Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 27

Guide to deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable - only claim to notability is as a presumptive future Duke, and former Page of Honour. Unable to find any substantive references from Google (other than entries in peerage directories). Unsourced BLP, tagged since June. To the extent that coverage is merited, can be (and is) mentioned in Duke of Fife and Page of Honour. David(Talk) 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/redirect - Why would you go for delete when a merge/redirect to David Carnegie, Earl of Southesk is a perfectly legitimate proposal on the talk page, and can be accomplished easily and quickly without exercising the community with an AFD? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Because it would mean totally unnecessarily leaving the text of an unsourced BLP present in the history, which, while not the end of the world (since it's not derogatory) is probably not in principle a good thing to do, other things being equal, as they are in this instance. Perhaps I should have specified Delete then redirect in the nom. David(Talk) 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as non-notable. There's a difference between a merge/redirect, and a mention (which is all CC rated in the first place). If someone is not notable enough for an article, then I see no reason that they should have their own redirect page either. When the article was created, it was for a kid not quite 15, who happened to be the son the Earl of Southesk. It's an unlikely search term, and although redirects may be cheap, our standards should not be. Good call, nominator. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete I agree with the nom/Mandsford on this - a merge is overkill as all that is required is a brief mention. Eusebeus (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. As noted above, subject has not received coverage in reliable sources.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snorehole

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Snorehole Snorehole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Neologism that belongs on the Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - In that I could not find even one reference in a creditable - 3rd party - reliable source - delete. However, I did want to say to the author; "...I like it". Thanks for the chuckle (especially the snorehole deactivator - where do I get one). ShoesssS Talk 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Yanno, I'm with you on the grin factor, and it's articles like this that should be enshrined in WP:BJAODN. Ah, if only it were still around. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. The slang entry must go. But there are 22 refs in Gbooks for the thing, it seems to be a hole in a mine pump, or a special air hole in a furnace. Potential for an entry in Wikipedia, if nobody wants to do the work, I'd say delete without prejudice. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) comment - Nice catch there Power.corrupts. Not sure about here on Wikipedia. But will do a quick write-up for Wiktionary, as there is no definition as of today. Thanks again. ShoesssS Talk 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. If it means anything it doesn't mean what the article says it does, which means the article would have to be rewritten, which is a valid criteria for speedy deletion. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, mildly amusing neologism, doesn't meet our inclusion criteria though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC). Delete - non-notable neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack saperstein

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Jack saperstein Jack saperstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Declined speedy, but I'm pretty sure this still qualifies under A7 and G11. It's pretty much just a resume. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - The page at hand is an encyclopedic entry about an actor. There is information about his personal life and career. Granted there is also information on the page regarding his work history in the entertainment field. This is because he is an entertainer. These accomplishments have value and help in defining and noting the actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - I agree with Hangloose 42. If you visit ANY encyclopedic page for ANY actor, director, producer, CEO, Writer, Musician, etc. The page is naturally going to list or state the persons accomplishments aka work history. I do acknowledge what Irbisgreif is saying. There is information on this page about work history but without it an accurate depiction of Jack Saperstein isn't possible. Plus the majority of information listed on the page talks about the guys family and past and how he got started.yours truly beekiepurple —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekiepurple (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: Hangloose and Beekiepurple, the problem is that the article doesn't show why he's notable - all it mentions are roles as an extra in various films and TV programmes. What is really needed is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; note that this does not usually include mere entries in directories like the IMDB. David(Talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete very minor roles only. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete – fails notability criteria. BTW - It appears Beekiepurple is Jack Saperstein's mother. See [1]]. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Do Not Delete Keep - One search on google will show you how creditable this kid is. Further more Search his Father on google (frank Saperstein) this guy is a well known producer who is famous within the entertainment community. he's been nominated for emmys and has produced hit shows such as ren and stimpy, the new leave it to beaver, bob and margret, and his company is producing the new hit HBO show hung. and that is just to name a few. THERE ARE NO MINOR ROLES AND NO EXTRA WORK. This kid has done geust starring roles and star roles on major hit TV shows and in feature films. Search the saperstein family. They have donated entire medical wings to UCLA. Search David Saperstien. Search The harlem globe trotters. This family is very influential especially in the entertainment field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment – Notability does not rub off on others. If that were true, all the waiters and parking attendants in Hollywood would have a page on Wikipedia. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Ttonyb1 you just contradicted your self read your last two posts. Further more what you just said doesn't really make sense and is not truth. With all due respect your opinion doesnt help facts do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment – Hangloose 42, I will warn you only once about removing mine or anyone else's comments from this AfD. You action in [2] is not appreciated, and will not get you any sympathy from the Wikipedia community. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Comment - This kid is completely notable as what seems to be the delema here. here are the plain and simple facts. The page shows who he is, why he is, and how he is. It explains his life and how he got to his position. The page shows and verifies notable accomplishments. The page was modeled after current wikipedia pages that have been up for years and deal with the same topic (child actors). His notability is unquestionable, if you have access to google or IMDB that is evident. Many of the negative comments made about this page are contradictory and although I'm sure were put her with good intentions, they do not address any key issues just their personal opinions. Further more it is impossible for any of us to be fluent in all topics listed on wikipededia and it is possible that the field of child entertainment is not you forte. your understanding would be much appreciated. I worked very hard to make sure that this page was in accordance to all of the wiki rule and guidelines. If you feel very strongly about you opinion. I would love to get your help on solving this unnecessary delema. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) some child entertainers have major roles; some do not--most of the roles here are just "voices". the only way to solve the dilemma is to not try for an article until the person has actually become notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Looking at the subject's IMDb entry at [3], it appears that most of his work so far has been looping voices for ADR, which is useful to the entertainment industry but not the kind of activity that brings a person to public attention. I also notice that his IMDb entry appears to contain errors such as having him do looping voices for a Catalan-language TV movie from Spain titled E.R. when he was 3 years old; presumably this was the result of confusion with ER (TV series). When he starts having multiple acting (not looping) roles in productions that have been released and achieved some public notice, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. the vast majority of the roles listed are wildly non-notable, most of them are not even roles, they appear to be walla, just background noise, not even voice acting. Hairhorn (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC) KeepThere is no "walla" as you called it of any kind. all of this guys roles are legitimate and can be backed up. He has a lead role on a television show airing on a major network that has already been picked up for a second season. I visited the IMDB site and found the one mistake for the Spanish television show, keep in mind IMDB is a publicly contributed site, obviously someone made a mistake on that one section, that mistake has not been carried over to wiki. all you have to do is look up the projects on google or just type in Saperstein into a google search, this family in general is everywhere and involved in everything. Im talking Major league Sports investments, Television production, Real Estate, and College donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.42.129 (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — 75.82.42.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. If it's not walla, I'd love to hear exactly what he was doing; most of his credits are for "voice" but they're on live-action shows. This kind of thing is no more notable than extra work, even if it pays better. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - doesn't seem to have had any significant roles as yet, although good luck to him in the future. Unrelated activities of other members of his family have no bearing on his own notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete I see a large conflict of interest from Hangloose, Beekiepurple and the anon editors and wouldn't really consider their keep !votes. As for the subject, there is nothing to confer notability in the slightest and doesn't like much more than a somewhat shallow attempt by someone with vested interest in his career to get some attention drawn his way. treelo radda 09:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete fails WP:N like the others with delete votes have stated. ArcAngel (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, non-notable actor, it would be very very generous to even characterise his roles as "minor". Needless to say, doesn't meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolphin House

