (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS. Probably vanity article. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salem comic[edit]

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

Non-notable product-placement comic strip. I cannot find any reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable with no reliable sources. Also, article fails to comply with WP:MOS.--mono 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local comic strip, which will be difficult to verify with reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an Italian version of this [11] which, you'd hope, would have better local sources, but is just as bad as this one. Fails WP:N and more fundamentally WP:V. Best bet is to focus on improving the Italian article and then if/when it seems more solid drop a note in WT:CMC and someone will be able to give more feedback on whether it'd be worth bringing over here. At the moment the answer is no. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agga Maha Pandita[edit]

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

Article about a type of title with no references and lacking context. I cannot find any reliable sources about the history of the title. Clubmarx (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--mono 06:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article does not comply with WP:MOS.--mono 06:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment from that nomination for deleteAgga Maha Pandita

Strong KeepThere is non-sense that no references or lacking context about this famous Title if without properly search it for exist.

This is under knowledge of Asian and Buddhism affairs about this famous Monk's Title so accusing for delete nomination is void.

Also just because someone can't find the knowledge, it doesn't mean to that thing doesn't real exist in the world and since we will be sharing humans knowledgeable in wiki here to get to know each other knowledge.

Reshaped also had been done so no need to delete for just to reshape again and since as you know editing properly by staff or someone can do proper reshaping without deleting.

Note: The Article absolute comply with WP:MOS. Not reasonable enough to delete the article without necessary to disturb contribute and effort work.

Add1: now article had been reshaped to be better looking again and request the staff that NOT TO DELETE the article and that's the reliable source and Title reward that really exist in the world.

Conclusion: Article had met under Guidelines of Wiki project and had been useful tips for learners and researcher so it should keep and can get further update from contributors.

The page will now continue to keep grow when after other Buddhist monks or knowledgeable persons who related to this get involved in this contributing. Thanks for keeping and not deleting, Thanks to user &dorno rocks. and userMmlwin, greatly appreciated Myo007 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myo007 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral - the current article would need a lot of reshaping, but I think the title meets notability guidelines see: here, here (scholarly publication) and here &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article as it is about the top religious title in Myanmar being awarded to the top Buddhist Monks in Myanmar as well as other countries where Theravada Buddhism is followed.

The article needs to be edited, I agree. Deleting would not serve the objective of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlwin (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation of a coherent replacement. The article is in such poor shape that this is one of those rare cases where it would be better to just start again. I42 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs reshaping and more contribution but definitely not to be deleted. This topic has strong religious and cultural significance of its own. Redirection to pandit would be seriously inappropriate. Dhilung (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as it is or improve it. Why does somebody think that it does not comply with WP:MOS? 75.54.120.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC). — 75.54.120.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clubmarx (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the English in this article is fairly poor, and it does not treat the matter in an encyclopaedic manner. I'm tending towards siding with I42 that we should either delete the article and start again or completely re-write. &dorno rocks. (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then any Buddhists with Good English may improve the article with by Editing but no need to delete it , delete isn't the only way to the change the article with either better English nor to reshape but editing can do too it all too. As everyone know articles will be better and relevant by people involved in Editing and updating with reliable sources. There are millions Buddhist in the world then someone will see the article and improve it by editing , if simply deleting who gonna guarantee to restart again who log? Plant may need the seed or source before start to get bigger grow. I suggest any Buddhists that who have good English and good at reshaping may involve in Editing to follow all their Pleased. But Delete is not recommended. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myo007 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If language is the problem, then improve it and donot delete unless it is so bad that nobody understands. Otherwise information on the content is encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.8.224 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 134.197.8.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clubmarx (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a wikipedia account and have made some contributions before in Buddhist articles and others. I posted above message from my office computer without logging into my account, so the IP address is different. Sameer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please take a 2nd look, I took the liberty of making a quick pass at improving the language of the article. I also moved the external links and wikilinks just listed to the talk page. The article still needs expansion and references. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. I'm for keeping the article in its current state. &dorno rocks. (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some other sources that mention the title in a bit more detail. It appears to be a religiously significant title and should be documented with an article. Silver seren^C 20:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NSONG. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm On It[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm On It

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

Non-notable single, fails WP:NSONG. Two sources provided. First does not mention the song in question, second is essentially a blog. SummerPhD (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The song is a radio-only single at the moment and has an accompanying music video. It has not charted yet but when a physical release is given then i am more than certain it will chart. Str8cash (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm more than certain it will chart"? Please read WP:CRYSTAL. As it exists now, I'm thinking it should be redirected, except its album doesn't have an article; so redirect back to the artist's page until specific notability of this song is established, if it ever is. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above reasons. I searched Google and the song doesn't even seem to be out yet. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't found enough coverage to make this a keep, but there is this Prefix article.--Michig (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song surely exists. It's its notability what's in question. --uKER (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another song. --uKER (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no where close to its own article currently fails WP:NSONGS. Tyga is an awesome rapper but still the articl needs to be deleted. STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 23:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Lewis (academic)[edit]

