< 21 February	23 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Robinson[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. a non notable local councillor. only a bit of third party coverage. [1] LibStar (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, but she is "small" time. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The news coverage is mostly trivial and in unnotable media. A politician, whose best coverage seems to be a headline above her 4-line engagement ad in the personals of a local paper, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Smocking (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that city councillors (with the possible exception of those in major cities) are not generally deemed notable just for holding office. I'd suggest that listing them in Coquitlam City Council would be the appropriate solution here, but even that title seems to be a redirect to Coquitlam rather than an independent article. Delete, though if an article about the council itself is ever initiated it would be acceptable to redirect the councillors' names to it. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cum catcher[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY - term isn't notable enough on its own to merit an article separate from Soul patch. If anything, redirect there. Also, borderline WP:CSD#A10 since they're synonyms. XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a vast collection of hits on Google Web Search, but they are not about beards and, er, cough, cough, not really reliable. Book Search comes up with The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, which contradicts this article, so if we decide to redirect, it should be to Condom. Favonian (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source points to Urban Dictionary which is indicative that this is both a dictionary definition and not a particularly notable one. RFerreira (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I had PRODded this article). Even if Wikipedia were a slang dictionary, which I'm happy to say it's not, this is not a particularly notable term and I haven't been able to verify the definition given. To the contrary, the various sources I can find indicate that "cum catcher" may variously mean a mustache, a promiscuous girl, or a condom. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above CTJF83 GoUSA 00:13, 24 February 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 by User:Phantomsteve as copyvio. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastleigh Baptist Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Woogee (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Also, probably a cut & paste copyvio of the church's home page. Studerby (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. The best way to get minor churches included in Wikipedia is to redirect to the town and mention the church there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improvement not deletion. Jeni ^(talk) 10:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What provisions of WP:ORG does it meet? Are all churches by default notable? Woogee (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN church CTJF83 GoUSA 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eastleigh, as Chris Neville-Smith has said this is usually the best solution for local churches, primary schools, village halls and the like. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.eastleighbaptist.org.uk/ and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 19:22, 24 February 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. The keep !vote didn't explain why notability might exist within the meaning of our policies, however, I am willing to usrfy or undelete (w/ proper sourcing) on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Jiménez[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC: no physical sales; no evidence of notability (or even charting) for download-only single; no WP:RS coverage Closeapple (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Bands and musicians-related deletions and New York-related deletions. —Closeapple (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that her only single, "Untouchable", was even released anywhere but on iTunes and her own MySpace page; can't find any evidence it charted on any significant chart. No evidence that (allegedly "new" in 2007 then "due in 2008" then "due in 2009") album Signed Sealed Delivered ever was issued in any form or will be in the forseeable future. Only coverage seems to be non-WP:RS one-paragraph fluff pieces and so-called "interview" promos, most of which seem to blindly claim her "single" is "from her album" that never existed. Also, the few references in the article don't actually verify the claims made. --Closeapple (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came up empty on any reliable sources to indicate notability, as per WP:MUSIC. No other claim to notability, I think.... Studerby (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cutno (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure I will be able to find reliable sources. Chelo61 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Bryant[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable living person. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, fails notability. Beach drifter (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Middle/lower management at a university. Possibly even WP:CSD#A7 unless a college athletics hall of fame and "until recently, held many individual records" at a 6000-student university is claim of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF and WP:ATHLETE. He's still mid-level at a university, at the associate dean level, which is not generally notable. Holding local records does not denote general athletic notability. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 23 February 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. Doesn't really meet my idea of notability, but it's not about my idea - it's about consensus, and it's lacking here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Walker[edit]

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

Non-notable session guitarist, no sources assert individual notability. Article was unfortunately de-prodded with an addition of an allmusic.com, which is insufficient. Overall, a failure of WP:MUSICBIO Tarc (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unnecessary proposal for deletion - a simple Wikipedia:Verifiability tag, such as "refimprove" would have sufficed to bring the article up to scratch. Contrary to statement in deletion proposal, the subject is highly notable session musician - but session musicians don't get rave write-ups in girlie magazines... --Technopat (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that actually are notable are written about in reliable sources; the ones that aren't, aren't. You can click on that google link above just as easily as anyone else can and note the reams of itunes, amazon.com, etc...type discography listings, and nothing more. Snark about "girlie magazines" is unhelpful to the discussion, so if you could, please note the 12 criteria of WP:MUSICBIO and explain which one this person meets. From what I can see, he fails all. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, the three inline citations I had added to the article since your AfD came from clicking the Google link you mention - there are many more where that came from, but surely sufficient to assert notability. As for my "snark", it was but a playful comment to illustrate the difficulty of finding references to session musicians, however notable they may be - a well-known phenomenon in the music industry, and the bane of session musicians who end up being credited only on the back cover. As for criteria, his releases for Ode Records, qualify under criterion 5.--Technopat (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think Ode qualifies as major or important indie, and the refs seem like, at best, trivial coverage. But others can weigh in on all that, as I think I've said my piece by now. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't take into consider "I really don't think"-type comments. There are enough people out there who actually know.--Technopat (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the Wikipedia doesn't consider incivil and bad-faith aspersions too highly either, so I guess that wipes out your commentary. If a firm statement is what is required, then "Ode Records is not a major or important indie record label." Tarc (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no non trivial coverage of the subject of the article. Lists of x played on y don't meet the grade for meeting notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 11:24, 28 February 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 by NawlinWiki as a hoax. Jamie S93^❤ 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana 4/Miley Says Goodbye?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 4/Miley Says Goodbye?

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

Don't quite know where to start with this. Is it about a "Hannah Montana 4" CD, or an episode of the tv programme called "Miley Says Goodbye?" ? It looks like both. It's unreferenced, and full of original research. It claims HM will be followed by a show called Brodie Pasten but the article about that has been deleted as a hoax, so this article is suspect too. I42 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 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. Although I can't say I quite understand the two olfactory comments, even without them there's a consensus that this doesn't meet notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity Messenger[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some false positives in google news, but nothing about this software that I can find. Pcap ping 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The unsourced stub doesn't make any claims of notability and I found no signs of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It smells like shit, guys. So old, without infromation and significant coverage. *closed a nose* iorlas (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Bad smelling things happens when author forgets about his closed-source code and rests it for a long time. Gkrellm (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Monkton Cricket Club[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur cricket club. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Johnlp (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely nn.—MDCollins (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. A village team, not in the highest league in the local county or makor city YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 25 February 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. As always, I'm happy to userfy, especially if reliable sourcing appears. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self Propelled Mine Burier[edit]

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

"As of 2009 it is currently in trials"? Non-notable secret weapon that may or may not exist Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably copyvio, as the prod tag was removed by a sockpuppet of User:Ramesh vyas who was just days ago blocked indefinitely for creating numerous copyvio articles. -- œ ^™ 09:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete . The original source have very limited information and the language structure is also very diffrent except with few common words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.150.243 (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Amerland[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Extremely minor journalist/author with no evidence of notability, and no third-party sources at all. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note also that a Google search reveals that he describes himself elsewhere on-line as an "SEO expert", and the only major editing to this article has been done by User:David63styx and User:Damersun, usernames that bear a distinct similarity to that of Mr Amerland. Do I detect WP:COI as additional grounds for deletion? Tevildo (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced BLP (which I've just tagged as such), and I've been unable to find anything with Google that makes me think we'll be able to source it. I agree with Tevildo that there's more than a whiff of WP:COI about it as well. Scog (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article appears to be self-promotion. No reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 24 February 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. ~~None but the nominator opined in favor of deletion (or merger).~~ Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I struck through the above after Verbal, the nominator, brought to my attention that it's incorrect to state that only the nominator favored merger. So, I will simply indicate that that no one except the nominator favored deletion, and that while a plurality including the nom favored merger, the overall rough consensus was to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of life extension[edit]

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

Redundant due to Index of life extension-related articles and List of life extension-related topics (should redirect here perhaps), not to mention Life extension categories and the Life extension article itself. A WP:CFORK which is simply a poor duplicate - the Life extension article with all the information removed. Verbal chat 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of the WP:OOK and definitely a keeper. Note that List of life extension-related topics is a redirect to Index of life extension-related articles. Wikipedia has a set of indexes and a set of outlines. They provide alternate means of navigation: indexes are linear alphabetized lists, outlines are lists structured by subject. The synergistic relationship between lists (of which outlines are a type) and categories is explained at WP:CLN. The Transhumanist 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Outlines appear to serve a different function than the lists and are therefore not redundant. Artw (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain this function. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here you go: Wikipedia:Outlines. Artw (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sensible aid to navigation between our numerous articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Template:Life extension, as insufficient in scope to warrant a separate outline. (I say this as a strong supporter of the Outline project in general. Just not in this particular case.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a merge to the template. Verbal chat 21:39, 1 March 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 lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ToneXpress[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. ((prod)) denied by author. References are all to software download sites, not to legitimate software journals. Borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (author):

"Non-notable software product" - Please use a Notability Template to help establish this article notability rather than trash the article altogether.

"((prod)) denied by author" - I heavily expanded the article when I removed the ((prod)) tag. I assumed that is was no longer the case to use the ((prod)) tag.

"References are all to software download sites, not to legitimate software journals" - This is a closed-source shareware windows-only desktop application thus "software download sites" are the main places where you find these kind of software so it's only natural to have references to these sites. Although there are 500k+ google results for "DJ ToneXpress" I tried to add references to the most notable ones (like Cnet's Download.com where the software has an Editor's review). "legitimate software journals" that you are referring to, usually praise open-source/free software and, following your logic, this means that only open-source software deserve a page on Wikipedia.

"Borders on spam" - I disagree with this. I tried to write this article without praising the software and without asking people to buy it. Please edit any part of the article and remove the content you find offending/spam GeluKelu (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (1) The ((notability)) template is intended to indicate that the notability of a subject is in doubt. As the nominator, I did not doubt that the notability of this product was insufficient, so the proper path is to nominate for deletion. (2) I only noted that the ((prod)) was removed by the author as this is a common path for editors to attempt to keep their articles from being deleted. (3) Whatever the nature of the software, if it has not been covered in reliable sources than its notability is in doubt. (4) The "features" list reads like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedia article. If the article survives this deletion discussion, it will surely need to be cleaned up to avoid the promotional tone. However, I don't see the point in cleaning it up yet, as I don't believe the notability issue can be resolved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When constrained to the whole name google returns 330 unique hits, none of which are reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:06, 28 February 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 lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PlayFair (facilitation)[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No progress at this article since PROD just two years ago. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is an organization that provides team-building exercises, icebreaker (facilitation) games; in other words, another consultancy business using Wikipedia for free publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability or outside sources. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 22:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have completely changed the article: it is no longer about the PlayFair company, but about the orientation event, which was my original intention when I started the article over 2 years ago. I have tried to provide proper sources, but I realize it is unusual to cite Facebook pages. Please leave suggestions on my talk page, or here if appropriate. Guslacerda (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC);[reply]

Delete - changing the article to be about the event put on by the company doesn't really alter the fact that beyond being mentioned, there isn't really anything in the way of significant coverage/ -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of the independent coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:09, 28 February 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 under criterion A7 and, secondarily, G11. No assertion of significance or importance of the subject, and the article appears to be written to promote the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles marble[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. References available are:

news releases by him
news releases by his company
videos by his company
sources from local news where he's being used as a soundbyte, not in a way that counts as "significant" coverage Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 22 February 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) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinogen (musician)[edit]

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

DELETE. Search as I might, I am unable to find non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications on this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fail WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I remember these guys from the 90s festival circuit. They certainly seem like they should be notable. I've added the rescue tag in case anyone can dig up sources. Artw (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the event that the article cannot be sufficiently sourced I would suggets a merge to Shpongle over a delete. Artw (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hallucinogen is Simon Posford who is also a member of Shpongle (Allmusic bio) and Younger Brother (Allmusic bio). There's more than adeqate coverage of Hallucinogen, e.g. Allmusic bio, Allmusic review, Jambase bio, The Scene, City Pages, ent.qq.com, Glide magazine, zvuki.ru, New York Times. Posford/Hallucinogen also has a few mentions in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music.--Michig (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He actually gets a fair few Google Books mentions [2]. Artw (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Several of the the sources you linked to are not reliable and/or in another language, but Glide Magazine, City Pages, and The Scene all look pretty solid. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a musician's albums all be notable, if the one producing these notable things is not? That doesn't make any sense. What about all the sites Google news search brings back when you search for "Halllucinogen" And "Simon Posford"? [3] Searching for his albums, and I'm sure you'll find mention of him in their reviews. Dream Focus 07:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Michig. He also founded Twisted Records (UK), and was a major figure in the psychedelic trance and goa trance music. Early 90s dance music movements aren't exactly well documented only via Google News. Razorlicious (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be plenty of third-party coverage to indicate notability. Captain panda 04:24, 28 February 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. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Mall[edit]