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Dolphin House Dolphin House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The only claim to notability is that the duchess currently lives there, but notability is not supposed to be temporary. There are only a few hits on Google — in fact there are many more for the eponymous hotels. Article was PRODed, but the tag was removed without explanation, so here we are. Favonian (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. The fire attracted some attention in the press, but that's a clear WP:NOTNEWS. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Merge to Englefield Green. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/redirect - To Sarah, Duchess of York it is where she lives :-) Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge to both articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete w/possible redirect to Duchess page. No independent notability established. Eusebeus (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete Doesn't appear to be a listed building, no other evidence of notability. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) As proposed above, a merger to Englefield Green, the town where the house is situated, sounds reasonable. Otherwise, Delete.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Between the Silence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Between the Silence Between the Silence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Play that has only had a reading; full production doesn't debut for more than a month. Gsearch and gnews not turning up notability; possible WP:COI issues. Prod contested by original author. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per above. Notability is not established. Jujutacular talkcontribs 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - a play that has not yet been performed. There are no reliable sources writing about this yet so it doesn't fall into the category of a highly anticipated production that would be be notable before its debut. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FluidVM

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I was able to dig up this news article which mentions it, but unfortunately, there still isn't enough notability. There are nothing but passing mentions. Maybe some day in the future. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 04:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) FluidVM FluidVM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (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) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Checking Google & GNews, I agree with the nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is yet one of these software stubs, the description is barely 1,5 lines, the tone is NPOV, factual, and encyclopedic. Perfectly verifiable. Wikipedia would do its readers a service having this stub. The technical offense here is if it violates the notability guideline, I repeat, it's a guideline, not policy. A Google search for FluidVM returns 1,000+ hits. The software has certainly been able to generate very widespread discussion. It's mainly specialist blogs, and some of them seem to have editorial oversight, i.e. what would 10 years ago be sort of a column in some sort of specialist magazine. I havent sifted through all of the hits, but I would say some do approximate reliable sources. More importantly, it wasnt such a big deal to find a Gbooks hit where the software is given a quite extensive treatment. Menken, Ivanka; Gerard Blokdijk (2008). Virtualization - the Complete Cornerstone Guide to Virtualization Best Practices: Concepts, Terms, and Techniques for Successfully Planning, Implementing and Managing Enterprise IT Virtualization Technology. Lulu.com. p. 204. ISBN 9781921523915. p80, p133 "VPS customers… FluidVM coming!". Jun 18, 2009. Retrieved 29 August 2009. I must say that I looked into this matter because the nominee recently also failed to find sources for another software stub , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boujou‎. best Power.corrupts (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The first link is a self-published book. Lulu.com is a site for people to self publish books. The second link is a blog. The last comment is unnecessary and is probably just there because you want to show how superior you are to me. You failed also, but you are an inclusionist. Joe Chill (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Would you like to get rid of the notability guideline and have everyone go by their personal opinions? Wikipedia would be in chaos if that happened. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Self published books are frowed upon in biographies, precisely because they do not qualify as independent mention. In this case however, the mention is independent - somebody other than the software creators found the software important enough to include it in a book. I disagree with your blanket rejection of all titles from the Lulu publisher. Being "unable to find sources" is a statement that should not be taken lightly, it is a death sentence, as stuff must go if it is not WP:V. However, if it does meet WP:V and WP:NPOV chaos wont reign. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC) What if someone was able to verify info about their dog in the local newspaper? Guidelines bring order to chaos. (A little off topic, but whatever). Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified fund specialist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Institute of Business and Finance. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Certified fund specialist Certified fund specialist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to be the syllabus of a course offered by some company. Doesn't seem notable, in fact it looks like advertisement. A very similar article, Certified Annuity Specialist is likewise being nominated for deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/Redirect - To Institute of Business and Finance as the term itself has gained some notability but it asscotiated with the Institute of Business and Finance, as shown here [4]. With regards to the Institute of Business and Finance being notable, on the fence. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete This is not a business term but is more a training and certification product sold by a corporation. See [5] Lattefever (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever Comment - So! - why does it have to be a business term to be included? Are we now to delete MA - BS as they are not "Business" terms? ShoesssS Talk 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Annuity Specialist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Institute of Business and Finance. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Certified Annuity Specialist Certified Annuity Specialist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to be the syllabus of a course offered by some company. Doesn't seem notable, in fact it looks like advertisement. A very similar article, Certified fund specialist is likewise being nominated for deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/Redirect - To Institute of Business and Finance as the term itself has gained some notability but it asscotiated with the Institute of Business and Finance, as shown here [6]. With regards to the Institute of Business and Finance being notable, on the fence. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete This is not a business term but is more an training and certification product sold by a corporation. See [7] Lattefever (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever Comment - So! - why does it have to be a business term to be included? Are we now to delete MA - BS as they are not "Business" terms? ShoesssS Talk 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum to Vladdy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax NW (Talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Cum to Vladdy Cum to Vladdy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No indication whatsoever that this is a notable film, and the entire article looks like self-promotion (see also the nomination on its director, Trent Tepesz) Dahn (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete -A vagabond (self-described) who stole money to make one of the cheapest, cheesiest sounding movies I've ever heard of. Obviously a self-promotion... I wonder if they have this at Blockbuster.... Notable? Himalayan 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: A non-notable pornographic film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - doesn't fall in any of our categories for speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Seaches find exactly one source that mentions this film. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete as G3 blatant hoax. The movie doesn't exist, the people named don't exist, the "Adult Entertainment Aficinado" doesn't exist, etc. The only Google hits for this "cult hit" are two Wikipedia articles and the page hosting their made-up references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Tepesz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Enigmamsg 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Trent Tepesz Trent Tepesz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Absolutely no indication of notability (not even contextually), likely shameless self-promotion. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete -A vagabond (self-described) who stole money to make one of the cheapest sounding movies I've ever heard of. And he is notable? Himalayan 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Nothing spectacular about this guy. Nothing even notable. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Searches do not find anything that shows notability for this individual. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete as G3 blatant hoax. The movie doesn't exist, the people named don't exist, the "Adult Entertainment Aficinado" doesn't exist, etc. The only Google hits for this made-up guy's supposed "cult hit" are two Wikipedia articles and the page hosting their made-up references, and virtually all the Google hits for him (about 50) are myspace, facebook, and message boards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Looks like it got declined, they're gonna let it ride. The tag that it's in AFD should give credence to that it's a hoax, and besides, if they put it back up, we can G4 it if need be. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy wasn't declined, but removed by nonadmin for the (plainly incorrect) reason that you can't speedy an article at AFD. I don't follow this, since it clearly contradicts practice (eg, the article on the assocated porn movie hoax, which was speedied). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - I was unclear. I declined it because the AfD was in place, and it didn't look so blatant to me, but if this discussion demonstrates that it is, I've got no objection to a speedy delete per WP:SNOW. There is some advantage to letting it close here so it can be G4ed later. (By the way, anyone can decline a speedy, and my reasoning was unclear but not incorrect.) Shadowjams (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Hoax or not, Trent Tepesz fails WP:V as well as WP:N. Searches come up with nothing besides two entries of dubious origin at the same blog site. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croxton Records

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Croxton Records Croxton Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Good-faith search turned up no signs of notability for this record label. No notable artists or releases on the label. Unreferenced for nearly 3 years Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. All I can find are trivial mentions. TheWeakWilled 21:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/Delete to Mick Thomas and Nick Corr. Small independent label, notable through proprietors, particularly Thomas.[8], [9]  florrie  03:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. No stand alone notability, there is already a passing mention in the Mick Thomas article. Nothing to merge due to the lack of coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant satguru gurdev singh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Sant satguru gurdev singh Sant satguru gurdev singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Only nine Google hits besides this article, the article gives no means of verification and really no indication of notability outside of the author's adoration of the article's subject. Are there any reliable sources anywhere on this person? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete The WP:GHITS are decisive in this instance. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC) DeleteThis has already been speedily deleted, but has since reappeared. Delete per GHITS comment above.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars in the Muslim world