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

(Alternative Find sources "David Lewis" and NGO) )

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. My requests for evidence of notability and for further sourcing keep getting removed. No more edit warring, let's decide this. Using his page at London School of Economics is not a reliable source, as it's a primary source. Woogee (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Passes WP:ACADEMIC. I started the article at 23:09 March 31st and it got tagged with 3 tags at 23:10 - which I removed as I was editing the article, had a citation in and I disputed the relevance/appropriateness of the tags as the citation was to the LSEs page which I think is a reputable source. Removed tags again 3 minutes later and have added what I think is sufficient evidence to pass our criteria. Full prof at LSE - many articles - published noted and reviewed text books - reviews cited - worked on a noted World Bank report - cited. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, as fails WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find any notable references to his work to indicate that it is important enough to meet notability criteria. &dorno rocks. (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, available sourcing/referencing appears to demonstrate satisfaction of the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - full professor, plenty of good cites. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedilly deleted as WP:CSD G7 by User:Athaenara. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Antunez[edit]

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

Self-promotion for non-notable YouTube kid. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created by user Oscarantunez which is self-promotion. Search came up with Oscar Antunez's except for the Wikipedia link to Oscar Antunez. No news on the person in question. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and suggest blocking recreation of article), blatant self-promotion, no other cites except for youtube.--Dmol (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Time for someone to close this AFD as the article has already been deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2001 (album). Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Difference (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What's the Difference (song)

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

Low-charting song not released as a single. Poorly referenced and other than a source referring to the song is a linon YouTubek to a concert performance . Str8cash (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2001 (album) per WP:NSONGS. It's a great song, but it doesn't warrant its own article (and to say the article has POV problems would be an understatement). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i believe that article is strong and important enough to remain its own article and it does pass WP:NSONGS. Plus i have a refrence for eveything that needs one. STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 06:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what specific way does it pass WP:NSONG? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The fact that there is an refrences that it has charted. And that allows an idependent article. STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 01:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article...Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." WP:NSONG emphasis added - SummerPhD (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems the only sourceable content is its chart placing, which can be adequately mentioned in the album article.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im done with this i'll just redirect it will that make every1 happy STATicVerseatide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:STATicVerseatide) 01:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2001 (album). As stated above, no significant coverage for this song exists to warrant a separate article; the chart peak info can be appropriately sourced in the album and/or discography pages. Gongshow ^Talk 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add appropriate info in album article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article per abundant precedent. This song is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, but information on it can be incorporated into that article on the album. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 12 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. May become notable; not yet. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoboe (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking GNEWS and GHITS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has multiple sources from different cities. Dew Kane (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Unfortunately the sources are not substantial coverage as the majority of the items do not meet the WP:RS criteria. If I am wrong, please let me know what I am missing. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. When they have an album out and people write about it the article can be recreated.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. This group has not yet "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." — Satori Son 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - *no internal links were associated with it from within Wikipedia. several relevant links are now linked to the article: Benjamin Meiklejohn, Oboe (6.3 Rock and Pop), Oboes in Popular Culture, Prtlndgrnlntrn (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least two non-trivial articles constitute "multiple." Portland Magazine and Portland Phoenix articles are substantive. There may also be trivial coverage included, but at least two non-tivial published references should qualify (two makes multiple, regardless of the extraneous). These sources are independent of the band. Prtlndgrnlntrn (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Unfortunately, none of the references amount to anything "non-trivial" in nature. A quick mention or short reference is not "non-trivial". ttonyb (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Ttonyb1. Our inclusion standards require that the article topic be the subject of coverage by reliable sources. Otherwise, it is not possible to write a complete encyclopedia article that meets the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "• Rock band with an oboe HOBOE have entered the studio for the first time, working on songs with SEAN SLAUGHTER at his V69 STUDIOS. "I'm Your Man" is in the can and as soon as song two is polished, Hoboe promise a single release." is not non-trivial. The Portland Magazine ia a publication where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mature Rated Cartoon Series[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced list, contested prod. Television ratings vary between countries according to local regulations and values. This list likely reflects only one jurisdiction, probably original research. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, unsourced list with no additional explanation at all Random Time 02:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I note that the keep arguments are, to a very great extent, bare assertions not backed up in policy, but there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Highland Creek[edit]