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

Malls in general are non-notable, even malls in or near small towns. Do we want thousands of wikipedia articles on every mall in America? Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes, even smaller malls can be notable enough for inclusion. However, I haven't been able to find any secondary sources about this one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Weak keep per Miltowent's sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the ones I added today? You have to search the archive of those papers to find them, they don't pop up in a google news or have a URL I could add.--Milowent (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just deprodded this one and added some sources, shame to see it go to AfD so quickly. Anyhoo, is clearly not true to claim that "malls in general are non-notable" because we already have tons of mall articles on wikipedia, many of which are about smaller malls which are the only mall in their market area. (But i agree that strip malls or small malls within a large metro area are rarely notable.) Wikipedia won't break if we have referenced articles on these malls. see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrange Mall. We have articles on every single place location in the world, many of which are notable only to those who live nearby. I know a mall is not the same as some incorporated crossroads with a population of 50 or less, but a mall like this is probably more notable than that.--Milowent (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt is untrue that "malls in general are non-notable" if regional (400,000 but less than 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area) and superregional (over 800,000 square feet) malls are considered. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (shopping centers)#AFD results in table form for easy viewing which is a tabulation of all AFDs for malls from Nov 20 2006 through September 24, 2007. Commonly, articles about strip malls and dead malls with little information available were deleted. Some small malls or "power centers" got kept, especially if in some small country. Superregional and many regional malls were commonly (but not always) kept. This one is said to be 300,000 square feet, so smaller than regional. I see no particular claim to historicity or architectural quality, just routine coverage in the local paper. Wikipedia is not a directory of all shopping centers. Edison (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this looks to be a large regional mall with decent coverage. It is not exactly 400,000 sq ft but within the range that I see no advantage to removing the page. RFerreira (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well sourced, more than passing coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all of the sources are just the local paper, which alone does not establish any notability. Nothing in the article indicates it is anything other than a run of the mill mall. As Edison notes, it seems to have no historical claims, no special achitectural significant, and nothing in the article indicates that it is significant or noteworthy in any way. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it meets the basic notability guideline. How many more sources would you need?--Milowent (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't see any. A local paper in a small town covering random tidbits about its local events is not independent nor significant. Per WP:COMPANY: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the local Jasper newspaper, as well as the major Alabama papers, do not appear to be indexed in Google news. Via direct searching of their archives, I was able to add cites to the Jasper paper, the Birmingham News (a regional newspaper), and the Birmingham Business Journal. Please note that the local article cites that I added are not "random tidbits" about mall events, they include two profiles of the mall from 2001 and 2006. Unlike most mall articles, this one is completely sourced.--Milowent (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The approximate level above which we consider a US mall notable is between 800,000 and 1 million square feet. This is only one-third that size. No non-local importance. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, jeepers. Jasper Mall is doomed now.--Milowent (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant mall that has press coverage. People above provide citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disolveinarow (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those judging by mall size as a proxy for notability, note that I updated with a source that the current mall size is 350,000 square feet. It originally was about 80,000 sq. ft. smaller before the 2001-02 expansion.--Milowent (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasper, Alabama per Pink below. ~~Delete~~ of purely local interest, most of the cites are to reportage of press releases, and all are local. It is not the size of the mall, it is its impact. An early smaller mall which was innovative in its time may well have attracted national attention, while a larger cookie-cutter mall with no particular features will remain unnotable. Here there is no evidence of anything except another cookie-cutter mall. There are no architectural awards. No press outside Alabama. No innovative financing schemes. --Bejnar (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it can be merged into Jasper, Alabama, where it's located.--Pink Bull 02:45, 26 February 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. Kudos to the participants in the discussion for level headed comments. I wish all were like this. There seems to be sufficient reason to either keep or delete. That being the case there is no clear consensus as there is no clear policy issue involved. No consensus defaults to KEEP. JodyB_talk 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basanta Regmi[edit]

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

Subject of the article is non-notable as he has not appeared in recognised first-class or List A cricket as required by WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. He has represented his country, but not at the highest international level of the sport. Johnlp (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Johnlp (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have a lot of google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am of the opinion that Regmi meets the criteria of WP:ATHLETE in having represented his country (Nepal) at a number of tournaments that are offically recognised by the global governing body of cricket, the ICC and through Asia's regional body the ACC, such as World Cricket League matches and ACC Twenty20 Cup matches. This from my understanding of WP:ATHLETE makes him notable in terms that he has represented his countries national cricket team at international tournments. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played in international matches recognised as official by the governing body of the sport. An obvious notable cricketer and I'm surprised a member of the cricket project nominated this one. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But if you look at his stats here, he hasn't played any first-class or List A cricket. Had Nepal beaten Namibia in 2006, he would have done, but they didn't, so he didn't. I don't mind whether he stays or goes, but if he stays, the WP:CRIN criteria probably have to be amended. Johnlp (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No they don't need to be rewritten. The guidelines clearly state that a player needs to have "appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". I'd say that an official international is self evidently a major match. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep (for now)~~Deletechanged after leaning towards the comments of Johnlp below. I think, but I'm not sure. I am of the mind that just because Nepal (for example) as a team may be notable, individual players for those teams may not be. This is a tricky one. It's the ACC tournament that is awkward as it is quite a notable one. If he goes there are countless others that need reviewing (Wang Lei (Chinese cricketer) is one picked at random). However, I fail to see how somebody at this level (full international for what to us is a very minor team) is more notable than a player for South Africa/England/Austalia at the U19 World Cup, of which several players have been deleted (and re-created a year later on the basis of 1 FC match...)!—MDCollins (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this player played at the Under-19 World Cup too! And for a team that actually beat South Africa and New Zealand in 2006. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you look at the definition of major cricket then it's pretty plain that the matches played by Nepal don't qualify, so although there's no problem with the article about the team there is a problem with individuals whose only matches are in these minor matches. U-19 matches aren't major cricket either. Johnlp (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From that page: "Major cricket is a term used in cricket to encompass all forms of the sport that are played at the highest International and domestic levels". It's not an official term anyway, but an official international is by definition amongst the highest international levels. I'd also like to point out that you yourself this week have voted to keep a player who played three first-class matches for someone's personal XI almost two centuries ago, but are now nominating for deletion someone who, as we speak, is playing their 37th official international in the last four years! Surely you see the ludicrousness of that? This is a major problem with the cricket project. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm now convinced by Johnlp's argument, so changed my opinion above.—MDCollins (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above - this man has played 37 official internationals and can be referenced thoroughly. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not denying his record. What I am saying is that he hasn't so far played first-class or List A cricket which means he hasn't played major cricket as defined by external authorities, which is the basis of where we draw the line on notability of individuals for WP:Cricket. It may be that we should draw the line somewhere else, and I'm of course happy to accept consensus on that. But before we do that, we should be aware of what the consequences of that might be in terms of the cricketers who would then reasonably get articles; and, because we're not meant to be doing OR here, we should ground any decision to do this on some authority elsewhere, in the same way that the present distinction is grounded on custom, practice, ICC rulings, ACS definitions, Wisden etc etc. Johnlp (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major cricket is NOT officially defined by any external authority! One thing that is defined by an external authority is what is and isn't an official international, which is done by the ICC. This player has played in 37 of them. What more do you need? Andrew nixon (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NB that what the ICC counts as "full internationals" are "international one-day cricket tournaments for national teams without Test/ODI status", open to affiliate countries etc. This player's matches are between countries in the "ICC World Cricket League Division Five. This doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE as being at the top level, even if it as far as this player can go for now. This would be similar to a footballer playing well down the football pyramid for a club for say Hucknall Town F.C. in the Northern League Premier having an article, at least 5 tiers down the pyramid from the equivalent Premier League/Football League top division status. The only difference is that this cricketer plays for a country not a domestic cup. WP:ATHLETE says "the highest professional level" - Division 5? don't think so. Amateur (usually considered to be the Olympics/World Championships? Again, I wouldn't have said so. Notability by depth of coverage? Could argue that here, but not for the countless others that this would set precedence for.—MDCollins (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you the same question that John ignored above - does anyone seriously think that a player who played three first-class matches for someone's personal XI two centuries ago and for which we know practically nothing about is more notable than someone who is now playing his 38th international and for whom we can find numerous references? If the answer is yes, then there is a serious problem with WP:Cricket. These are official internationals! Yes, they're Division Five, but an international is an international. We don't say that a footballer isn't notable because he played for the Faroe Islands against Andorra. And also note that the basic biography notability is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Even if you think he doesn't meet WP:CRIN (which he does), then you have to concede that he easily meets WP:Bio and change your vote to keep. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:18th Century players - no, I'm not sure that they should either, but we aren't discussing them. By our current guidelines they do and I accept that. I am more than happy to have a fuller discussion on this at WT:CRIC regarding our guidelines (again!) but I don't think this is the best test case for it. I still stand that using WP:CRIN, this player doesn't fit; maybe that's a flaw, maybe it isn't. Does Nepal have a domestic structure, or is the "international team" basically the only county/domestic team? Also as I said, you have a good case for WP:BIO, but I'm not convinced by the "depth of coverage" yet.—MDCollins (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:CRIN:

The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971

This person has played at least ten times in Twenty20 internationals for his country according to The Cricket Archive.Hack (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've been watching this for a while and haven't known which way to go; I even considered rescuing the article myself. However, I now don't think it should have one. Playing for Nepal, while an honour for this chap is certainly not equivalent to playing for England, Australia etc. He hasn't played in an ICC World Cup, Champions Trophy or any equivalent competition, and it is these competitions that make up the highest level of the game. To quote the ICC, a Twenty20 International is defined as being:

b. Are between:

i) Any teams participating in and as part of the ICC Twenty20 Championship; or

ii) Full Member Teams; or

iii) A Full Member Team and any of the Associate/Affiliate Member teams whose matches have been granted ODI status (i.e. the top 6 Associates/Affiliates).

iv) Matches between any of the Associate/Affiliate Member teams whose matches have been granted ODI status (i.e. the top 6 Associates/Affiliates).

Harrias (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Harrias is persuasive. Are we sure that none of this chap's international appearances are covered in those terms? If so, delete. If not, keep. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in my opinion this discussion is going off-track, the real question is whether an article can be written based on reliable/notable sources, and in this case it can. Polarpanda (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is that he passes WP:BIO, which requires that he be the subject of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources. I don't think there's evidence that he is. So, we're addressing the much lower bar of WP:ATHLETE, and trying to decide whether he passes it. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have undertaken a complete rewrite of the article in order to better establish his notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (excellent) rewrite makes it very clear he fails WP:ATHLETE. He's clearly mentioned in a number of reliable sources, but in my opinion all but perhaps one are utterly trivial references, meaning he still fails WP:BIO. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a lot of weight on the U19 performances; long-standing consensus is that U19 doesn't count as being at the highest level.—MDCollins (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean it can't be in the article. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: WP:CRIN states that, in order to be notable, a player must have "appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". It then goes on to define major cricket as including "any player or umpire who has appeared in ... a limited overs international ... since 1971". At no point does it say that this limited overs international has to be a full ODI. So the questions are, 1) has this player played in an international? and, 2) was this international of the limited overs variety? The answer to both of these questions is yes, therefore he meets the major cricket qualification and therefore he meets WP:CRIN. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman alert, but according to that, if I and my cousins play a limited overs game against some American friends and declare it an "international", we're all notable? --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously not - but then your international wouldn't have been declared as official by the games governing body, as the subject of this articles internationals have been. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - that's my point. As Harrias points out above, the internationals in question have not been designated by the ICC with full status. --Dweller (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they have - see here, particularly the heading "Other Official Internationals" which quite clearly states that "any one day match between Associate/Affiliate international teams other than those already classified as ODIs" is an official international. The ACC Premier League and Intercontinental Cup play-off matches are probably not included under that ruling, and we could argue forever about whether the Twenty20 matches are "one-day matches" or not, but the 12 WCL matches and 11 ACC Trophy matches certainly fit that criteria. So we have a player who has played at least one officially sanctioned limited overs international since 1971 - please explain how that doesn't fit WP:CRIN? Andrew nixon (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well fought argument, and one I had seen coming. It's difficult to disagree with, semantically, you're spot on. But I wonder what would happen.. VM Kenny (Gibraltar), Michael Schwartz (Israel), Terrence Thomas (Turks and Caicos Islands) etc etc, all of these players indisputedly played in limited overs internationals, all in ICC competitions. A description that incidentally doesn't rule out Under-19, Under-17, Under-15 matches and so on. Surely the most sensible place to draw the line is Test, ODI, T20I, FC, ListA, Twenty20? Harrias (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that all those articles should be created - but don't forget WP:NOTPAPER. I also agree that youth internationals should not be included. Also, some first-class cricketers barely pass notability - Basanta Regmi is certainly much more notable than this guy based on the amount of information we have on him. Perhaps we can put a lower limit on how many internationals a player has to have played? Andrew nixon (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having stirred up this hornet’s nest by nominating this article for deletion, I’ve deliberately kept away from the discussion in the past couple of days to see where it would go. Very early on, I wrote that “I don't mind whether he stays or goes, but if he stays, the WP:CRIN criteria probably have to be amended”. That’s still my view: no one disputes that we need to draw a line somewhere and to draw it clearly so that anyone (not just the cricket experts) writing a new article knows where they stand. In my view, the present line is clear and Regmi fails to reach it; if we change the line so Regmi does reach it, which is both feasible and reasonable, then so do the Gibraltarian/Turks & Caicos etc cricketers User:Harrias cites. You can’t draw a wobbly line: it’s one or the other.