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) List of wars in the Muslim world List of wars in the Muslim world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The introductory sentence of this list presents it as part of the Lists of wars series; however, it is in reality the only list of its kind and not part of any established series—there is no List of wars in the Christian world, List of wars in the Buddhist world, or any other listing of wars by cultural region. A stand-alone list should have a clearly-defined, non-arbitrary, and (relatively) objective scope, which this list does not, and individual items included in the list must share a significant common element. The scope of this list is problematic for five reasons: Unlike the List of conflicts in the Middle East, which lists events by geographic location, this list of wars (actually, most of the items in the list are battles) in the Muslim world lists events by cultural location. While the boundaries of geographic regions are usually relatively fixed over time, the boundaries of cultural regions are much more fluid (see e.g. File:Age-of-caliphs.png). It is not clear how "Muslim world" should be defined. Perhaps the most objective definition would be: those countries whose present-day populations are mostly Muslim (see List of Muslim majority countries). But how, then, would these boundaries be relevant to wars that took place more than a millenium ago? The common element shared by those wars and battles included in the list seems to be that Muslims were involved and not actual location, as evidenced by the inclusion of conflicts such as the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (in 1974, the population was approximately 80% Christian) and Islamic insurgency in the Philippines (90% of the population is Christian). Following on the preceding point: although the list lists conflicts by the religion of (at least one of) the participants, many of the conflicts lack a religious element, and the article makes no distinction between actual religious wars and conflicts fought over ethno-nationalist or other political considerations. Compare this approach to that taken in the article European wars of religion. The content of this list is largely redundant to content that is presented in a more cohesive fashion in articles such as Muslim conquests and List of conflicts in the Middle East. Note: Article creator notified using {{adw}}. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep adjust the title if necessary, but it seems a valid and appropriate list. From the criticism, I expected a much more disorganized list than I found at the article--it seems fairly well done. To divide up wars by the national/cultural groups or empires engaging in them makes a great deal of sense. The battles--battles important enough for individual Wikipedia articles-- are listed reasonably enough as subdivisions of the wars. It might be well to end the article at some point like the fall of the Ottoman empire, and continue in another articl, becasuse there scope might have to be redefined. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I agree that it makes sense to list wars "by the national/cultural groups or empire engaging in them"; however, Muslims are not a single, unified national or cultural group, and it is not accurate to lump together all Muslims throughout history. There is a world of difference between List of wars involving Argentina (a list for a single country) and List of wars involving Christians, wouldn't you agree? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Per DGG. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete/Merge. I'm not sure what the purpose of this list is. The nominator points out many valid problems with this article. In addition, I'm concerned about WP:SYNTH. Since this is a subjective and unclear criteria (as pointed out by nominator), we should not construct such a list unless some respected scholar has done the same. I cannot see why this list would be necessary/useful either. No one would want to create nonsense like List of wars in the Christian world either. Lists using geographical or time period as the criteria are the way to go, and the content should be merged into such lists instead. Offliner (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. I think defining inclusion as "wars in which a majority-muslim country or group was a party" is pretty clear, and useful to readers studying the topic of jihad, war in Islamic theology, and the justness of wars actually waged by Muslims compared to their religious beliefs. It seems more objective than "wars which are jihad", and Muslim conquests does not cover everything that might be of interest when studying the topic. List of wars in the Christian world would also be interesting to create, since European wars of religion doesn't cover Christian wars in North America and Africa. It might be a bit easier to objectively distinguish "in the Muslim world or not" than "a war fought on Islamic religious grounds or not", but both are interesting ways to slice it. This list has been called "racist" on the talk page, presumably because its existence is taken to imply that Islamic religion promotes warfare. That question is being actively debated, which is probably why this article exists, but it's a valid question for research, and I don't think the mere existence of this list weighs in on that question one way or the other. The fact that a similar list hasn't been created for other religions simply indicates less interest in those topics. I agree that's not balanced, but I think the best way to correct it is to expand the available information, not shrink. -- Beland (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Discussion of the topics of "Jihad" and "war in Islamic theology" are covered in the articles Jihad and Islamic military jurisprudence, and it is inaccurate/misleading to connect the concept of a war in which a majority-Muslim country fought with the topic of "Jihad". And if we are to cover the topic of "the justness of wars actually waged by Muslims compared to their religious beliefs", we should do so directly by drawing from reliable sources, not indirectly by hinting at possible connections through a list. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I have to second Black Falcon's comments about the inaccurate conflation of "Jihad" with wars involving Muslims. It is just that kind of inference that makes this list, and others like it, anti-informative and an actual detriment to the encyclopedia's quality.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete It is a great list. So comprehensive. It is compelling to think that it represents a coherent categorisation, and that it is therefore useful. But the nominator's thoughtful analysis is also compelling, and changed my mind about this article. The title is obviously faulty; normally I would be demanding that namechange discussions be limited to the talk page. But what would you change the title to? There is not anything that would not be setting a precedent for 'List of wars in the Christian world', and if you think this one is a long list, you ain't seen nothing yet. It is one of the reasons why Germans were so supportive of a nationalist movement in the 1930s; they had been rampaged over so many times by petty dukes and princes duking it out, from the Middle Ages all the way through the Age of Cannon. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with creating "List of wars in the Christian world", although it should be divided to periods on chronological basis to be readable.Biophys (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) How would you define "Christian world"? Would you include all wars within the boundaries of said cultural sphere or only wars fueled or motivated by religion? If you are including all wars, regardless of their relation to the prevailing culture of the cultural sphere that you chose (i.e. the "Christian world"), then how is your choice of boundaries not ultimately an arbitrary one? After all, the "Christian world" as a grouping is neither fixed nor unified. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. It satisfies all criteria for a standalone list. It looks great. There are no any reasons why a list can not be based on cultural criteria.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nominator. Lists should be subjected to the same basic notability standards that regular entries are. If scholars don't find this a meaningful category then we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to declare it one. I don't see how "Muslim world" is a meaningful category in terms of this list and its inclusion criteria. We know that related subjects are meaningfully discussed in scholarship or other reliable sources and we already have entries like Muslim conquests and List of conflicts in the Middle East which adequately cover those subjects as the nominator points out. There is no encyclopedic use for this list. If anything it perpetuates all kinds of incorrect assumptions about the connection between Islam and the wars on the list, per the nominator as well. And that is the heart of the problem. Encyclopedias are not repositories of facts lumped together in our favorite patterns, but repositories of mainstream scholarship. We let the experts decide what is and is not a meaningful presentation of historical data and then we paraphrase them.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per nominator. excellent points, particularly #4. the list may be excellently structured, but it appears to be based on nonobjective criteria for inclusion. Its sad that a lot of good research on WP may be this way, but that doesnt change the fact that subjective lists are not encyclopedic. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Keep This article has serious problems, particularly the inclusion criteria and functional definitions. However,it represents a large section of humanity and history. It can be fixed but will take some serious thought.Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete I have to say that the nominator makes excellent points, none of which has been effectively refuted by any of the keep positions. It is an unscholarly, neologistic, capricious historical category that is redundant with other articles that offer the same information. I strongly urge the closing admin to consider the merits of the arguments and not just count votes as the nom is very compelling here. Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. This article has serious problems, and no amount of serious thought is going to fix them. We have comprehensive lists of wars by both era and geography (see Lists of wars), so someone wanting to know about wars in (say) Egypt, or wars between 1000 and 1500, can easily find them. But a list that encompasses both the wars during the rise of Islam (highly religious) and wars involving the aging Ottoman Empire (many of them balance of power fights initiated by the Great Powers in the 1800s) combines unlike things in a way that implies that these things are in fact related. They're not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per nominator. A prejudiced POV fork. Might as well have Wars involving in Muslims – or Wars involving atheists, or Wars involving Jews. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. "Muslim world" is too vague a descriptor around which a list should be built. What constitutes the Muslim world? It has no clearly defined boundaries, no commonly agreed upon nations or states (India? Sudan? The Balkans?) and no "point-to" quality. It is a societal and academic construct rather than an unimpeachable quality and is thus unsuitable for the encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Bringheli