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

As it stands, this as well as Highland Creek (Toronto) is a collection of satellite coordinates, original research, and synthesis of those two. No prejudice against recreation with ANY reliable sources. These are legitimate places, but not legitimate articles. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[12] this is the sole source I can find on the subject. I am very busy though, and cannot devote the time to rewriting this. I have no issue cutting the article down to a stub with basic info taken from this source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No original research conducted: all the course information is based on the Atlas of Canada online topographic maps and other local printed maps. However, the article could use a good clean up, and a paring of the coordinates references. Be happy to undertake. Hadn't looked at it for a long time. Would add references to the Canada Geonames entry for the creek; a reference to a printed MapArt atlas; and a link to other resources discovered in a cursory trawl through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) external link user Floydian has included helpfully above, for example page 7 of this document showing the watershed. The brief flora and fauna comments were carried over from and earlier article that combined Highland Creek the community with the watercourse. I separated those two into Highland Creek (Toronto) and Highland_Creek,_Toronto, and duplicated over the comments for this major tributary. They might be supported by information revealed via the TRCA link.--papageno (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a number of changes to the article along these lines.--papageno (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A map, whether online or in atlas form, is valid as a supplementary source for geographic data where the topic's notability has already been established by other sources — but it doesn't demonstrate notability in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could still use cleanup and inline citations, but there are enough references now to make this both verifiable and notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The provided sources are all valid supplementary sources once notability has been established, but they don't demonstrate notability as not a single one of them goes beyond the level of a map or a gazetteer. No prejudice against recreation if real sources can be added, but every last creek in the world would merit its own article if simply being featured on a map were enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Highland Creek (Toronto). West Highland Creek certainly doesn't meet notability standards, but it's part of a larger watershed system and the article's content can be moved there. PK T(alk) 13:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not every river can be the Nile, Amazon or Thames. There is no need to delete this. Szzuk (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying every river needs to be. But what rivers (and this isn't even a river, but a creek) do need to be to have articles on here is notable and well-sourced, and there's no evidence that this is either one of those things. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the new information, I'd say a merge is in order. There is not enough information to warrant two separate articles on what is only a single creek (all branches are simply labelled Highland Creek on City of Toronto signs placed at ravine crossings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the various levels of jurisdiction cannot agree on how to treat the system: while the city (thanks Floydian for tip) and the TRCA (local conservation authority) treat it as one system with branches, the Ontario and Federal levels have three named elements (Highland Creek, West Highland Creek and Southwest Highland Creek. Having spent a lot of time on Atlas of Canada topographic maps, so few waterbody elements in Canada have a name at all that having one — with even a smidgen of additional information — would seem to be notable. That being said, in this case I think a solid, single article is preferable to three, especially for standard elements of a rivers article other than the course (e.g. flora/fauna, geology, etc.), which would otherwise be repeated. User PKT's suggestion of a merge and redirect, supported also by user Floydian, is the best course of action.--papageno (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bodies of water are normally notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't buy that, and I don't see anything in WP:Notability that agrees with you. Please reference a policy statement of some kind to support your statement. PK T(alk) 23:00, 10 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:CSD#G4 This is the same subject as was deleted by two previous AfD discussions. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XpanD 3D[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-a7)) tag because the topic has received enough media coverage, albeit tangential, not to be a speedy deletion. A Google News Archive search returns a number of results; however, they are passing mentions, such as this article from USA Today and this article from The Business Journal of Milwaukee. If reliable sources that provide significant coverage about XpanD 3D can be found, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company's article was nominated for deletion in October 2009; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XpanD (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Oklahoma Military Department. JForget 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Department of the Military[edit]