What sways me a bit – and I’m happy to accept whatever consensus is reached – is that WP is not meant to be OR, and the two heavyweight databases that patrol this area, cricketarchive and cricinfo, both balk at aggregating these international matches into their player stats, even though they maintain scorecards for them. If they draw the line above these matches, then what authority do we have to draw it elsewhere without risking accusations of OR? I’m not swayed by comparisons with obscure first-class cricketers of a long time ago: of course there are more references to a present-day player than there are to James Rice (cricketer), but Rice certainly qualifies on the present placing of the line, and Regmi is less certain. (We have to guard against recentism too: Rice may well in his time have been one of the top cricketers in the world, and I don’t think anyone’s claiming that for Regmi at this stage.)

Someone a bit further back suggested this might be thrashed out better at WP:cricket. It’s precisely because we haven’t successfully done that in several discussions around these points in the past that I brought this here, hoping that people other than cricket contributors might get involved in a rather more public arena. Are there similar debates going on in other sports projects? Can anyone from them help resolve this one? Andrew’s right to say this is a major problem for WP:Cricket, but surely it’s not one that can’t be solved? Johnlp (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think he does meet WP:CRIN having played in a limited overs international, but as for "if we change the line so Regmi does reach it, which is both feasible and reasonable, then so do the Gibraltarian/Turks & Caicos etc cricketers User:Harrias cites. You can’t draw a wobbly line: it’s one or the other." - this was why I proposed a lower limit for those who have played in non-ODI limited overs internationals. What if someone had played over 50 times in non-ODI official limited overs internationals, like Hillel Awaskar has? I'm sure we can come to a lower limit agreeable to most. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CricInfo records him having (what it has designated as) a first-class appearance, but Cricket Archive does not. Do we know whether the match is actually classed as first class? If it is, then surely he automatically passes WP:CRIN. SGGH ^ping! 09:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketarchive says that ICC specifically ruled this match not to be first-class. CA tends to be more reliable than CI in these matters, and I think we can be pretty certain that if it says it's so, then indeed it is. Johnlp (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should amend WP:CRIC to include cricketers who have represented their nation in the World Cricket League tournaments. Possibly I'm being too inclusive and of course I'm forgetting about ICC Trophy matches. Meh... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...from a wholly impartial and cricket-clueless observer (I'm a baseball man and prefer the ball hit in the air, preferably over a wall, vs. the New York Yankees). I cannot for the life of me begin to figure out how to establish an impartial, content-clueless opinion on the issue, which is arguably a problem (I think the ideal AfD opinions should come from people almost completely unfamiliar with the topic at hand...no internal, accidental bias...and the guidelines in this case seem fuzzy). It is, however, a problem that is likely well clear of the scope of this AfD, so enough of my yammering. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go Real Slow[edit]

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

Spotted this article when bumbling around. Unreferenced article on the site. Google search turns up that they apparently existed at one time, as per some lyrics sites which have some work of theirs. Unfortunately, a Google News search turned up nothing of note. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 23 February 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) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Smithey[edit]

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

Biography of a self-designated "celebrity" writer; miserable sourcing, long history of edits by an account claiming to be the subject himself, general mess. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh my God, this dude's the half-brother of Christian Weston Chandler, aka the creator of Sonichu. Either way, there are no sources on him explicitly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unless somebody wishes to write a sourced, neutral article about him. Otherwise, this serves as cannon fodder for the ChrisChan Sonichu fanatics over at Encyclopedia Dramatica. –MuZemike 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We need to discuss if the topic, not the article, is valid for inclusion. Messiness and conflict of interest are not reasons to delete. Being unreferenced is a possible reason to delete, but we need to see if the article can be referenced. For example, I found interviews with him at Rotten Tomatoes and Absolute Write, though the latter may not be reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Essentially, we need to vet this person on our own and determine if significant coverage from multiple reliable sources do exist. Erik (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete due to insufficient coverage of a significant amount from reliable sources. I think the Rotten Tomatoes interview is a good example but mainly exists because of the critic being involved with the website. In addition, vetting Absolute Write, it does not appear to be a reliable source. I searched around for more coverage but could not find any, just articles written by this author. I'm open to changing my mind if anyone can provide references covering this figure. Erik (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent COI and blatant use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. The individual in question (User:Cole Smithey, also using User:68.174.85.191) has been posting writeups and "critiques" in several film articles linking to his own work. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Desperate times calls for desperate measures, but Wikipedia should not be used to do your dirty work. Also, has anyone tried to contact him to explain to him that he can't use Wikipedia to pimp his name or let him know about the guidelines? —Mike Allen 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply User:Colesmithey has not only been templated (uw-auto and uw-coi), but was explicitly invited to take part in this discussion, via a non-template message on his talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. The name above User:Cole Smithey, didn't take me anywhere. —Mike Allen 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find absolutely nothing online about Smithey - see Google news, and lots more at Google web. Writers, even about celebrities, are not automatically notable. I can't find any secondary, much less primary, sources, about this writer. Can you? Bearian (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hicks (musician)[edit]

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

IP user claiming to be the subject has requested deletion on the talk page. I have instructed him to email the Foundation to verify that he is who he says he is. Notwithstanding that, I am not entirely convinced this individual meets WP:MUSICBIO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article subject has contacted OTRS requesting deletion. See ticket:2010022210035505. Kevin (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sources from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 February 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Pain[edit]

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

Appears that one of his films was once shown at the Pompidou, but I can't verify exactly what the book says because it's only snippet view in Google Books. This doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Not anything significant in Google News, as far as I can see. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From looking at the Google Books snippets it would appear that the subject's main claim to notability is as an activist for free radio, in which cause it appears that he was imprisoned. It's difficult to tell conclusively as I don't have physical access to the publications, but there seem to be several pages about the subject in this book, and this episode was important enough to be given a name ("Affaire Pain") by L'Express [4] Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also discussed in the records of a French National Assembly debate on Nov 18 1979, where a speaker says: "Dois-je encore évoquer l'affaire Pain, ce cinéaste «reconnu » sur photographie, inculpé, incarcéré et poursuivi en vertu de la loi anti-casseurs six mois après les faits" [5] AllyD (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Subject is linked in the English article on Lebel. Also other links in French Wikipedia pages: [6], [7]. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do these mentions establish that he is notable? I'm not seeing it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has exhibited at the Centre Pompidou, which is significant. The google searches indicate a number of sources, all in French. As my French is faible I can only make out that the sources appear to be beyond trivial. His connections to Guattari, while fascinating, muddy the water a bit, as far as independent notability is concerned. However, with the help of some native or near-native French speakers, we could suss out the sources further. freshacconci talktalk 03:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence above attesting to notability. Ty 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems encyclopedic and notable...Modernist (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability in France is notability for en.Wikipedia. I do not read French, but found sources are compelling enough to allow this to remain and be improved by those fluent in the language [8], [9]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Jewel[edit]

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

There are a few, a very few, references available, but it has, at best, borderline notability. This is one of the articles for the community to decide. I may have nominated it, but I wish to be seen as neutral in this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google searches for "My Jewel apple" and "My Jewel seedling apple" returned no relevant results. If specialist sources exist establishing notability the onus was on the article creator to cite one or two of them when creating the article. In their absence delete as failing WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technological osmosis[edit]

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

This stub is essentially a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources that match the current content are sparse. "Technological osmosis" gets 102 unique Google hits, doesn't show up in Google News, and none of the hits in Google Scholar indicate that its use as a turn of phrase (with variable meaning and context) is based on this being a notable concept. — Scientizzle 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't for stuff belonging in urban dictionary. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited ghits, most not referring to this. Not for things made up at school springs to mind. Nuttah (talk) 13:59, 28 February 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) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapepublican[edit]

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

neologism and attack term, not supported by any of the cited sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the 115 unique web sources from Google, I'm hard-pressed to find any that use the term in a manner that is meaningful & appropriate for an encyclopedia. Given that the term is at least suggestively libelous and there appears to lack quality sources, delete this and User:Hervécortez/Rapepublican. — Scientizzle 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the legislation is notable, write an article about the legslitaion, not the made up insult name.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Franken amendment or Amendment SA 2588 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I don't support keeping and moving is the only content that looks npov is the list of nay voters, which isn't even really content. If there were more salvagable I'd agree, but I think we're better starting from scratch. If someone wants to work on it I could see userfying, but it's not just a "not good" article. It's a "bad" article. If you know what i'm saying.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the day comes that someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about the proposed legislation, I'll look forward to seeing it. Whether the intent is to make supporters of the bill look like idiots, or to make opponents of the bill look like rapists, we're not here to advance anybody's political agenda. Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion above. The article almost hedges on an attack article. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this would be a non-notable attack term. RFerreira (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That it's an attack term used by the left is no reason to delete the article. Moonbat, an attack term used by the right, has survived three AfD attempts. The difference is that the term "moonbat" is common enough to be notable but the term "Rapepublican" isn't. Reinstate the article in the unlikely event that the term achieves currency. JamesMLane t c 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, with little notability. Slightly POV, maybe a bit pointy, though I wouldn't quite call it an attack page, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list of votes is a matter of public record, so it's not an attack per se, but the term fails NPOV. If the term has achieved notability, a mention in the Franken Amendment article would be worthwhile, if it could be done neutrally - but that seems unlikely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry guys, the neologism argument simply isn't going to work, when Wikipedia allows such articles as Dirty Sanchez and Santorum. It's no more an 'attack term' than RINO. Let's be fair and honest. Hervécortez (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "neologism argument" is perfectly relevant. From WP:NEO:
  Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
  Without the presentation of reliable sources that use and define the term sufficiently for an encyclopedia article, it doesn't belong. — Scientizzle 16:07, 1 March 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 G4 as blatant recreation of deleted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Avril Lavigne Album, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Not Over (Avril Lavigne album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avril Lavigne's 4th Album – clearly an attempt to shirk the deletion process. Also salted to prevent recreation, if that helps any. –MuZemike 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne's Fourth Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Avril Lavigne's Fourth Studio Album

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

Unreleased album lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources much less a confirmed title or tracklist. See Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law RadioFan (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has so much wrong with it it's not even funny. Maybe after the album is named and has reliable sources can this be allowed. Ham tech person 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete complete WP:CRYSTAL as it stands. Might be worth a short paragraph in the main article on Avril but until released and reviewed, doesn't merit own article. NtheP (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should be deleted now as per WP:Crystal as mentioned above. Once album is released then it can be recreated.--NavyBlue84 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wp:CRYSTAL. And can this be served with salt, please? (We've had several of these: this one last July, this one in August, this one last month and this one a fortnight ago.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uni-5: The World's Enemy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Uni-5: The World's Enemy

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

Too soon. No secondary sources yet. Twitter should never be linked to. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand deleting the release date, but deleting the whole article seems drastic. The existence of the two singles is verifiable, it should suffice as proof that if nothing else they are working on an album. -Anonymous 15:27, 26 February 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twitter references fall under WP:CRYSTAL - Orracle107 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me In The Sky[edit]

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

This unreleased single, part of an album which is also unreleased (Uni-5: The World's Enemy), appears to fail the notability requirements for individual songs. –Grondemar 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No confirmed info yet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:42, 22 February 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 as per consensus and the addition of references to the article. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore slump[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Unreferenced since AUGUST. FREAKING. 2007. Obviously nobody cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - perhaps TransWiki to Wiktionary? I am leaving this as a "suggestion" because I don't know enough about that process. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The phenomenon has been the subject of academic study. [10], [11], [12], [13], and many more. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a few references. There's lots of room for improvement here, but the concept certainly warrants an article. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very notable concept. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used only mention the term and don't elaborate on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:12, 28 February 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Weekly Top 40[edit]

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

I can't find any specific information about this chart: how it's tabulated, who's in charge of it, et cetera. Much like the United World Chart, this chart seems to be made by mystery men. Surprisingly, there are only two hits in all of GNews for it, both mentioning only that a song went so high on the chart. The fact that there is no information that explicitly tells the history of a 30-year-old music chart is very, very telling. It therefore fails WP:GNG for lack of non-trivial coverage. If the media can't even be bothered to recognize this chart, then it most certainly must not be notable.