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Lorenzo Bringheli Lorenzo Bringheli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) There is no indication of notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: no assertion of notability, beyond the assertion (both unsourced and humdrum even if verified) that he has such-and-such clients. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby doo and the toon tour of mysteries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - falls far from basic notability requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Scooby doo and the toon tour of mysteries Scooby doo and the toon tour of mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Not so sure what the notability of free promotional DVDs found inside boxes of cookies and cereal are, going to assume very low. This article seems broken in the worst way, cleanup is required as is verification through reliable sources and of course, notability establishment. I can't see a future in this article, even a merge sounds incredibly ludicrous. treelo radda 07:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 08:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, questionable notability. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:IINFO. This is not independently notable, and is more suitable for eBay. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - Google news has a bit on it."toon+tour"+of+mysteries&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a[10][11] It seems to be more of a notable advertising thing than a DVD, though. I added one ref. I might work on this more, but I'm afraid it will be deleted and waste my time. Otherwise, one could probably get a nice little DYK out of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a "Did you know... that Wikipedia can advertise your business for only pennies a day?" :) Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete echoing Mandsford, who is quite right. Eusebeus (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Community Church (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Faith Community Church AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Faith Community Church Articles for deletion/Faith Community Church (2nd nomination) Faith Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No indication of notability. Hard to find specific sources given the name's genericness... but even after searching I've found nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as there isn't even an assertion of notability in the article. Tavix |  Talk  12:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. All that's here is a brief note about them, and what time they run services - and their home page for more info. Self-promotion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails notability per WP:ORG.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Does not meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete due to lack of notability and independent sources. (For the record, the prior AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Community Church was about a different church of the same name.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Heh, didn't think of that - just means we can't G4 this article. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Waterfall

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Assertion of notability, but no proof. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Tony Waterfall Tony Waterfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable. Also, article appears to be written autobiographically John 07:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, I doubt he meets the notability criteria, as I wasn't able to find any news or mention of him that was both independent and non-trivial. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyXP

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nLite and vLite. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC) TinyXP TinyXP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable sub-distribution of nlite. Was redirected to nlite then restored to a full article. Nothing to merge here, just get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to nLite per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment, I don't think this is a distribution of nlite, but a distribution (distro) of Windows XP. SF007 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Agreed, but the distro is created using nLite. It would seem kind of odd to redirect it to the WinXP article since it's not significant enough to merit a mention there. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Or significant enough to mention anywhere, why not just delete it? SchmuckyTheCat (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Lyness

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Dean Lyness Dean Lyness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:Athlete Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, nothing at Soccerbase.com. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep, I was able to find references to a couple of Premier League and youth international games he supposedly played, here and here. If the Premier League stuff is accurate then he probably meets WP:ATHLETE, although I'd very much like to see a better source. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC). Those below make a good point, Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC). Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete - never appeared in the Premiership for Birmingham as per this highly reliable source. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete - I can't read the Oleole info as a dirty great advert pops up over the top of it which I can't close, but if it says he has played in Birmingham's first team then it is wrong. See here for Birmingham squad stats by season going back to 1996, he appears only in 2008/09 with zero games played in all competitions. And representing your country at schoolboy level is not normally considered to convey notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and no significant coverage to get him through WP:N (he's only 17). Article seems completely accurate: on the bench for Birmingham in the two games mentioned (plus one other), but never appeared for the first team, as Soccerbase confirms. Didn't realise he'd gone to Hearts. Recreate, preferably with some sources, as and when he plays first-team football anywhere. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete recreate when he makes an appearance Spiderone 08:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played a fully-pro level. --Jimbo[online] 18:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josefina Tanganelli Plana