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

After checking for significant coverage in reliable sources I have found none. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am assuming that the information in this article comes directly from the department itself. A major agency in a United States state seems like it should be notable enough, and its official website a reliable enough source. Borock (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to make assumptions, when I looked there didn't seems to be an actual "Oklahoma department of the military". SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Oklahoma Military Department, which appears to be the correct name of the department.[13] 482 GHits and 267 GBooksHits for the search string <Oklahoma "Military Department">; sufficient secondary coverage of the department and its activities, for example [14] [15][16] [17]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Arxiloxos. A cabinet-level department in a first-level national subdivision is enough for notability, and this oen unquestionably exists. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename this is needed as a overall article for the Oklahoma Army National Guard, Air National Guard, State Defence Force, and other security forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyright violation. Jafeluv (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Sewa Shikshan Sangh[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this group, the article is certainly not NPOV (uses "our" and lists objectives/mission statement as a large part of the text), and is poorly sourced. fetchcomms☛ 01:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio of http://www.premsewa.com/aboutus.html. The only revertable non-copyvio version is a sentence or two and wouldn't pass db-group. Hairhorn (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Laws of Illusion[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable independent sources. American Songwriter covers the album in connection with McLachlan's revival of the Lilith Fair and notes pre-order bonuses for early purchasers. Direct Current carries a short piece here. Billboard covers it, Hitfix covers it, and of all people NorthJersey.com covers it. That's among what appear to be hundreds of others, mostly just repeating the American Songwriter article. Also: Sarah McLachlan's releasing a new album? Awesome. Thanks, Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - assuming the sources cites by DustFormsWords are reliable. I think this would pass WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source is credible so its very likely the album will be released with this title. However its obviously not a good idea to second guess matters of this kind. Szzuk (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's straight from Sarah McLachlan's own website[18], so unless you'd like to dispute the artist, let's keep this article. Zenimpulse (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in the link given above supports the information in the article. Should not delete. Shakir (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarah McLachlan discography, and recreate when more details are available. The bottom line rule per WP:MUSIC is that an album should never have a Wikipedia article until such time as we can write one which includes a title, an exact release date and a complete track listing. If we can't add all three of those, properly sourced, then we don't need an article about the album until we can — we ain't Pitchfork or Rolling Stone, so it's not our job to be the first source out of the gate with every last scrap of information about a forthcoming album. I'll withdraw this if somebody can show up with a properly sourced track listing — but until we actually have one, the album really doesn't need a separate article; a brief mention in the album's discography is all any album is ever entitled to until the track listing shows up too. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but could you quote the part of WP:MUSIC you're referring to? As far as I'm aware the "bottom line" of WP:MUSIC, per its lead paragraph, is WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources - which WP:MUSIC is merely a guide to interpreting. WP:NALBUMS specifically provides: "Unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." You may be thinking of the statement: "Generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label," but if so you're failing to note that (a) that's just a guide to interpreting WP:N, (b) that here we have both the title and release date, and (c) that that statement comes immediately after the sentence "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that last criterion ("may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it") is for unreleased projects on the scale of Chinese Democracy, which was getting talked about years before it finally came out and had sources that could already support a very lengthy article as early as 2004, not for run-of-the-mill "artist announces new album, here's the few tidbits we know about it" situations where the available sources can only support a generic four-line stub that tells us nothing besides "artist announces new album". Secondly, I'm not disputing that we have a title and a release date — I'm pointing out that we don't have a track listing; all three of those things are mandatory in combination, and two out of three is not good enough. And finally, there has yet to be one single thing written about this album that actually contains substantial information about the album and isn't just a basic "Sarah McLachlan will have a new album out soon" announcement in the "300-words-or-less tidbits" column. That's not significant coverage; it's just blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and understanding (and respecting) what you say above, my only comment is that WP:ALBUM is STILL subservient to WP:N and clarifies, rather than replaces, that policy. And that you're confusing the meaning of "significant coverage" within WP:N. For coverage to be significant, it need only be that the sources "address the subject directly in detail"; there's no particular quantum of detail necessary so long as it is "more than a trivial mention", which these sources are. There's no requirement that there be content sufficient to found an article of any particular length in that policy or any other, so far as I know. That's what stubs are for. Finally, it's not correct to say that we have nothing here other than "artist announces new album". We have a release date, a title, we have preorder information and info on the preorder bonuses, and we know that it's being done in conjunction with the reboot of the Lilith Fair. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in question is anything more than a trivial mention. Bearcat (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's up to an interpretation of "trivial". I'd generally regard an article longer than a paragraph, with the article subject appearing in the headline, as non-trivial. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems. Here we have an album that you can actually PREORDER from the artist's web site, the article is already made and all we're left with is a bunch of users fighting about semantics. Oh for crying out loud. KEEP. Antti29 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A New Ascension[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced for 4 years. First AFD in 2006 closed as no consensus pending improvements to the entry, which are still lacking more than 3 years later. The entry itself points out that this band has almost never performed; the only thing resembling a claim to notability is a couple licenensing deals for background music. Hairhorn (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say the prior AFD was closed with the hope that the article creator could improve the article and establish notability. There was no real evidence for notability during the first AFD that I can discern. The claim of coverage is press clippings from local papers. My own search does not show that this band has any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Doig[edit]

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

A rugby league player, who by the article's own admission, has never played first grade football despite being on the books of a first grade club. He therefore fails WP:ATH as the National Rugby League first grade is the only fully professional league in Australia. His current club, the Newtown Jets are not a NRL club. Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only significant coverage I can find for this athlete is this article in the Inverell Times, which doesn't seem sufficient. Otherwise plenty of game reports and passing mentions but no significant coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:GNG, fails WP:ATHLETE and the above source does not assert 'significant' coverage. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papers (song)[edit]