Note: There are a whole bunch of subpages associated with this, all of which are listed at Template:ARCTop40hits and are tagged for AFD here:

ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1980 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1981 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1982 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1983 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1984 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1985 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1986 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1987 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1988 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1989 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1990 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1991 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1992 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1993 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1994 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1995 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1996 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1997 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1998 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 1999 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2000 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2001 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2002 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2003 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2004 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2005 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2006 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2007 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2008 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2009 (U.S.)
ARC Weekly Top 40 number-one hits of 2010 (U.S.)

There are also List of number-one hits on the ARC Weekly Top 40 Chart (United States) and List of artists who reached number one on the ARC Weekly Top 40 (U.S.), as well as associated categories and a template. I will get to those as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does ARC stand for? Maybe notability is found under full name. I tried looking for 'America Radio Charts', 'Airplay Radio Charts' without much success. SunCreator (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could find no none trivial sources for this article. DISCLOSURE, have been brought to this topic by Campaigning via this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that's campaigining. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This should definitely be deleted." is far from neutral. SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, it was. Still. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was confusing this with some other Top 40 chart and therefore didn't realise it was so...flaky. I think I was mixing it up with the R&R charts? Anyway, this chart doesn't mean notability/verifiability standards. SKS (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as this list fails WP:NOT#MIRROR as it is a reguritation of the ARC website and lacks any evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the articles are all well-written, free of vandalism, and, while the history of the chart is unknown, it does definitely exist and has caused no problems having Wikipedia entries thus far. Lots of work has gone into these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LancerEvolution ; (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is a reason to keep. Simply being a cleanly written article isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it was Billboard, I would keep it, but it doesn't seem truly notable. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was waiting for this. This chart is clearly a fan-made chart, not any sort of official compilation at all. 174.92.84.91 (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G3 by User:NawlinWiki. —SpacemanSpiff 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possession spillage[edit]

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

Probable hoax article and attempt to create a neologism. Creator has a history of adding questionable material to articles, often with fake references. This article was previously prodded and deleted, but this was later challenged. No non-mirror hits that I could find for this term, and I can't find any listing for the book in the references. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Likely hoax; not noteworthy even if it isn't. And anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 16:44, 22 February 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. COI and promotional intent are not themselves reasons to delete, but they make us look particularly for the independent comment which is required as evidence of notability, and the consensus to delete is because that is not found. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound Manifesto[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Because some people have posted to the Discussion page for the article itself, I've copied these comments over to this Discussion page - so they're not overlooked. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete; there are no reliable sources sufficient to indicate notability. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accurate. The Manifesto is derived from three independent sources, all of which are referenced, as well as the page from The Sound Manifesto web site. The Manifesto itself has been made public via an OTRS agreement. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accurate. The Manifesto is derived from three sources, all of which are referenced Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliable Sources for the article, not the manifesto. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creators of page are creators of 'manifesto' (ie conflict of interest). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.241.192 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an article by an editor with a conflict of interest is not a criteria for deletion, it all depends on whether the article is written from a NPOV or not, and even then, what's called for is a re-write, not necessarily for deletion. Whether to delete or not should be determined on the basis of the subject, not on who created the article. That being said...Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, seems to be promotional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accurate. The Manifesto is derived from three sources, all of which are referenced. The article is factual and informative and there is no promotional material. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment to Egrabczewski None of those sources are reliable and pass WP:GNG. I have strong doubts about several bits, particularly the claim "oh, film X has a director of sound, this must have contributed to it". Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Open Letter by John Coffey an unreliable source? Why? Is David Yewdall's book an unreliable source? Why? Is the filmsound.org and Randy Thom's opinion unreliable? Why? The article states that this movement has contributed towards the popularity of the roles of Director of Sound and Director of Audiography. Find me a Director of Audiography or Director of Sound credit in the Western world for a film or video before the article on Director of Audiography appeared in Wikipedia in May 2006. Since Wikipedia has hosted articles on the Director of Audiography for several years, it has contributed to this movement by informing the filmmaking community of what happens elsewhere in the World. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going through in order:
  sources 1,2,3 and 4 are associated with the writers, in some cases by them; as such, they fail WP:GNG.
  
  I cannot see source 5, and therefore cannot verify the information; given, however, that it is a 424 page book which contributes at most a single page, it's hardly "significant coverage".
  
  Have you read the FilmSound.org article? It makes no mention of the Manifesto whatsoever. If the sound manifesto is derived from his ideas, all well and good, but that doesn't make it notable and it doesn't make his post a reliable source.
  
  In regards to "The article states that.." see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So Ironholds, you appear to be saying is that using books and articles as sources of reference for Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. Or have I missed something? I'm not using any other sources than those typical of other articles I've written elsewhere in Wikipedia. BTW RE: you comment on my talk page regarding posting irrelevant material on this page. What exactly is irrelevant to this discussion? Egrabczewski (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, read WP:RS and WP:GNG. I am saying that the quote unquote "articles" are respectively written by the authors of the manifesto and therefore not reliable sources and in some cases completely unrelated to the Manifesto (in that the source was an inspiration for the Manifesto, and makes no reference to it whatsoever). Articles should use reliable sources which are independent of the subject and discuss it in significant detail. Speaking as somebody who has written over 500 articles, I'd eat my hat if I'd used the sort of sources you have. You've got unreliable sources, unreliable sources by the Manifesto authors and reliable sources that don't discuss the Manifesto at all. The "irrelevant comments" is about the mass of testimonials you placed on the AfD talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article states that the Manifesto is derived from several sources (more on this in the Discussion page to The Sound Manfiesto article). These sources have contributed to the concepts of the Manifesto. These are the references I have quoted and I think we agree that they are legitimate. The article can either refer to The Sound Manifesto web site or it can state the principles of the Manifesto inline. Since I was asked to remove reference to The Sound Manifesto web site on the grounds of neturality then if you're looking for references to Manifesto then, at present, you'll only see it on The Sound Manifesto web site. Regarding your comments about "irrelevant comments", I have to disagree. The article header invites people to comment on the project Discussion page. In practice most people have left comments on the article Discussion page instead. It is hardly irrelevant to copy those comments into the right place is it? Perhaps the comment is misleading but I feel these comments need to be viewed by all who make a decision on whether or not to delete this article as they are HIGHLY relevant in determining the notability of this subject and hence article and they do indeed support the case for its notability. The only issue is whether it is notable according to the definition used by Wikipedia. Egrabczewski (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be misunderstanding what notability is. Notability is sources discussing the article subject, not the sources of the article subject. It is also not the number of IP addresses and new accounts who think the idea of the article is quite nice. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay Ironholds, accepting for the moment that Wikipedia has a definition of "notable" which means that articles should refer to independent sources as a form of reference. Tell me if I've misunderstood but from what you say then that means that I need a reference to, say, a publication or Web site that holds an article on the Manifesto that was not written by myself. Notability cannot be established on Wikipedia by a consensus of persons. Is that your interpretation of the rules of Wikipedia? Egrabczewski (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Effectively, yes. Consensus establishes notability, but consensus is based on evidence. Ironholds (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little concerned at the way the talk record is being edited here. Once an editor has replied to a comment, going back and changing the comment to which that editor has replied can be misleading. I'm WP:Assuming good faith about all editors' intentions here, but contributors to this discussion should please read WP:REDACT: a talk page is a record of a discussion, and when it's changed back and forth then other editors can't follow who's said what and when. If it's essential to change what you wrote, then mark out your deletions and insertions (as described in WP:REDACT) ~~when changing what you wrote~~ rather than re-writing. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 20:01, 28 February 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. Any content that can be sourced can be merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugman and Gaylord[edit]

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

All other minor characters in the C.O.P.S. series who have their own articles are currently up for AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addictem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley. As this article looks pretty much identical to the others, I think this should be considered along with them for consistency. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Excessive plot summary and trivia that does not show any reliable third-party sources. It's also mostly original research based upon some youtube videos. Reyk _YO! 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all listed. Agree 100% with Reyk. Note: There may be more minor C.O.P.S. characters out there; I had nominated one (Johnny Yuma) for AfD prior. Jrh7925 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of reliable third person information regarding this character to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge into a character list. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge.-- a proper merge, not just a character list . Whether it should be a separate article is less important, but in practice keeping a separate article is a better protection against loss of proper content. (that does not mean that all the present material should be kept, whether merged or separate--I think it and the others like it are considerably too detailed.) DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doorstop to removal of details; the whole article is original research and pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Why are these two characters given together? Abductive (reasoning) 08:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE as article should either be improved further or merged and redirected to C.O.P.S.#Characters_in_the_series, which would benefit from at least the lead sentence of this article. Because we WP:AGF, it is clearly not a hoax and certainly not libelous. There is nothing to protect the public from here. By contrast, we actually improve another article and make searching convenient for our readers who come here interested in these characters by allowing for a path to the other article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per a nobody. Okip 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of notability and no sources to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reliable third person information and fails notability criteria. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to all characters from this same series, since all of the articles are quite full and well done. Dream Focus 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crested gecko eating habits[edit]

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

Personal tips on feeding geckos - what is on New Caledonian Crested Gecko appears to be sufficient -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also, I don't think anyone will find such an article, because no one will enter such a title in the search box and no other article links to it. --Cyfal (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am joining the WP:NOTHOWTO club. Warrah (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even a WP:SNOW - Nothing can be merged; it's all original research and doesn't expand upon New Caledonian Crested Gecko, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Military Department Organizational Norms[edit]

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

A complete unreferenced, unencyclopedic article about an unnotable subject. prod removed by author so it must mean something to someone. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.
Delete - not notable, no GHits of any kind, no references, no indication that it is significant in any way. (GregJackP (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete non notable organisational policy. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, not written in an encyclopedic style. RadManCF (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely non-notable bureaucratic values statement. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. There isn't an article here, to be honest. It's obvious that this is close to a verbatim copy of something, and there are other sites for posting such information. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:11, 25 February 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 HHey Gujju, then move the merged article to this title leaving a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Bina Jiya Nahin Jaye[edit]

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

Future film with no evidence of notability Smappy (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there an Indian reliable source like http://www.variety.com/ where the claims inthe article could be verified? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate article. Set redirect to HHey Gujju. There's a reason why this title is only now getting coverage, as it's actually a stubby recreation of the film article for HHey Gujju (original title)... which itself has significant sourced coverage over an extended period, with its sources toward notability (under the old working title) already present in the HHey Gujju article, and shown as meeting the caveats of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Now that production has decided to go with a different name as part of the film's production process, what needs to be done is to delete this new title, redirect to the old title, and expand the original to show that it has gone through a name change (adding sources showing that the name has changed). Same film. Same notability. New name. [14], [15], [16]. Old name still has the greatest searchability. Once the newer name is more readily searchable, I will be happy to myself perform a move from old name to new. As it is, the author may not have been aware we already had the topic covered. Perhaps the nom might withdraw and we can be a little WP:BOLD and make the fix. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just worked on the HHey Gujju article to show and source its name change. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per MQS. —SpacemanSpiff 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if this is the new name of this upcoming film, per MQS, then it should be deleted/merged, then the existing article properly moved to the new title -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes good sense. I also think a redirect from the old more searchable title to the new one should be left in place after the move. No need to have someone inadvertantly recreate the old. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 27 February 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next Level (George Acosta album)[edit]