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Josefina Tanganelli Plana Josefina Tanganelli Plana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unable to identify any significant coverage despite searching under entire and first-last only (see above {{find sources}} links). I would be delighted to withdraw this nomination if anyone comes up with something. Bongomatic 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC) She made it into Grans il·lustradors catalans del llibre per a infants, 1905-1939, By Montserrat Castillo, the Catalan Wikipedia, and Enciclopèdia catalana (link to what I'm assuming is an authorized translation). I couldn't find an entry for her in the 34-volume Grove Dictionary of Art. I was also unable to find even passing journal mentions of her in Academic Search Premiere or JSTOR. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) uncertain according to the information in the source in the catalan WP article, she does not meet our criteria for notability of creative artists. I have checked their coverage of other artists, and for many they do say that their work is in museums--I assume the lack of mention of this here means that it is not. I am not sure how to deal with the situation when there is such an entry, for normally we would accept it as notability, based on their editorial decision to include. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Joseph Levy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Robert Joseph Levy Robert Joseph Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unable to find reliable third party sources about this individual. His books do not appear to have been reviewed. Bongomatic 08:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comments. His two books were published by imprints of Simon & Schuster, nothing to sneeze at. The Suicide King is a young adult "choose your own ending" kind of book. Here is a mention (but not a review) on the BBC's page. I'm not convinced he's notable: his small output of writing is all for an established franchise, and the only interviews or press coverage I can find of him are blogs. But there's certainly a debate to be had, these weren't vanity publications. Hairhorn (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, getting published by Simon & Schuster is nothing to sneeze at. But on its own, without reviews or other coverage, not enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Bongomatic 13:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete writer of some of the supplementary books in the buffyverse franchise. Just how unimportant can be seen from the articles on them The Suicide King (Buffy novel) (an adaptation into a choose-your-own edition novel, in about 200 libraries) and Go Ask Malice (in only 76 Worldcat libraries) . Treatment in a combination article is just the thing for these, and those two articles should be deleted also. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per DGG. I like writing that. Eusebeus (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tera Heart

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Tera Heart Tera Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Almost passes WP:PORNBIO on award nominations, but all of her noms were in a single year and PORNBIO requires multiple years. Ultimately fails it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no other claims to notability, no independent sourcing for the article's quite dubious post-porn bio. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per accurate nom. Eusebeus (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Mind Beside Itself

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Awake (Dream Theater album). NW (Talk) 21:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC) A Mind Beside Itself A Mind Beside Itself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested prod. This article occupies a space between album and song: it is about a three song suite on Dream Theater's album Awake. Nevertheless, awesomeness is not an inclusion category; an article about three contiguous songs on an album that are designed to dovetail and function as one song is still functionally an article about a song, and it fails WP:NSONGS. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article" and that even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song kicks ass, but it doesn't shoulder its burden under NSONGS. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Merge & redirect with Awake (Dream Theater album). Per the quote from WP:NSONGS in the nomintation. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Take away all the unsourced info and all you're left with is that fact it is a song off a Dream Theater album, not exactly merge worthy IMHO.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) But even if there is not enough information to merge, NSONGS states to "redirect to another relevant article". Since the album has an article that can be merged to, I not sure why you believe deleting overis more appropriate than redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete content, create redirect. The article itself is just OR, with no content worth keeping, but the title appears to be a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - nn per WP:NSONGS as indicated by nom. Eusebeus (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Belyanin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Alexey Belyanin Alexey Belyanin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:PROF. The article itself is somewhat of a substub. It could very well be notable, but I can't find any indication so. (count this nom as a neutral !vote.) TimothyRias (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, weakish. It's not my field, but it appears he has helped create a new kind of laser, and it has got some attention in the news. Using GS, I get an h-index of at least 10. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Don't think he meets WP:PROF: Web of Science gives top citations 54, 49, 48, 30, 23… and an h-index of 14, which seems respectable for an experimental semiconductor physicist who got his PhD 14 years ago, but nothing exceptional. He's currently an associate prof with a research group of 5, only one of whom appears to be a postdoc. I can't see that the Raman injection laser has generated any real attention in the news according to Google News Archive, just 4 websites that have reprinted the same press release. Google News archive search for his name gives a few mentions, but no significant coverage, so no sign he meets WP:BIO#Basic criteria either. Qwfp (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Respectable cites in high class journals. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC). Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC) weak keep over 80 papers, many in the most important journals (5 in PRL, 1 in Nature, etc.) Raw analysis of numbers of cites tends to obscure things like that. I think he's over the bar. (btw, weak keep/weak delete as !votes seem to be going out of fashion--I use it to mean, "I think keep | delete, but I won't argue if you think otherwise" DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. He was cited only 138 208 times including self-citation, often in abstracts of proceedings. There are no good publications about him, beyond publications in University web sites.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Can you explain where you get the figure of 138 from. Qwfp gets more than 204 from the authoritative WoS. There is no need for publications about "him" to attain WP:Prof #1. Citations to his work are what is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC). Sorry, this is actually 208. This is from Institute for Scientific Information, a standard tool for evaluating Impact factor. Is it a lot? Not at all in natural sciences. One of undegraduate students I worked with has 100+ citations. A typical professor in our department has several thousand citations (only citations rather than number of publications important). In the lack of several independent 3rd party publications about him as a notable person, I am afraid this is delete. WP:Prof #1 tells "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". But this is precisely not the case here.Biophys (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The sources are certainly independent and reliable, but I agree that this falls into the borderline region. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC). Delete per Biophys - citations fall below WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben (dog)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Ben (dog) Ben (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unnotable dog "actor" maybe - no source to even prove the dog was named Ben. Fails WP:N. Speedy declined in may because he is not a person, and second speedy declined because it survived the first speedy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete since this article could be about some random dog down the street, for all we know. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comment The Golden Retriever in the first Homeward Bound movie was indeed played by a dog named Ben: [12], [13] I'm not sure if he deserves a whole article, but the real names of the animals might be worth a mention in the movie article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Starred in two films. wouldn't that meet WP:ENT for a human? DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Can you prove he was in both? The only two reliable sources found mentioning him only not him playing in the first film. Considering the second film changed out the other two animals, it seems likely he was changed out as well. In fact, for the second film, it looks like they had four dogs playing the role of Shadow, so he didn't "star" in two films. Also, did he even "star" in the second when his name was never listed in the credits? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Fails the entertainment standard. Eusebeus (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Williams (Son of Dork)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC) David Williams (Son of Dork) David Williams (Son of Dork) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) no real notability shown outside band. rumoured to be dating someone seems to be the only outside claim, not what I see as making him notable. redirect is not appropriate due to title being not a reasonable search term. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhotoScatter