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

There is little justification for this page considering that it is only a promotional single. it recieved very little independent coverage and so there is more than reasonable doubt over what makes this page notable. Under guidance for WP:notability (music) it is requested that this page is deleted and the content placed on the album's page Raymond v. Raymond Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect content then delete page Jayy008 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Checking Billboard, as referenced in the article, it made #31 and was 12 weeks in the charts, plus the article claims #1 RnB charts. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chart positions are not in dispute, it needs chart positions AND independent coverage, this has happened before for The Fame Monster, like every song charted, but you can't have a page for every single song off the album when all the info can be shown on the album page. Jayy008 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - #1 on the R&B chart, a major Billboard chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.99.6 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a #1 hit on a major chart should have an article. Dew Kane (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is considered for deletion. This song has had some radio airplay and has reached #1 on an important chart, and stayed for a number of weeks, and could end up being his most successful single from his current album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunohuayam (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article about major hit record (#31 on Billboard Hot 100). High chart placement on the Hot 100 is sufficient to meet the notability standard as Billboard reports are repeated throughout the industry... and not just in North America. B.Wind (talk) 02:40, 12 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 Streetlight Manifesto. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlight Manifesto Demo[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete It!!! It was a release before everything went numb why should it be removed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.147.127 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Streetlight Manifesto as demos are not notable on their own. Unlike mixtapes, this demo is an official release by the band... but the demo disk can only inherit the notability of the band. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 12 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) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summiyah malik[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ARY Zauq due to lack of availability of Pakistani sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperion[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Of the few references I can find, none come close to meeting WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about that browser1.de thing in German? Anyway merge to Travian Games rather than complete deletion. Polarpanda (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the link you're talking about. I did check browser1.de, though, and the "Browsergames" link on the left leads to browsergames.de, which is basically MySpace for browser games: trivial mentions of games (many of them press releases), no editorial control, fan-submitted content, and voting. Nothing that we can build an encyclopedia around. I'd be okay with merging if we could find any reliable sources, but until we do it's still just OR. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the browser1.de link [19] . There are some more google news hits but mostly in German. Polarpanda (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The review is okay (a little on the short side, not exactly trivial, but not exactly thorough game journalism either), but the site itself doesn't seem reliable. We know nothing about the author(s), editorial oversight, etc. All of the ads for downloading Firefox from browser1.de (which isn't the German Firefox page) makes me even more suspicious about their intentions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had a good look around browser1.de. There's no information on the author, or the sites editorial staff. They have reviews of 180 browser-based games, and have awarded every single one 5 stars out of 5 (even the bad ones). The reviews are completely uncritical; this is not a reliable source. With no other coverage, the game would appear to be unnotable. Marasmusine (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Living (magazine)[edit]

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

Free magazine distributed at grocery stores. Meets none of the 5 criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable magazine,there is no reason for it to have it's own article. Dinosaur Dan1 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There appear to be any number of unrelated magazines called Healthy Living distributed throughout the world; I'm unable to find significant coverage for any of them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Healthy Living is distributed freely but there are subscriptions available to those outside the "free area". Though there might be more magazines than just this one but this is the one that appears first and the rest of the links are either not from the magazine, broken links or take too long to load. Whenaxis (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a local freebie giveaway magazine. There is no coverage about the magazine that would establish it as notable. The fact that it turns up first in a google search syas nothing about the notability of the magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable and reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to say so, because it looks like a well-written article, but all the "sources" come from the magazine itself. Dew Kane (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found, no evidence of notability found. Jarkeld (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi (band)[edit]

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

Article doesn't seem to have any credible sources, both the NME and Sunday Mail links redirect to their home pages, also a google search doesn't provide any results from reliable sources. The article looks as if it was written by the band, i think it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Under the extension stairs (talk • contribs)

Delete. The review in The Skinny is still reachable. None of the other things linked to in the article are convincing as significant independent coverage. There's just not enough around to support an article.--Michig (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Punggol#Schools. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punggol Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school, no claims of notability. Woogee (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can be mentioned in Punggol Secondary School or in Punggol, per our usual practice. I don't see any reason for a redirect or a merge. Contrary to popular belief, redirects are not cheap. Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Punggol#Schools per usual practice. Absolutely no need to delete. Firstly this is a useful redirect; secondly if any content is to be merged then for GFDL reasons the page cannot be deleted and, finally, deleting a page takes more server load than converting it into a redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say keep, since a redirect accomplishes the same thing? I'll confess that I have no knowledge of relative server load usages, although it sounds similar to the "you use more electricity turning on a light than you do if you leave it on". What I do know is that a redirect takes up the same amount of space as a keep, as is evident when looking at the history of a redirect, so it would make just as much sense to keep all articles about primary schools. The only differences between a redirect and a keep are that (a) it takes slightly more effort for the person to find the text in a redirect and (b) Punggolian youngsters won't be able to make a class project out of updating the article. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the Community distinguishes between standalone pages and incorporation in a larger article. Notability guidelines apply to the former but not the latter. A curious anomaly, I know, but there you are :-) As a matter of routine, location articles mention places - libraries, parks, buildings etc that are not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Punggol#Schools per precedent. Notability is not required to merge a school into a parent article. The information is verified by this Singapore government directory and the school's website. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per abundant precedent. Article doesn't posit importance more than any other similar school, and it doesn't demonstrate any notability comparable to that of any higher level school. B.Wind (talk) 02:28, 12 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. NW (Talk) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlie Brillault[edit]