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

This article is entirely composed of an infobox, a track list, and a credits section. There is no lead section or any actual sentences, and the references are sparse with the two working references existing in the Credit section. There's nothing that would lead me to believe that the album is notable. Sorafune +1 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the nominator has actually listed reasons for expanding this article. A problem with article quality is not a reason for deletion - that is what edit tags and stub tags are for. (I have added a rudimentary intro.) With that being said, I agree that there is little out there to support notability, but there appears to be some. The album has been reviewed at AllMusic and that review is already linked in the infobox, so that adds a little bit of notability. Also, per precedent, the artist's article has (so far) passed the test of notability so that helps the album articles to a certain extent. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: George Acosta himself appears to be notable and prolific, and this album seems to be available at the usual outlets - eg [17], [18]. I think it just needs expanding. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable in that it was released by a notable artist on a notable label, and there do seem to be sources (including an Allmusic review). Serviceable enough of a stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:44, 22 February 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. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey O'Malley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two others minor characters from the same series are also up for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addictem, so they should probably all be considered together. (The only other minor characters with their own article, The Bugman and Gaylord, look a lot like this one, so I'll AfD that too for consistency) -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Mostly excessive plot summary and excessive trivia which, as Pcap notes, seems to be original research based on some youtube videos. Reyk _YO! 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. It is a standard fictional character biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment These minor characters in cartoon series really don't seem to be sufficiently notable for an article on their own. Also too much plot detail and too much trivia, of which Wikipedia is not a collection. As others have said, a lot is OR based on watching YouTube, and it might be notable if third party sources were there to use as references for it instead, but they don't appear to be -- Boing! said Zebedee 01:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Decided to strike that Delete, because having read comments about this and the other three, I'm not so sure now - I'll leave my original opinion as a Comment instead -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The argument above is not an argument against a proper merge, nor has the nominator given any. Whether it should be a separate article is less important, but in practice keeping a separate article is a better protection against loss of proper content. (that does not mean that all the present material should be kept, whether merged or separate--I think it and the others like it are considerably too detailed.) DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is nothing to merge. It's pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive (reasoning) 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of notability and no sources to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per comments above. Okip 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources, which are all Youtube clips, plainly and clearly fail reliability standards. I performed a (fairly quick) search of my own for additional potential sourcing and came up basically empty. I fail to see how WP:IAR applies here -- incorporating WP:OR articles on non-notable subjects isn't exactly "improving the encyclopedia" so much as it is "filling the encyclopedia with questionable content." Read Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means for clarity on proper application of that rule -- it's not intended to justify, you know, everything. This isn't "nothing is true, everything is permitted" territory :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MatheGrafix[edit]

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

This software started out in 1994, and is now at major version number 8. Despite this, I'm unable to find significant independent coverage about it. Pcap ping 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 11:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To be fair, the German version of the article lists some schools that use the product. Google turned up some hits but they seemed to be generated by the company. I didn't see any significant independent sources that met notability criteria.--RDBury (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CFugue[edit]

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

I can't find significant independent coverage of this software in reliable sources. The article is being edited by an user name whose similarity with the software's creator name indicates a WP:COI. Pcap ping 10:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road Tech Computer Systems Ltd[edit]

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

This is a company selling thier product, Does not Conform to the Wiki Nobility Policy
In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:

   * the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR
   * listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR
   * used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.Chukie m (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a software consultancy and vendor that sells a Software as a service product launched in 2006 for the analysis of tachograph data, aiding conformance to the EC Drivers Hours regulations. In English, what I think that means is that they sell software that relates to the supervision of truck drivers for regulatory compliance. If you didn't get that from the article, you have a good excuse. At any rate, such software is unlikely to be covered by sources outside of a very limited sphere of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannon Hill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

prod2 that was suddenly contested minutes before expiry by single-edit IP. I cannot find significant third-party coverage in reliable sources for this company. Haakon (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another company whose sole claim of notability is being "fastest growing" together with hundreds of others. Unless someone can provide evidence that their products have been noted, I don't think this article is encyclopedic. Their Cascade Server was speedily deleted as G11. Very little coverage, even in specialized venues like EContent [19]. Gets a few blips in CMS Watch, [20], and it is covered in 12 pages in their paywalled report, but that's a publication with very limited audience. [21]. KMWorld also has little coverage [22]. So, it's about on par with Vialect, the maker of Noodle (software) in my view. Tony Byrne, the owner of CMS Watch, rates it as "toward the bottom" of the market (together with EPiServer, Refresh, Clickability and CrownPeak) in his "The WCM marketplace" 2008 article KMWorld article [23]. Does not pass WP:GNG in my view. Pcap ping 11:29, 22 February 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) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garrow Verticopter[edit]

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

This is a project to build a new type of aircraft. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish notability because the only source is the designer's own page. A Google search for "verticopter" yields nothing that meets the criteria of a reliable source let alone anything that would satisfy the draft notability guidelines for aircraft. I therefore reluctantly conclude that we should delete the article. -- Rlandmann (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability only a self-reference. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to be a proposed aircraft by a new one-person company whose main current focus is selling plug-ins for their proposed aircraft for X-Plane computer simulator. Article fails both WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). This could be reinstated as an article if an actual prototype is flown, but until then it is WP:CRYSTAL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, I am in NO way related to the Company in any shape or form, and was interested in contributing an Article as it seemed of interest to the people following VTOL aircraft in general. The company has been around since 2008, I do not know how many people are employed currently, but I am quite certain it is more than One At least in terms of Contributors - http://www.verticopter.com/aboutus.php Regarding Notability, they have been featured in Independent News Articles - Vertical Magazine - And on Frost & Sullivan's News Updates - (Needs Subscription) Specifically with regards to your query, they seem to have performed multiple prototype tests, Please see video here - PS: I find it increasingly difficult to feel like contributing anything of value to Wikipedia, as every article of any interest is Either Zealously Marked for 'Speedy' Deletion or Vandalised by Random users. Thanks for the consideration though. Nausher (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (PST)

Comment - Adding to the above, how is this article different from the existing article on the Garrett STAMP. Also, on a Positive note the Entry for the Verticopter has existed on the List of VTOL aircraft page since Feb - 2008 (About 2 years now) Nausher (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (PST)

Comment -- thanks for finding those links. Unfortunately, the piece in Vertical is a simple regurgitation of Garrow's own press release ([24] and [25]) which to me does not seem to be a strong indication of notability. I couldn't access the Frost & Sullivan article; but since they're a consultancy firm and their piece is dated shortly after the others, I wonder if it's the same material once again? For this to be a notable project, I'd expect to find independent coverage by the likes of Jane's, AW&ST, Flight International or even the EAA, but there doesn't seem to be anything out there. It's a relatively new project though -- it would be worth checking the latest couple of All the World's Aircraft.

"Other stuff exists" is never a good argument to bring to these discussions; but the primary difference between the Garrett STAMP and the Verticopter is that the STAMP actually existed and was actually flown (however fleetingly). Moreover, Garrett was a notable aerospace manufacturer in their own right. Failed projects or projects in development by notable manufacturers tend to be more notable than those of private individuals; if Bell or Sikorsky were developing the Verticopter, it would receive considerably more press coverage! For example, as short-lived as the STAMP was, nearly 40 years later it's trivially easy to find coverage from Popular Science and Flight International. I bet that back in the day, Jane's covered it as well; especially since it was a military project.

Once the Verticopter actually exists in some form other than computer games and radio-control models, it will almost certainly be notable enough for an article. Furthermore, once it really does exist, you could expect the members of WikiProject Aircraft to be fighting hard for its inclusion if the question ever came up. We tend to be pretty inclusionist!

Finally, I'm sorry that you feel discouraged. If you're interested in writing about aircraft, we have an absolutely huge list of real aircraft that still need documenting or verifying. Please join in! We could really do with your help :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At Rlandmann's request, I did a little research to try and find a RS, and these are my results- A search of the Jane's website turned up nothing, and I have access to the full Transport library. Neither Garrow nor Verticopter has any hits. The AIAA journals/conference proceedings turned up nothing, nor did a search of the CSA Illumina Aerospace & High Technology Database. Finally, a search of the ProQuest Military (mostly engineering stuff, not just military) database turned up nothing as well. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Can this artcile then be moved to a list of Proposed or Experimental Aircraft?

E.g. - List of experimental aircraft Or I could create a listing but would like to check here first, before that's up for deletion. Nausher (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (PST).

Comment -- Well, to be included on that list, the aircraft still needs to be notable. From what others have said, and my own search (see above), the only references to this aircraft are press releases and/or regurgitations of the press release. In my mind that leaves with only self-published sources, which isn't enough to establish notability. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If this material belonged anywhere, it wouldn't be on a list. It would overwhelm the other content. If the development project itself were notable (even if the aircraft hadn't flown yet), I'd suggest maybe mentioning it in the tiltrotor article. However, without any substantial indication that any reliable source considers this a notable project yet, I just don't think it rates a mention at all. If the article is deleted, we should also remove the reference from the List of VTOL aircraft. I think that a List of proposed aircraft would be problematic from a WP:CRYSTAL point of view, but even if such a list existed, without reliable sources to indicate its notability, the Verticopter still wouldn't qualify for a place on that list either. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as a proposed design. Feel free to remake the article if & when the design enters production. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kragg[edit]

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

Unknown notability for encyclopedia. Concerns on legitimacy of claims made. NJA (t/c) 10:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable per WP:BIO, blogs and websites non-notable per WP:WEB so nothing to split or merge here. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Search for "Kragg" alone turns up virtually nothing relevant. Search for "Kragg" "Ben Daniels" turns up a few things BY him, but nothing ABOUT him. Sources given at the article are all self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QK Southampton[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable local amateur soccer team. Does not appear to have played professionally or at the highest amateur level of the sport, as per WP:ATHLETE -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE refers to individual players, not clubs. Having said that, the article was already deleted once before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q.K. Southampton F.C., and nothing significant has changed in the team's circumstances since then...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only thing I could find relating to notability of sports things, so I assumed it applied too - do you know of anything relating to teams/clubs? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General rule of thumb at the footy project for English clubs is that a team must have played in, or at the very least be in a league whose members are eligible to enter, the FA Cup..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this club has never played at a high enough level. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They play too far down the English football pyramid to be considered notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Football Club History Database confirms they (or their predecessors) haven't played in the FA Cup or at a high enough league level. Also, there's no indication they pass general notability guidelines. Bettia (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable amateur team. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:47, 22 February 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) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Dale Murray, Sr.[edit]

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

Contested prod. Precedent shows that career minor leaguers are not inherently notable, and there is little else to assert notability. Subject did manage in the minor leagues, but it was at Class D, which is the absolute lowest level of organized professional baseball. Article was created by User:Drewmurray (long since disappeared from the project), which may indicate COI issues. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a career spanning ten years in professional baseball offers sufficuient coverage. As for the issues with the article, that is no reason to delete, clean-up and work on issues in a peer review. Passes WP:ATH. Minor league baseball may not be the highest professional level but it it "fully professional" as stated in athlete (See, professional baseball).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halvorsen brian (talk • contribs)
Sorry for not signing my comment. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But, WP:BIO also states that meeting one of the criteria, in this case playing in a fully professional league, is not automatic grounds for inclusion. Here we have a person who (according to baseball-reference, as a player, only made it to high-A ball (three steps below the Majors) and as a manager, only worked for one season at the lowest possible fully professional league. When cases like these come to AfD, unless the subject has very clearly established notability (by winning awards, setting records, etc), then the article is deleted. This even has been the case even with top MLB prospects playing in AAA ball, the usual consensus is to delete. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds of consensus only is no reason to delete. As I have stated, the article has multiple issues, and those should be addressed. I have seen plenty of articles on career minor leaguers, so there is obviously no real consensus on the issue. The article claims that the player is a member of the league's hall of fame (though it is not cited, I will attempt to research that further). I think that on that basis, he is a notable figure. I could understand deletion if he had only played a few seasons, but this person has played ten, or possibly more (often Baseball-Reference's minor league database in incomplete). I will attempt to save this from deletion, so I ask you, please don't be set on the claim that all minor league players are not notable, and keep an open mind when I finish the work on it. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never played near the major league level, though the article is written as if he did. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you mean the sub-heads. The article states the levels at which he played, never stating he played on a major league roster, but stating he played in a major league organization. It is not intended to fool anyone. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subheaders are definitely misleading. The headers should mention the teams he played for, and not their parent organizations. I doubt that he even saw spring training with the big league clubs. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention, please assume good faith. I never said anything of spring training or playing for the parent club. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, normal conventions in articles are to name the parent club, not the minor league team. I have, however, changed it to the years the playing time spanned. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He never played in the Majors.--Yankees10 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Special Express[edit]

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

An article can probably be written about this, but as it stands, this is nothing more than a list of Indian states and a few random city pairings thrown in (no references for anything). Delete —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note A reasonable list exists at List of named passenger trains of India for all trains in India. —SpacemanSpiff 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Holiday special trains change all the time (depending upon availability of rolling stock and tracks).And they are not named services. Also this article does not cite any sources and many of the services, look dubious.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that most Indian train services have names, but I do not think we could have an article for each. This is in fact not one of these, but a type of service. It might be possible to construct an article about them, but the presetn article looks as if it is intended to contain a list of services. Like bus timetables, these are likely to frequent change and are essentially unmaintainable in an encyclopaedia. Once the creator gets bored nand goes away, the page will quickly get out of date and become worse than useless: it would be misleading and thus positively dangerous. The operators have an incentive to keep their sites up to date, and the best solution is ALWAYS an external link to theri site. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClearOne Badminton[edit]