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was baleet. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) PhotoScatter PhotoScatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The writer feels " even the littlest of things, have the quality to be in books. Or online Encyclopedias". Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia has a different standard. The subject of this article fails WP:N by a long run, as it does not have "substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject". Delete, please. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Info may belong online, but I concur with the nominator here - there isn't enough notability for Wikipedia for this program. Maybe in the future, but not right now. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. iPhone and iPod touch apps do not meet notability. Warrior4321 13:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) No, they can. This one just doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC) My bad, I know certain such apps such as the ones on this list are notable. I should have said "This iPod touch and iPhone application does not meet notability." Thanks for the heads up. Warrior4321 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this iPhone application. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Go Hard, I Go Home

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I Go Hard, I Go Home I Go Hard, I Go Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Merge to The Presets. -WarthogDemon 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Nothing to merge due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete insufficient notability per our standard @ Music. Eusebeus (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latino Legends Team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Latino Legends Team Latino Legends Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) There are no reliable third-party references that establish the notability of this subject. There is one NY Times reference that only verifies a fact in the article and does nothing to help with notability. The other sources are primary sources and aren't enough to establish reliability. There's a template for this article too, which should be deleted if this AfD results in a delete vote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Strong keep Why is Major League Baseball All-Century Team or Major League Baseball All-Time Team notable enough for inclusion and this, virtually the same thing, not? Definitely needs additional sourcing and expansion, but can be fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Those articles don't have reliable sourcing to establish notability either, and if I had come across them first, I would have nominated them for deletion as well. If we can't establish notability using reliable sources, then it's not viable for inclusion. In fact, the ONLY actual references in the All-Century Team article right now are for that Rose interview which was already trimmed from Pete Rose's article and doesn't really have any purpose in being included in full. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, the All-Time Team has one reliable source and is certainly worthy of keeping, though it needs more sources to back up the one it has. Point is, we're not just a collection of everything; articles need sourcing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Right, but doesn't a lack of sourcing call for {{Unreferenced}} before an AFD? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Not necessarily. Maintenance tagging isn't required. If this is an effective way to spur discussion or give someone an impetus to find sources, so be it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC) It would be more effective if you would add the sources yourself. Please see WP:BEFORE. BRMo (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Well, excuse me, BRMo, for not knowing how to find said sources. Honestly, I don't care if this article stays or goes, but it didn't have any reliable sources, so it didn't help the encyclopedia to just let it sit there and languish with a bunch of unrelated information in it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've added citations to three of the news articles. Many other sources are available by just clicking on the "Find sources" link above. (The nominator really should have done this before nominating the article for deletion.) We may not be able to find sources for all of the comments made in the article, but that's an editing issue, not a notability or deletion issue. BRMo (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Notability established with multiple sources. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Some sources have been added since the initial nomination, but I don't see why it was nominated in the first place. Major League Baseball invited its fans to make the selection of the greatest Hispanic players, and then honored those players during the World Series. I'm not sure how that wouldn't be notable. Mandsford (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhotoScatter

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was baleet. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) PhotoScatter PhotoScatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The writer feels " even the littlest of things, have the quality to be in books. Or online Encyclopedias". Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia has a different standard. The subject of this article fails WP:N by a long run, as it does not have "substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject". Delete, please. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Info may belong online, but I concur with the nominator here - there isn't enough notability for Wikipedia for this program. Maybe in the future, but not right now. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. iPhone and iPod touch apps do not meet notability. Warrior4321 13:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) No, they can. This one just doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC) My bad, I know certain such apps such as the ones on this list are notable. I should have said "This iPod touch and iPhone application does not meet notability." Thanks for the heads up. Warrior4321 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this iPhone application. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Davies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Les Davies Les Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Footballer for Bangor City FC, the article states it's a "semi-professional" league. Does that pass WP:ATHLETE? If not, there's Category:Bangor City F.C. players. Lara 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - I think that Caio Iwan and Mark Smyth should also be considered since neither have played in a fully professional league and whatever decision we make should be consistent across other articles. This is a tricky one. I agree that it fails WP:ATHLETE. However, that is a guideline to which exceptions can be made. In this case the guy has played at the highest national league level. He also seems to meet WP:BIO separately. There are references in reliable sources; for example.[14], [15] Just about sufficient, I think.Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I concur about Iwan, however Smyth made one appearance for Liverpool -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - although the League of Wales might be the highest level league in its country, it is still a part-time league with no full-time players at all and an average attendance of about 200. If players in the Conference National, which has 75% full-time professional players and average attendances about ten times higher can't have articles, I don't see why LoW players should get a free pass just because it's the highest of the amateur/semi-pro leagues in Wales -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play at a fully professional level, and fails WP:N as the only sources available seem to be run-of-the-mill sports journalism and match reports which don't satisfy the guideline's requirement for non-trivial substantial converage. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Spiderone 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The nom is hardly conclusive as the user is unsure whether he passes notability. --Jimbo[online] 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Oh sorry. Delete per Bettia then Spiderone 12:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Chris the Dude. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. I'm all in favour of relaxing the "fully professional league" requirement of WP:ATHLETE for players playing in the top leagues of countries larger than micronations, such as Ireland and Finland, even if some players in the league are not professional (they are usually by any common-sense standard more notable than players in, say, League 2), but in the case of Wales we have to recognise that the top level clubs are those that play in the English pyramid, rather than in the League of Wales. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza da Costa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captain Jack (band). Cirt (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Liza da Costa Liza da Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Some of the info may be worth merging into Captain Jack (band). Lara 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC) ..Mmmm I would say either very weak keep or merge. She has won awards in her own right, it would seem... but at present the information could easily be merged into the band article. There could be a section in post-split and then you could mention the new band. I would merge.. As for categorizing the article "German composers" seems very silly to categorize it in the likes of Beethoven... Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Captain Jack (band). She's marginal, so put her info at the band page. Eusebeus (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActiveDogs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ActiveDogs ActiveDogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is a game that was apparently "announced" in 2005, despite there being absolutely no information on it. The only citation is a blank IGN page. The developer has no information available. There has been no update on this game in 4 years. Publisher: TBA, Release Date: TBA. I am more than comfortable with saying that this game does not seriously exist and thus this page can and should be removed. Re-add the article if the game ends up being real years from now. Stump (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, blank pages with "TBA" are all I could find checking the usual reliable sources for video games. This would not count as significant coverage, thus failing WP:N. Additionally, likely to fail WP:CRYSTAL as there is no information regarding the topic, only an assumption that it will exist in the future. --Taelus (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, no secondary coverage. If by some miracle it turns out that the game is coming out, the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multi Player