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

Not sure if this biography of a living person meets our general notability guideline (see also WP:BIO). I was looking for some solid third party, reliable sources and couldn't find any. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of genuine notability.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 08:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable, she's been in one of Disney Channel's biggest hits and in a movie. Antonio Chic Boy Martin (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources available for sourcing... and no, not all of the 121 are in-depth, but hard to miss in a search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Eek. I guess I tried the general search. I also had tried general googling for sources to no avail before I nom'd this, so it's not like I did without looking first. :-) I did look through the first 8 pages or so of results. I would say that 95% of these hits are just news articles detailing "today's celebrity birthdays" or who attended what social gathering. There's also a few episode summary hits thrown in there too. The two biggest hits I found were this online article and this archived article. Not sure if that's enough to warrant an article on her. Killiondude (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One thing you said there: "today's celebrity birthdays"....why would she be listed if she wasn't a celebrity? Antonio Loco Lover Martin (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure if this biography of a living person meets our general notability guideline (see also WP:BIO)
      That was my nomination statement (for deletion). Wikipedia doesn't host anything and everything. We have notability guidelines for a reason. :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and searches don't show much beyond proof of existence. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete She does exist, and has coverage, but the sources don't prove much beyond the fact she exists. (Most of them seem to be in image captions) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tied My Hands[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this demo; it does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saron Gas 2 Track Demo[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This demo appears to fail WP:NALBUMS, as I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:24, 11 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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mourning Sickness[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage for this band in third-party, reliable sources. This article is also unreferenced except for first-party sources. Going back in the article's history shows a few third-party sources, but I don't consider them reliable (blogs, etc.). This article has been in a poor shape for a while and doesn't seem to be able to improve. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, comprised of non-notable musicians (the blue linked Matthew Maher loops back to this article and the drummer is mis-linked to an English footballer), producing non-notable music all referenced to their own website with no credible indication of notability from any other sources. Lame Name (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United Kingdom Independence Party leadership election, 2006. The target article contains enough information to make a merge unnecessary. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Suchorzewski[edit]

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

Non notable politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article at the time he was standing in the UKIP leadership election and was potentially going to become leader. Since he failed to be elected and resigned I agree that he has done nothing particularly notable and I have no objections to this article being deleted. ^Tom _Phil 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to UKIP. The UKIP leadership contest clearly attracted enough interest to have individual articles written about candidates so he is worth a mention - the only question is whether it is better covered here or in the UKIP article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Kingdom Independence Party leadership election, 2006 (not to UKIP) - that's the WP:ONEEVENT for which he received significant media attention. Warofdreams talk 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% Hell[edit]

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

AfD template was placed on page, but rest of AfD process was not completed, so I am helping out. The editor placing the template had, in an edit summary, written "Fails notability for albums". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Necrodeath per standard practice. Can't find evidence this album meets WP:MUSIC, but band may be notable (allmusic.com entry hints at professional reviews existing).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) WP:OR the article is original research, there are no references. 2) why is this album notable? Fails WP:NOT not notable as an album. Fails WP:POKEMON just because necrodeath has an album, does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not a catalog of non-notable CDs. kgrr ^talk 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album of a notable band. Dew Kane (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the current standard for inclusion. Please read WP:MUSIC#Albums, singles and songs. — Satori Son 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Necrodeath. Notable band, but I couldn't find significant coverage of this album.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reasons given for "keep" are "band may be notable" and "album of a notable band". However, nobody has produced any evidence of this notability (the band's Wikipedia article has been tagged since March 2008 for independent sources). The onus is on anyone wishing to keep an article to produce evidence of notability, not just to say that it is notable without any evidence. Also note that one of the "keep" comments only says that the band may be notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added sources to the Necrodeath article and removed your PROD, which I don't believe was in any way appropriate (PROD is for articles that are "uncontestably deletable", which that article clearly isn't). It could still use more but I believe the band is sufficiently notable. I found sources indicating notability before I stated above that the band was notable. The onus is on all editors to look for sources to determine whether the subject is notable (and ideally cite them in the article). --Michig (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Well, we now have some sources given for Necrodeath, which is better than just a statement that they are notable without evidence. However, all but one of the references are to sources which are not independent (the band's own site) not reliable (www.allmusic.com, where anyone can submit contributions) or does not mention Necrodeath (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=136826). The evidence of notability is not by any means convincing. Also, even if this were accepted as evidence of notability of the band, it would still be a step short of showing that the album has enough notability to deserve its own article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken regarding the Allmusic bios and reviews - all are written by professional staff. They are not user-editable. The Blabbermouth article mentions Necrodeath on the second line and verifies Flegias' membership of other notable bands and his real name, which is what it's there for. They also had a review from Italian site Kronic.it [20], which is on one of the album articles - again this looks like a reliable source. Given the general lack of sources on the album articles, it may be better to combine them all into a discography article - album titles, tracklistings, labels etc. are all verifiable.--Michig (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having Cronos from Venom on the album alone makes it notable, given Venom's influence on metal. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:27, 11 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. Additionally, on a point of order, the three co-nominated pages were not tagged for AFD and thus could not be deleted anyway. Merging may be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DreDDup[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing on Google News. Only sources are interviews which are not enough per WP:BAND. A couple other albums are already listed at AFD, so here are the rest.