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

WP:N. Article's assertion of notability rests on being the first badminton facility "of its kind" in Western Canada, to having hosted the Canadian National Championships, and to producing some National Championships medal winners. Only source provided is the company Web site. A Google News/Books/Scholar search returns one mention in a Vancouver Resident's Guide. Given some of the claims in the article, this apparent total lack of coverage is surprising. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont see how this is notable. Poorly sources with primary references and I'm not finding much else either RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 February 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Benson Miller[edit]

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

A minor-bit actor. Almost no sources at all, and a frequent target of misinformation. Hipocrite (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per career meeting WP:ENT [26] and coverage meeting WP:GNG. Its time to use the available sources to expand and improve the article. Surmountable issues are a reason to keep an article, not delete it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Mr. Schmidt above. The actor has achieved notability with prominent role on notable series. Needing expansion and improvement is not a good reason for an AfD. That's what stub tags and edit tags are for. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:54, 22 February 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rated R Tour[edit]

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

querstionable notability on a tour that doesn't even begin for another 2 months. Many things can change before it starts (such as the dates) Alan - talk 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article about a forthcoming tour of a major contemporary artist. The article is sourced and will surely evolve over time.Poltair (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life story of singer Rihanna in it.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources to prove notability. ArticlesForRedemption 03:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Rated R Tour is a highly anticipated tour by a very popular musical artist. The article is carefully sourced and there is no need for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagoperson (talk • contribs) 11:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable because it has reliable sources. Wikipedia is all about editing, therefore if the dates change, the article will be edited. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the biggest tours of 2010. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The Tour Dates Are Posted On Her Official Website Rihannanow.com & Official Fansite Rihannadaily.com. RihannaFanPR (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.87.229 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be recreated as a redirect if a suitable target article is found. Also, a light scolding to the nominator for using Wikipedia-specific acronyms in the nomination statement without bothering to link them for those that may not know what they mean, as suggested in the guide to deletion. (a minor issue perhaps bit it's a pet peeve of mine) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine ancestry of Norwegian Royal Family[edit]

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

OR by synth, non-notable. There has not been any substantial writing (at least in English) on this particular possible linkage, and there is no particular reason, some historical confluence or overlap, that would cause someone to wonder, "Gee, do the Norwegian royalty descend from Byzantine people?" It is like someone threw a dart at a map and connected the nations hit on a whim. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment though lacking citations, I suspect that the information is correct. However (1) why the Norwegian Royal Family, since all the pedigrees involve "Frederick VIII of Denmark"; (2) Is it encyclopaedic? It might be better to have an article in Byzantine descents of western Europeans royalty generally. I suspect that there were relatively few relevant marriages to connect western kings and nobles with Eastern Emperors. That would be potentially be an interesting subject, but the present article invites equivalent ones for all the other European royal families. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doubting the accuracy of most of it. The line through Constance of Provence is dubious, and the Monomakh marriage is too specific (Vladimir's mother's was a Monomakhina, but her precise placement is anybody's guess), but that kind of thing can be dealt with. The majority of these marriages are reasonably well documented. There is a problem with the descents, however. The degree to which medieval and post-medieval royalty intermarried means that once a novel strain was introduced it spread rapidly, and subsequent intermarriages resulted in exponential increases in the number of possible ways of tracing from the original marriages. Any such page is only showing an arbitrary selection of the hundreds of possible ways a given modern royal house descends for any ancient one. The value of having such pages for every royal house, describing a random selection of possible lines, is what I question. That being said, I think I know the origin of this one - there is such a page for Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. This, arguably, might have a place as the Greek state overlaps geographically with portions of the former Byzantine Empire, and the royal family may have used such descents as a foundation for legitimacy (I don't know that this was the case, just that it might have been). Since the Greek royal family was a scion of the ~~Norwegian~~ Danish, and so was the Norwegian, we ended up with a Norwegian page as well, but without any of the justification that might pertain to the Greek one. Even with the Greek, only such descents used for claiming legitimacy, and not those derived from modern research, are appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) corrected Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I would go along with Peterkingiron's suggestion and merge this article into a larger one on Byzantine descents of western European royalty. For example, through the marriage of Philip of Swabia ( a member of the House of Hohenstaufen) to the Byzantine Irene Angelina, Byzantine ancestry was eventually passed to virtually all the western European royal dynasties. By having an article solely on the Norwegian Royal Family, it suggests that Byzantine ancestry only occurs in that particular dynasty which is misleading and incorrect.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's address this: a possible article on marriages between Byzantines and members of the European royalty/nobility. Maybe I am just jaded by how ordinary this is. Are we going to have 'Marriages between Basques and European royalty?', 'Marriages between Vikings and European royalty?', 'Marriages between etc, etc.' Any group about which someone unfamiliar with medieval marriage patterns may sit and wonder. To my knowledge, since Brook wrote his study and showed how common such marriages were, there has been almost no published work on this as a topic. In some cases a publication adds to notability. Brook showed just how non-notable such marriages were. There were dozens of marriages and most royalty descend from most of the marriages - nothing special here. Agricolae (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Peterkingiron was suggesting was an article showing the common Byzantine ancestry of the western European royal dynasties, so that this article with its genealogical link to the Norwegian royal family can be merged into that one. I would support such an article, but to have separate articles on every family with a line going back to the Byzantines would be superfluous to say the least.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that, and what I am saying is that there is nothing special about THAT topic to merit a page, and it likewise begs separate articles on common Basque ancestry and common Viking ancestry and common Welsh ancestry and common Pomeranian ancestry and common Cuman ancestry and common Finnish ancestry and common Vlach ancestry. The medieval and post-medieval royalty intermarried - a lot. There is common ancestry involving just about every European nationality. If Norway is a non-notable destination, Byzantium is just as non-notable an origin when it comes to such descents. Agricolae (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae, what you say is indeed true, as we can literally do separate articles on common descents from many diverse peoples, not solely the Byzantines. I just hate to see so much work deleted, and would prefer to see it merged somewhere else. Has the creator of the article been notified? It seems a bit strange that he or she has not commented here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least for now the identical material appears on Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. As we have discussed before, the effort put into a page does not, in and of itself, require a place be made for that material so it is not lost. Some material is just pointless trivia that is better off on a personal, or in this case genealogical, web page, and its removal from Wikipedia is no loss. As to notifying, I used an automated process that includes notification. I did not confirm that it actually did what it was supposed to. Agricolae (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this into Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family, or vice-versa. Royalty is, pardon the pun, commonly notable. While it might be encyclopedic and somewhat notable, it should not be redundant. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see which way the wind is blowing, but this page is the genealogical equivalent of "Royalty with large ears" or "Royalty with halitosis", or "Royalty who can drive cars". There is no common notability inherent to anything royal. Were it not for the fact that the author wanted to score a low-effort two-fer after creating the Greek page, it would never occur to anyone to create such a page, nor to look for one. As such, preserving a redirect is pointless, and there is nothing in this page that is of the least value to the Greek page. All but the most recent generations are a copy of the Greek, and those most recent generations are irrelevant to ~~the~~ it. Agricolae (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. This information shouldn't be eliminated; however, as virtually all the European dynasties descend from the Byzantines there should not be a specific article on just the Norwegians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above is a duplicate vote. Jeanne, this is not like Chicago where on election day you are encouraged to vote early and vote often. Agricolae (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chicago? I wouldn't know anything about that city or its electoral procedures as I've never been there. You are welcome, of course, to delete my above comment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is of dubious propriety, to say the least, to delete anything from a talk page written by someone else, particularly after it has been commented upon, except in special circumstances (copyright violation, open slander, etc.). An inappropriate vote doesn't pass the bar. You should strike out the vote portion of the comment. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the non-Norway-specific information shouldn't be lost. Since this page was copied from the Greek one, and only the Norway-specific information changed, then if the page is deleted nothing that you value will be lost. Given that, why not delete it - certainly not because we want a redirect pointing from Norway to Greece. Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis. Sole Soul (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, Agricolae, seeing as we already do have the duplicate info on the Greek article-bar the Norwegian additions. It really does not make sense to merge. Normally it's against my character to switch sides once I've voted on an issue, however you do make a compelling argument in favour of deletion. Just keep the info in the Greek article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator, no other concerns DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states by formation date[edit]

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

This page has multiple issues. WP:OR, and WP:NPOV are tagged on the page, but the main reason for this proposal is the lack of citations and sources. It does not even include all states on the List of Sovereign States, specifically States with limited recognition. On top of all this, the page is hopelessly out of date (one example, the first line says Kosovo is a proposed state). The page also appears to have hidden paragraphs within it. Desperately requires a clean up, and is unencyclopedic. ~~I do not feel this page is salvageable, as it is, at this stage. Unless things change, it should be deleted (I would not oppose it being recreated from sratch afterward though).~~ Outback the koala (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And close. AfD is not cleanup. This list has a clear setout criteria and just needs some work putting into it. Who knows, it could become a featured list. The nominator should also read WP:UNENCYC, WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I see what you mean, I've already started some improvements, but it will be alot of work. I honestly don't know how to close this debate though. Hopefully an admin will come along and close this for me. Outback the koala (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you're happy to withdraw the nomination, just say so and it can be closed. Lugnuts (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it so. I would rather work to improve the article, rather than have this discussion stay open. Outback the koala (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of the function of Wikipedia is to serve as an almanac, and this list if nothing else serves that function. The dates of independence, sovereignty, last foreign occupation, etc seem quite encyclopedic, and the list is the sort one expects to find in an almanac or encyclopedia. Deletion is not a substitute for updating, if some entries need an update. Edison (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the 2 above. The Ogre (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know! I now agree, But I don't know how to close the discussion... Outback the koala (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it for you. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 24 February 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 O Rio, A Cidade, A Árvore. Any sourced content can be retrieved from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onde Está[edit]

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

can't find anything notable about this single Alan - talk 06:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect ~~Suggest merging with Fresno~~. Poltair (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doomsdayer (below). Merge/Redirect to the parent album. Poltair (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - it looks like a video exists but the article says the song both was and wasn't released as a single. Therefore the article is little more than fan trivia. Instead of the band page, merge/redirect to the parent album O Rio, A Cidade, A Árvore. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 00:11, 23 February 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. On the weak participation here, there's no consensus to delete but it certainly seems that a merge to Mallu Magalhães may be the best solution. This is left to editors' discretion. ~ mazca ^talk 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mallu Magalhães (DVD)[edit]

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

appears to fail notability Alan - talk 06:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge I don't see why this shouldn't have an article of its own, but if not, it should be merged with Mallu Magalhães who is most certainly notable. Poltair (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life story of singer Mallu Magalhães the same.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out elsewhere [27] this sort of cookie cutter comment is not really helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this is getting a bit silly, Franklin. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Insofar as this can be considered an album, this (barely) passes WP:NALBUM, based on more or less inherited notability from the artist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:10, 2 March 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 Mallu Magalhães (album). Consensus is that it's insufficiently notable for a separate article, and wholly unsourced. Feel free to include sourceable information in the target article. ~ mazca ^talk 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguart[edit]

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

can't find anything notable about this single except it was never released to radio. appears to be something that will never be more than a stub if that much Alan - talk 06:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Mallu Magalhães (album) because the article has little more than fan trivia about the video. That can be added to the album article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect fails WP:NSONG, pretty plainly. Unsourced, and my own Google checking isn't helping any. Would certainly support a redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:12, 2 March 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Zellmer[edit]

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

This does contain some assertion of notability, so I was on the fence about speedying it. But is playing a trading card game notable? I stand corrected if it is. SS✞^(Kay) 05:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Looks like a clear CSD A7 to me, and it looks like someone else tagged it as exactly that at the same time as the AfD tag -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Apparently he declares himself "The Brett Favre of WoW", but he's hardly a reliable source. And I would assume the Brett Favre of WoW would earn more than 18(!) total G-hits. I get more G-hits than him from my various online ventures so that should tell you that he's non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Playing a collectible card game CAN be notable (see Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering)), and I'm prepared to accept for the sake of argument that Zellmer is at the top of the WoW TCG game, but the WoW circuit is nowhere near as big (or lucrative) as the MTG circuit and thus it doesn't surprise me that Googling "Zellmer Warcraft TCG", "Joey Zellmer" and "Zellmer Warcraft" don't produce any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Thus he fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Sorry, WoW TCG players clearly can be notable - see Guillaume Matignon and Jim Fleckenstein. Zellmer's just not at that level, is all. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've learnt something today then. SS✞^(Kay) 07:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, ((db-bio)). Anna Lincoln 08:44, 22 February 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) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement solutions[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion. A google search shows some hits, but I'm not entirely certain this is notable. The advisory board seems to have a few well known names, and they do seem to have some publications. Overall I can't decide myself on this one, so taking here for review. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @261 · 05:15, 22 February 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) 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life imitating art[edit]

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

I have to be perfectly honest, I was considering not nominating this to AFD and just going with the speedy deletion reason. This seems to be OR! However, it's got enough references in it to give me pause. Taking to AFD for review. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable phrase and concept. That said, I see a lot of original research on the page. This article needs to be improved, not deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Is art not reality? What has Sahra Palin, Motorcycle sales, or Arnold Schwarzenegger got to do with O. Wild? I cannot see any reference making any case that Wild's concept is used by anybody. If not deleting this strange list of ideas immidiatly, it should redirect to Oscar Wild Mootros (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books shows plenty of discussion, and Scholar does too. It is an interesting concept, best illustrated by examples. The article gives a number, and is likely to expand as other editors see other examples. This kind of article draws people into Wikipedia and encourages them to explore. There is plenty of room for expansion, no reason to delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article does not meet any other reason for deletion, I assume the reason to consider deletion is that the subject fails to meet guideline for notability, specifically that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The phrase, however, appears to be a notable concept as the above searches show. Certainly there should be no problem finding sources for any particular statement in the article. The challenge may be in finding Significant coverage, meaning sources that address the subject directly in detail. FWIW, I found several books whose main title is the phrase. Here are a few: Life imitates art: encounters between family therapy and literature , life imitating art and art imitating life , Life imitating art. I do agree with the view that the article could use alot of improvement.--Work permit (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @260 · 05:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. The article is nothing more than a definition of the term followed by an "in popular culture" list consisting of indiscriminate trivia and cruft, neither of which are valid reasons to establish an article on Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is just a list of trivia combined with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH --MaxEspinho (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DICTIONARY --Joe Decker (talk) 19:29, 27 February 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) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of Turkey on the river[edit]

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

Unlikely concatenation of subjects. Woogee (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am SURE I remember a policy that explicitly states "unlikely concatenation of subjects" as a reason to delete lists, but I'll be darned if I can find it. Could the nominator or someone else please refer me to it so I can register a firm policy-based Delete vote? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:NOT#DIR, paragraph 6. Woogee (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:NOT#DIR paragraph 6 is a reference to WP:OVERCAT, which is specifically referring to misuse of the category namespace, not the article namespace. I still stand to be convinced but that policy isn't doing it for me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that paragraph is for articles consisting of lists. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is for categories. They're separate things. Woogee (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ah hah, you're quite correct, it is. Right, then, delete per that policy, thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Cities of Turkey. The fact that they are on rivers is not so remarkable. I imagine that in that part of the world a good supply of fresh water would be vital for a city to exist. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', per Woogee. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is just a list of towns. It can be improved. But I don't think it can be merged to Cities of Turkey. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a strange category. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 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. (X! · talk) · @666 · 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim P. Slaton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography doesn't make much of a claim of notability and I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this person in third-party sources. There are quite a number of primary sources within the article but without any tertiary sources the article is original research. Them From Space 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no GNews, GBooks, etc hits. Article was last edited by 'canopypiloting' - which is connected to the subject of the article. No reliable sources of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

KEEP Why is wikipedia so hard to use and why is it so hard to write an article about a real successful guy who has made HUGE contributions to his industry? I don't understand the comments left on the article Jim P. Slaton, what do you mean "been able to find significant coverage of this person in third-party sources"? What do you consider a third party source? Jesus, this guys is everywhere online and come up either #1 or #2 organically in Google, Yahoo and Bing. We would spend ten more hours submitting and rewriting the article if we knew exactly what we were suppose to write. Is this website wanting good content or are you in the business of deleting hours of work? Simply tell us what to do and we will do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canopypiloting (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* The information about Jim P. Slaton might not look the best but it is accurate. 01:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)AerialHistorian (talk)

Keep Last time I said weak keep, . But I finally did figure out how to find some good references in GNews: [28] including a NYTimes source for "Jim Slaton is the founder of the Pro Swooping Tour, a professional league. " [29] . Now all that is necessary is to rewrite the article. The editors above ask how, so I did a first pass at it: next step is to read and use the external sources to give references for the various parts of the career. As I also found the refs for them, they can take it from there. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @237 · 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep since I am not at all convinced of the notability of this "industry," despite the clamor made above. The NYT article provided by DGG actually suggests this lack of importance, since it points out that in 2008 the Pro Swooping Tour only had one event per year. Anyway, I trimmed the article some. I see great problems verifying much of the information, and I added all I could find--I could vote delete just as easily here, I think. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 22 February 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In The Loop (radio program)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this college radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable college radio show. Reliable sources are goig to be very hard to come by here RadioFan (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @236 · 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of sources confirming it exists, but no sources that are either independent, significant, or reliable, let alone all three at once. Without such sources it fails WP:N. (Note also that there's a much MORE notable Radio Australia program with the same name.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Magnuson[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP, apparently in bad faith (huh?). No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. For instance, no reviews of the book or the individual found in NYT or other large papers, Google Scholar was pretty thin. tedder (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relevant standards are WP:N and WP:AUTHOR. Regarding WP:N, while I can find plenty of passing mentions of Magnuson's existence, activities, and book, I can't find anything that might constitute "significant" coverage of him in a reliable, independent source. Looking at WP:AUTHOR, criteria (1) and (2) would seem to be relevant and at this stage Magnuson falls short of being "regarded as an important figure", "widely cited", or "known for originating a significant new concept". He's verging on it, so no prejudice against recreation once more sources turn up. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the most extensive discussion of the subject's work, and that's not from a very reliable source. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tucker (racing driver)[edit]

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

Purely a procedural nomination. Some users who apparently work for the subject of the article want it deleted, the article has been protected (by me) to stop disruption. If said users have a valid reason for deletion they can make their case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough, although it would be nice to have some reference citations in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I am satisfied that the Scott Tucker (racing driver) page is a fair representation of a notable person. There are enough references to him on the internet. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - The article seems to assert notability but I can't find any coverage of this gentleman which would support WP:N. I can only find brief mentions in AP wires. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @234 · 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, relisting for a third week? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FESTO (Esperanto meeting)[edit]

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

Contested prod. The deprodder added more primary sources but failed to address the central issue of the prod, which was a lack of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an annual meeting and music performance, attended by always less than 100 people? Should somehow fail ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:N that's what I meant I presume. --Pgallert (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised that this is not a good argument, it could have attracted media coverage at some point. On further thoughts, I cannot really quote a policy (save Common sense and IAR) saying this should be deleted. Just like to point out that my birthday party usually has similar dimensions, happened in different countries, and we even talk more than one language. --Pgallert (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems unlikely that this wouldn't have garnered sufficient local press through the years to pass WP:N. – EdvardMunch (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that it actually did get such press coverage? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 10:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star for Life[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable school program Ridernyc (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is quite a lot in the swedish media on this [30] and a very small bit about Volvo sponsoring it in South African news [31]. Not sure this is notable but it may be good to have a swedish opinion on the coverage. Polargeo (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm Swedish and judging by the sources here, it seems like a notable program. Reliable sources covering it include: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] (which says Mandla Mandela helped raise money for the project when he came to Sweden), [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] (not sure about the reliability of this one). Some of the sources just give passing mentions, but some cover the subject in more detail. I think this would be enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. The leftorium 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the good work by Theleftorium. Tack! I've trimmed the article some--it needs help, more help than I can give it. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned up the article and added the sources. The leftorium 11:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very nice work. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - quite clearly a notable programme. WP:Before is relevant. TerriersFan (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Maya[edit]

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

Non-notable actress lacking GHits of substance and zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. ttonyb (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or usefy to author without prejudice toward recreation if/when the subject gets coverage in RS to meet N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO -- A search finds no coverage other than Facebook, personal homepages and other self-submitted sites. Also fails WP:PORNBIO -- as only coverage under alternative name of Ange Venus are blogs and internet sales websites. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:45, 26 February 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kamal[edit]

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

As it turns out, this person is not notable at all--there is nothing whatsoever except for the IMDB entry. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Good faith Google searches return no reliable sources, and the fact that the page appears to have been created by Mr Kamal himself suggests it's probably just a vanity page rather than an honest attempt to document a genuinely notable person. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Article is written by its subject, who is a technician in a film studio. Fails WP:N, WP:COI, etc. I do not believe the entry can ever meet notability requirements - the problem does not appear to be with sourcing. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO and is nothing but an autobiography. Woogee (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, ((db-bio)). Anna Lincoln 08:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 10:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a useful and productive member of his profession, but there just aren't any reliable sources to demonstrate that he is also notable, and that's what matters here. Favonian (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CompassionArt[edit]

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

This is a joint nomination for the organization and the same-titled album.

The organization and the album both fail GNG, which requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only material coverage I was able to identify for either the album or the organization was in Christian sources. Note that there is tons of notable Christian music that—that is, Christian music that gets significant coverage in reliable sources that are not dedicated to Christian topics (Billboard has at least four Christian charts), so I am not in any way suggesting that Christian music is in any way inherently non-notable).

The organization also fails WP:ORG, which for non-commercial organizations requires both:

Scope of activities national or international in scale; and
Verified by significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

(1) is not met by funding international charities. (2) is not met by having a few write-ups in very closely-linked sources. Since both are required, the organization doesn't meet the guideline.

I do not believe that WP:MUSIC is applicable to the organization as the article is about a charitable organization. Were it to be applicable, these are how the criteria would be applied. The only possible hope is (6), and I don't believe it is reasonable to come to a positive conclusion on that one, either.

Unable to find non-trivial coverage in sources that are truly independent.
No chart results identified.
No gold records identified.
No nation-wide or international concert tour identified.
Has not released two albums at all, so no need to question whether the label is "major".
Not an "ensemble" by normal criteria (the group joined for one album).
Has not become a prominent representative of any style.
No major award nominations.
No major competition places.
Does not appear to have performed music for a notable work of media.
No national rotations identified.
No national program-length broadcasts identified.

The album may be considered by reference to WP:NALBUMS, which points back to the the basic criteria of N (i.e., WP:GNG) as the only way to establish notability for an album. The album, as mentioned above, fails GNG. ^Bongo_matic 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nom, because I had no problem finding at least a few articles that were clearly about this project in mainstream (secular) independent reliable sources. Examples: Associated Press/MSNBC.com, Malaysia Star, Lexington Herald-Leader/Kentucky.com, FoxNews.com. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Malaysia Star—no offense intended—is not a reliable source on this sort of thing and this appears to be republished ~~press-release~~ blog post they use as filler. The Lexington Herald-Leader is too local a source to be used to establish notability. (Note that the blog used for the Malaysian star also demonstrates the extraordinarily local interest of the project). The two AP stories (MSNBC and Fox) are especially telling. Do a search for "other Christian songwriters attended a retreat early" or "How many songwriters does it take to write a hit" (with quotes). If the AP do an article on something—and that's essentially the only source of anything on it other than its own press releases—the fact that almost nobody of the thousands or tens of thousands of AP customers carried it is telling. ^Bongo_matic 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources cited by Metropolitan90 are sufficiently reliable and independent to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Martial Arts[edit]

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

Article was restored after speedy. This isn't in my field, so I can not claim I tried every possibility, but i could not verify any of it to any source that was not self-published. I could not verify the books at all--neither WorldCat nor Amazon nor Google hass heard of either the books or the author. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be either a hoax or someone trying to promote himself. Doesn't belong on WP> Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it reads like advertising/promotional material, it's copied from his website, therefore could also breach copyright rules. I haven't been able to find the website of the publisher of the sources, nor is it listed on wikipedia. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Godmoding[edit]

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

Delete. Sources requested well over THREE YEARS AGO, and someone added another Wiki as a source? It doesn't matter, WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sources whatsoever. Not even worth moving to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spelled "Godmodding" there are a few hits in Googleland, but they appear to be in urban dictionary or blog/chat contexts -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, notability. Would a redirect to God mode be appropriate? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NOT a dictionary. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and WP:NEO. Pcap ping 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At![edit]