DreDDup discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. There are more sources than just some interviews. There are reviews and articles about the band. Suite yourself, but this is currently the only living industrial rock band in Serbia and therefore very important article for Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reviews and articles? I saw none. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the bottom of the page, you'll find that first 4 external sources are reviews and external biography page. Now look again here:

http://www.terapija.net/mjuzik.asp?ID=6307
http://www.dreddup.com/biography/index.html
http://www.tvorac-grada.com/hczin/Broj83/rcz.html
http://www.fabryka.darknation.eu/php-files_en/readarticle.php?article_id=222
http://www.fabryka.darknation.eu/php-files_en/readarticle.php?article_id=242 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.168.104 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reliability of these sources (apart from the artist website bio which is not independent) needs to be established in order for them to count. I realize this could be difficult because these pages are of Serbian origin, but I think there is a need for clarity in that respect. fabryka.darknation.eu is an English language site so I checked it out and the "stats" page shows that the most read items have below 500 views. Hekerui (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this band is cult in the underground of Serbia it is obvious that the English and Amercians don't read that much about them. All the valid texts are on Serbian or Croatian. If you would like, I can easily scan some texts about this band from the well-known Serbian magazines such as Politika, Dnevnik, Blic, Gradjanski List, Alo!, Urban Bug etc... just to verify all the texts shown in Wikipedia? Or we can send you some divx of the interviews from all sort of television stations including MTV Adria? Here are the two year 2009 top-lists from Croatian magazines "Terapija" and Macedonian magazine "Okno" where you can verify that this band is well-known in Ex Yugoslavian region:

http://www.okno.mk/node/3951 http://www.terapija.net/topliste.asp?ID=7764 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the bands were in notable magazines and had newspaper articles, then cite them with author, date, name of the article, name of the newspaper/magazine (see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Template:cite news) and add some info from these sources to the article (no need to scan per se). It would be important to make sure that the newspapers/magazines are notable themselves. Hekerui (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've added the magazine and newspaper references in the bottom of the page all with the names of the authors and the exact name of the article. I hope this is enough. I can really add more. I've also inserted an external links to some articles in the information text above which had their online edition also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think additional info on why these sources are realiable per WP:RS is needed. Are any of these articles posted online on source websites so one can could whether the newspaper is notable? Is there some other evidence? It's difficult for non-Serbians. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I think not. These magazines are in paper format. I never found any of the articles in their Website editions because they only put important headline articles on their sites. But I can scan every article to verify this information. You can easily contact any of these journalists over the magazine websites and ask them to verify the articles. I don't know what else I can do to prove that this band is really well-known in the underground culture of Serbia and region and that the information presented here is correct. I can upload television interviews or something else somewhere and pass you the links but the problem is that it's all in Serbian. All the references and information about the magazine articles and journalists is correct, it's really no bother for me to scan the articles and pass them to you just to verify this content here. Magazines that I've listed are in the top 10 of the Serbian well-known magazines. Dnevnik exists for more than 50 years. All the others exist for more than 20 years. They are notable and magazines with a very big numbers of printed copies. I think every one of these is printed in more than 2 million copies every day. Nocturne Magazine is sold in small amounts. I've found the front cover and information about the issue here, you can see that dreddup is listed on the front page and in the interview information: http://www.nocturnemagazine.net/izdanja/10.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is understandably difficult to find English sources for groups that are Serbia-centric. I think we should assume good faith now that reliable sources are there and keep the main article, provided the articles are actually about the group and you can add the page numbers for the articles. The album articles should be treated independent from the main article in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I added the correct page numbers for the articles. I'll see to contact these newspapers and find out if it is possible that they have some online archive to where the link should lead people to read the whole article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sam and Steve Show[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio show lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) fails WP:NOT one radio show on one radio station does not make notability. 2) fails WP:OR where are the references?

kgrr ^talk 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and so just seems to be acting as a directory page. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McIlroy[edit]

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

Non-notable presenter on a low-power community radio station which itself fails notability. No reliable sources found. Deleted via Prod and recreated the same day. Brining it to AFD in order that future recreations can be speedied. Finally, I think there's a reasonable likelihood that user:Radioman1967 is the subject of the article. dramatic (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
I have put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy got removed in someone's edit. I think we should let the AFD proceed, since then we can use speedy G4 if the article raises its head again. dramatic (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT agree with Dramatic. kgrr ^talk 01:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade (Marvel animated universe)[edit]

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

Original research and synthisis based on two or three single episode appearances of the character in two separate seasons of the same series. Ireally this information for the character the article is named for should be covered at Blade (comics)#Television and Characters_in_Spider-Man_(1994_TV_series)#Blade. And in fact it looks like the lead - all of the Blade information in the article - was copped from the Blade IoM section. The remainder of the article is not information about the character, nor is it about an actual TV show that was part of the "Marvel animated universe" named for and featuring Blade. J Greb (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have seen alot of these (Marvel animated universe) pop up lately need to be fixed Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fair City. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Fahey[edit]

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

No references, no real world info. I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fair City. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Kavanagh for a similar discussion that concluded to deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as we customarily do. If a similararticle was deleted, that was an isolated error. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about the series. This is our standard procedure whenever the character is not notable separately from the show. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 12 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. JForget 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Borndeads Feast[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS, can't find coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreDDup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bor-Bor Zan[edit]

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

Non notable game. DimaG (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be made up, or at least I'm not finding much other than mirrors of this article. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game probably isn't a hoax because it has a facbook group, and a number of people who feel it is legitimate. However, with a lack of sources available it fails WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeForeigner (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Droll humor[edit]

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

This is fundamentally a dictdef; belongs in wictionary, not here. Article has been a stub for five years and is still essentially identical to the original version. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is a dicdef of the word "droll", which already exists on Wiktionary. The addition of Steven Wright as an example is original research; Wright is described as dry or wry more often in Google searches. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. classic dicdef. If there was more content, I might suggest merging a mention of it to dry humor, or somewhere else, but there isn't enough for even that. The hatnote at Droll needs rethinking though. Can we just use a hatlink to Wiktionary? -- Quiddity (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could probably be redirected to the page that currently has the idiotic name "Deadpan", which is where dry humor and dry humour and deadpan humor and deadpan humour redirect to. That article itself is unsourced, and if nominated, can be excepted from Wikipedia. Somebody decided that "deadpan humor" and "deadpan violence" should be combined into one article, hence the title that rhymes with, and stinks like, a similar collective for waste. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple dicdef. Szzuk (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge into Deadpan, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hub Surfing[edit]

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

Neologism. DimaG (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. I can't find any mention of this in a reliable source, not counting the New York Times article A Renaissance of Charm in a Hub of the Surfing World. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Armstrong-Braun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable environmental campaigner, fails WP:POLITICIAN –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No references added since last AfD nearly two years ago. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. A good case of the failure of eventualism. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We shouldn't delete the article just because the references brought up in the last AfD weren't added to the article - if that's the only problem, someone should work them in. (And definitely rewrite the article so it's not such a shameless campaign piece.) The only real question is whether the references brought up in the last AfD are enough to confer notability. I'm undecided myself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filament fade[edit]

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

Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a term used by people in the business of theatre production. [21]. We have an article Fade (lighting), and although I wouldn't be surprised if there are terms for the process of using different types of lights to achieve a quick or slow dimming of the lights to close a scene, it's not called "filament fade". Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stage lighting. Sounds like something real, and likely more historical than current. Should not stay as it is as it is an unverified topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appbox Pro[edit]

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

Not noticeable application, just a set of toolbox for the iPhone. No one single reference to back it up, all of them pointing to submission web sites. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - stub article with two independent sources. nominator has recently afd and attempted speedy (declined) a handful of iphone application articles conviently after his application article was deleted 16x9 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be serious? Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but strong warning to the nominator to avoid violating WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The app is certainly notable. It has been featured as the top paid app in the App Store a few months ago. It has also been downloaded over a million times. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis – from Memphis to Hollywood: Memories from My Eleven Years with Elvis Presley[edit]

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

Non notable book DimaG (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Mad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm Not Mad

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:NSONG - merge to Alex Gardner. GregJackP (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to start an AfD to merge an article. If anything, you can place one of the ((merge)) templates at the top of the article. (By the way, I agree with the merge.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The hype machine has gone into full flow for this one, and as a result there's already plenty of web and TV coverage: Gardner performing the song on STV (and no, it isn't Marjorie Dawes interviewing him), California Chronicle (brief), MTV session, Daily Mail, About.com, GMTV. Not a lot of coverage specifically about the song/single as yet, but in about 12 hours there's a good chance it'll enter the UK Singles Chart although it didn't hit the midweek chart. Covering it in the Alex Gardner (singer) article seems the best approach until there's more to say about it.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Single was released and now there are plenty of sources. As a debut single its notable. I watched the song on youtube. Its crap. But i'm not the target audience. Szzuk (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Szzuk. IceflamePhoenix (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the sources say little or nothing about the single other than its release date. It didn't make the top 40 yesterday, so all the hype didn't pay off.--Michig (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry into the top 40 doesn't decide notability. Some of those songs by much more established artists wont have their own page. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making #44 is a good claim to notability. Unfortunately nobody seems to have written anything about the song yet, which is the biggest problem here.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single has now charted at #44 on the UK Singles Charts. Its now notable and has reliable sources. --Holywood56 (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Somebody needs to add a reliable source to the article. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines. Am86 (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted at #44,and meets all wiki guidelines.Jamiebijania (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 10 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.