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

No reliable third party sources, and nothing in this article which suggests that this performer is notable. Woogee (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:N. Good faith Google searches for "At!", "At Crossing the Line", "At Kimi ga Hoshii" and "At Defrock Records" return no relevant hits whatsoever. The fact that the article was created by a single purpose account lead me to suspect it's a vanity page, and the tone and content of the article (plus the ???? for year of birth) suggest it's a school-age individual pimping either a non-notable music project or something they made up. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable--poorly written vanity page. For giggles, look up one of the "references" originally in the article, www.wetpaint.com. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Anna Lincoln 08:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written, all right - I can't work out if At! is male or female. But he or she is in any case non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the point - At! does't declare his/her sexuality, apparently. Woogee (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schoolage daydreams. — Gwalla | Talk 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of loopers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a product catalog or buyer's guide. There are comparison matrices of notable topics having Wikipedia articles, but the items being compared here are all linked to external product pages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We allow comparison lists of non-notable products as long as the topic is notable. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (I know that's not an argument you're supposed to make) but check it out dude: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination) -- I can name a dozen more just like that one, too. JBsupreme (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? Preemptively mentioning an essay that makes a point doesn't transform it into support for the opposite point or even render it ineffective. WP:NOTCATALOG applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry dude, I'm just telling it like it is. I think all of these bullshit lists should be deleted but it just won't happen. JBsupreme (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't make people argue against positions that you don't hold.. —Korath (Talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a product guide. There are other off- and on-line publications that do that much better than we ever could.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So how is this different to say Comparison_of_multitrack_recording_software? Maybe this needs to be moved to Incubation rather than straight deletion. Mattfret (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would "vote" to delete that one too. There are professional publications whose main purpose is to compare these kind of products. A person would be much smarter to go there for the information than to an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." WP is outstanding for many things but not for this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mattfret, see what JBsupreme and I were talking about before: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, I just removed the price column from that article for the same reason I removed it from this one. I considered nominating it for deletion too, but there is one significant difference between that article and this: most of the products in that one are linked to and covered by Wikipedia articles, with only a few redlinks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh good work on that... heres some more comparisons for you to remove prices from Comparison_of_FTP_client_software, Comparison_of_web_browsers, Comparison_of_web_server_software, Comparison_of_e-mail_clients. Come on tear them all down. The justifiable reason for prices is to rank the various things being compared. For the person seeking to compare things, price is an important factor. Mattfret (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand why prices are useful to people seeking to compare products. But you are ignoring the point that it's useless to put prices in an encyclopedia article when prices are extremely volatile and depend on many factors, so that any specific numbers given are pretty meaningless, and the point that as useful as price lists may be, Wikipedia is expressly not a venue for serving that purpose, just as, despite the fact that they are useful, Wikipedia is not a place for posting this week's cable television schedule or the 2009-2010 course catalog for XYZ University. Please read the references I've already provided that explain why these matrices may not be appropriate here, and the prices certainly aren't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've removed the prices from the other articles you mentioned (except the e-mail one, which I haven't done yet, but there most of the items are free anyhow. Also, I noticed that except in the FTP client article there were practically no external links to product websites (except for the occasional documentation article or licensing agreement), and in the FTP article most of the items weren't externally linked. I've removed all the problematic external links. In the article under discussion here, none of the items being compared is connected to a Wikipedia article, so this one differs from the others in a critical respect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, collective spam. Fails WP:ELNO, WP:SAL, WP:NOTDIR, and just about everything else applicable to a comparison list. —Korath (Talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illya Konstantin[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Appears to fail WP:ACTOR. ttonyb (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 01:42, 28 February 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 cleanup. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fan fiction terms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a dictionary of neologisms and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Previous AFD ended with keep after a user proposed cleanup which doesn't appear to have taken place three years later. Anything that is a notable neologism appears to already have its own page. GetOutFrog_ribbit 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Glossary of fan fiction terms, and cleanup, down to the sourced/articled entries. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with it as Quiddity suggests. There is no time limit for improving an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Don't rename since "WP is not a dictionary" probably covers glossaries. The list as it is is very useful to a person trying to understand the world of fan fiction. It is easier to have the information here in one place than to spread it out among other articles. Ignore the rules a little and keep it.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY, which says, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." I note above commentors suggesting glossarys are not covered by WP:DICTIONARY and if so I'd appreciate my attention being drawn to the relevant policy but in its absence this type of page appears to be specifically forbidden. This content can be appropriately covered in the main article on fan fiction. (I should note my bias: fan fiction is the lowest form of comedy, even when it's not trying to be funny. But the logic of my argument should still stand.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am usually a deletionist and would agree with you. However in this case I am advocating ignoring the rules since this list (not a glossery or dictionary :-) ) is probably the best way to present this information to someone who wants to learn more about fan fiction, after they read the main article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also doesn't the fact that this is a list of related terms make a difference, somehow? So it's not like a list of "New Jersy slang" or something like that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand that argument, and this information should be on Wikipedia in SOME format. But policy is pretty clear that this isn't the appropriate format; it can be presented appropriately through normal article-writing, possibly over the course of several articles. There's no need, for example, for a "list of computer gaming slang", because terms will appear in context in the course of relevant articles and link to pages explaining the term. If it's a valuable list, someone from the relevant projects will undoubtedly be prepared to do the work to move it into an appropriate format; if not, it can deleted safe in the knowledge that no one will particularly miss it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Portal:Contents#Glossaries (Portal:Contents page is linked from the sitewide sidebar) for examples of glossaries. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary as an appendix. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) and a Wikiproject for them, so I'm sure glossaries are allowed here. Rename to Glossary of fan fiction and trim, per Quiddity. Polarpanda (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition at this time in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of this info into fan fiction. There's an organization of the main article in place to take in much of what is on this article, allowing what is presently a poorly constructed list to be turned into prose. There's also a lot of stuff that I would just stuff into "See Also" links at the bottom. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find sources for this notable topic such as Boldly Writing. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am, off the top of my head, aware of three scholarly treatments of fanfiction published in academic presses - Camille Bacon-Smith's Enterprising Women, Constance Penley's Nasa/Trek, and Henry Jenkins's Textual Poachers. Well over half of these terms could readily be sourced to those three books alone, and I have not pursued the question of academic study of fandom in any detail in well over five years. I know that attention to this subject has only increased, however, and that more sources than those three books surely exist. A quick Google Scholar source shows that Textual Poachers is cited by over 1000 things on Google Scholar alone, Enterprising Women by about 200, and NASA/Trek by another 100. Several of these are also book-length works. To say that this cannot be sourced requires the willful ignoring of so many sources as to be comical. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's an issue with asserting a researchable topic on fan fiction - the issue is that the way this list is approach is much better suited to be prose in fan fiction than as an iffy glossary. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems to me likely to overwhelm the article. Certainly it does not seem to me a slam-dunk case for such a merge - step one, I think, is clean up and source. Then look at what we have and go from there. In terms of AfD, unless the rules have shifted depressingly since I last was stupid enough to involve myself in one, sourcability is sufficient to save an article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:05, 26 February 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.

Zeljko Boskovic[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @167 · 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snooki[edit]

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

This BLP is about a castmember of the MTV reality television show, The Jersey Shore. All the salient information is already included in the parent article, and it's not clear how this goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Should be redirected, in my opinion, and possibly revived if she does something notable beyond appearing on the Jersey Shore. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't believe I'm even weighing in here (I wondered in after adding a bit about an incident at the Sony Building). But the standard is third party coverage. And Lord knows there's substantial third party coverage.Americasroof (talk)

Keep - For lack of a better phrase, she was a "breakout star" of that show. Much as it pains me to say it because I'd love to take a nuke to the entire guido subculture, she's achieved individual notability. And WP:BLP1E? Really? To quote said policy "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". Does anyone really see the remotest possibility of her remaining low profile? Anyone? Bueller? Thought not. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is completely unnecessary. If you actually read the article stub (such as it is), you will find that it says almost nothing of Snooki. I originally created the page as a redirect to Jersey Shore (TV series), and since thew few sentences that were added since then describe the show in genral, not the woman, I think simply restoring my redirect to Jersey Shore would be appropriate, until someone actually bothers to write an article about Snooki. If that dreadful day ever comes, then hold an AfD. PS, I hate Wikipedia. K, bye.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jersey Shore (TV series) per The Fat Man. By the way, if at a later date an article is created that is really about Snooki, as opposed to being mostly about the show she is on, it should probably be called Nicole Polizzi instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created the Snooki page as I thought she had gained such notability, that fans would like to view more biographical information about her. So I went on with it, and created a stub page, notably without any new information, because I figured I'd work on that later on. I understand the reasoning for deletion of this page, but shouldn't there be a biographical section of this person on the Jersey Shore page, then, to which the Snoooki page can redirect? --Olijven (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)--[reply]
There is a cast section, here, with short bios. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Jersey Shore article, with no prejudice to creating a new article in the event that Snooki's star continues beyond the show's run. Warrah (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article is to be kept, it needs to sound more scholarly. Right now it reads like a high school student wrote it. There are almost no references, and sentences like "She no longer suffers from anorexia, and is instead slightly flabby as can be clearly seen by the viewer in episode 1 during the hot tub scene" should not be in an encyclopedia. Perhaps after the second season of the show airs, there will be more information to report, but for now most of the stuff on this page can be found on the main Jersey Shore article.128.61.32.143 (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think Snooki is, and will continue to be, notable enough for her own article; I agree with Umbralcorax that she's a breakout star from the show and we'll be suffering her public presence for quite awhile yet. But the article in its current form doesn't have much information beyond what's in the Jersey Shore article, and what additional "information" it does have should probably be removed. Still, most of the time when I've nominated articles worse than this for deletion on the grounds that they provide no value to anyone, I've been overruled on the basis that it's theoretically possible that someone could someday write a decent article on the topic, so in that spirit I say keep it. Propaniac (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are more minor characters of other series that have their own articles. She is significant enough to have her own article Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:55, 25 February 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. (X! · talk) · @166 · 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Spa[edit]

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

I do not believe this establishment is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. One mention in the local rag and a puff piece in USA Today about Boyd Gaming building a riverboat do not add up to significant coverage in secondary sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a stub, but also obviously meets Notability guidelines. Tons of coverage, including 1, 2, 3, 4 articles in the past week alone. 2005 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those four articles are about Boyd Gaming, not Blue Chip. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain more thoroughly how it is notable, 2005? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ORG. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The four articles above, plus the two in the article now are far more than enough. Speedy keep if there ever was one. This isn't a subjective criteria. It lots of notable coverage, whether anybody thinks it is just a "random" business or not. 2005 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. How is what appears to be a random hotel notable? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like its notability is that it is being sued for non-payment of state taxes, which is not mentioned in the article - but is that WP:NOTNEWS? -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough press coverage to pass WP:Notable, which is what we are discussing -- not if we like this place, casinos in general, or even capitalism itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources out there to meet general notability requirements. Give someone a chance to expand the article. Hazir (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article's been around since May. Still, always happy to see someone improve an article.

Luckily, there's no deadline to improve an article. "Hasn't been improved even though the article has been around since May" isn't a valid deletion argument. Rray (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources available to meet requirements. Needing expansion/improvement does not equal needing deletion. Rray (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three out of the four sources cited here are about Boyd Gaming, not the Blue Chip. There's plenty of notability for an article about Boyd Gaming.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles I looked at (I clicked on all of the links provided by 2005 above and read each article) were about the Blue Chip casino. Rray (talk) 22:13, 22 February 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. (X! · talk) · @167 · 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Frequencies Radio[edit]

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB notability guidelines. No third-party recognition and no independent sources seem to have taken notice. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm seeing chatter from fans, and reports from guys (eg Nick Redfern) who have been on the show, but nothing else really. I think it's probably well enough known in the ghosthunter community, but unless they can come up with something that supports notability even in that limited field, I don't think it makes the cut. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources to establish notability. Article looks like an attempt at self publicity by a COI account User:SFR Crew. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Anna Lincoln 08:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this podcast. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article created by SFR Crew so COI is pretty likely. They seem like a well-meaning bunch, but nothing comes up in the news, books to reliably establish their notability. Smocking (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Cheza[edit]

No Gnews hits, her website no longer exists. Doesn't seem to be any claim to notability. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that there are no Google News hits for her in the last 30 days doesn't mean that there are none overall. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22nichole+cheza%22 -- not a lot of hits, but at least they seem to be relevant. And I just looked at her website at http://www.nicholecheza.com/ and it's still there, and has been updated within the month. There may be a case to be made that the subject is non-notable, but this nomination appears to be inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just clicked on the link you gave me and got "Page Not Found. We cannot locate the page you're looking for. Please check the address and make sure all letters are lowercased with no spaces." Doc Quintana (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try http://nicholecheza.com/ (without the 'www') -- the site does indeed exist and was indeed updated earlier this month. Jd4v15 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I suspect the site is having DNS issues. I was able to load it as above, but when I hit refresh I could no longer access it. I can attest that the website was updated on Feb 8, 2010. Jd4v15 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Subject was the American Motorcyclist Association's Female Rider for the Year for 2003. Won AMA championships in ice racing and dirt track racing [45]. Sourcing a problem. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 18:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Metropolitan90's ghits. Warrah (talk) 22:24, 22 February 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.