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not going to merge, considering that there will always be mods for PC games; if they don't have notability, there's no point in listing them. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC) San Andreas Multi Player San Andreas Multi Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:GNG - non notable bit of software. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Yet another mod with no indication of importance. Web search shows some forum chatter, not much else. Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete or Merge, at the very most, merge with GTA:San Andreas. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Merge to the main San Andreas article as a chapter of said article. It has no notability to stand on its own. ArcAngel (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete or Merge - article by itself can't stand. --Teancum (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. If it has no notability, then it shouldn't be merged. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Jones (footballer)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Phil Jones (footballer) Phil Jones (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Original PROD removed citing the reason being "Phil Jones will be making his 1st team debut in League Cup vs Gillingham tomorrow. Not to mention he was today given a 1st shirt no." — which is/was crystal ballery. He did not play against Gillingham [16] [17] and has not played in a fully-professional league/cup, thus the article fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant independent coverage. --Jimbo[online] 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete without prejudice to recreation if those confident predictions do come good. Oh and Jimbo, thanks for reminding me we got beat the other night :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as ChrisTheDude said, it can be recreated when he makes his debut in the league or cup. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - doesn't have a squad profile on the BBC website either fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - Has been given a number and profile by SoccerBase as a recognised first team footballer. Has been given his first team profile by Blackburn Rovers. Has been highlighted as a squad player for the coming season. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Having links on trivial sites aren't crietria for keeping an article. --Jimbo[online] 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) It isn't a trivia site idiot. It is a public Encyclopedia of footballers which is referenced in just about every single footballers profile on this website. If it isn't a viable reference, then neither should Wikipedia be! --RoverTheBendInSussex[RoverTheBendInSussex] 18:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC) First of all, please remain civil. I didn't say the two sites mentioned were "trivia sites" but trivial in coverage. They are stats based and a profile on a club website. These do not pass WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE, which in a nutshell say a footballer has to have played at a fully-professional level and/or had significant independent media coverage (aside from match reports/latest signings etc as per WP:NTEMP). --Jimbo[online] 18:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - if he makes an appearance this season then it can be recreated. Spiderone 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Wooding

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Tim Wooding Tim Wooding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article was originally PROD'ed with the rationale "Footballer who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines." then contested with the rationale "Rushden and Diamonds is a pro side, so Wooding meets the letter of WP:ATHELETE. Whether he meets the spirit of it is something else entirely." However, what WP:ATHLETE actually says is that a player has to have competed at a fully professional level of the sport. Wooding only ever played for Rushden in the Football Conference which was not then, is not now, and never has been, a fully professional league. I'm not 100% sure that Rushden themselves were even full-time professionals during his time with the club. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, that does seem to be my mistake (sorry!). Will review tomorrow. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/cup. --Jimbo[online] 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment is it relevant that he played in the FA Cup against a First Division side? Eddie6705 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Not really, as they were matches between a conference club and a league club. I think more sourcing would be needed to satisfy WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom and my comments above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Spiderone 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete for the usual reasons. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett DiBiase

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice against merging following some discussion. Some indication that a merger is preferred over a standalone article below. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Brett DiBiase Brett DiBiase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This person has not done anything on his own yet. Being a descendant of a notable person does not make one notable. ArcAngel (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I will wait to decide, but I am leaning towards delete. I have no doubt he will be notable, but he isn't yet. He hasn't done anything notable in FCW and basically done nothing in WWE (he interfered in the SummerSlam match and appeared in a couple of backstage segments on this weeks Raw). Just because part of a notable wrestling family isn't enough as notability is not inherited. TJ Spyke 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep –As stated in notability for athelets “…People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis” meet our standards for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Since Mr. DiBiase has met that standard, he should be included. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) He has not competed at the top level. The highest level he's competed at is FCW, which is basically the wrestling equivalent of the minor leagues, and minor league athletes are not considered automatically notable. TJ Spyke 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Just telling you guys that I'm adding refs and writing a little on the page. --Wrestling-fantic (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete not notable yet, wait until he does more than train with FCW. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: Note, the guidelines for notability for athletes do not put caveats on the inclusion criteria for an athlete. Such as MVP or All Star , only that the individual has competed at the professional level. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) He has yet to COMPETE the professional level. Even if FCW were considered more than a minor league promotion (which it isn't), he has to compete. TJ Spyke 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - Pro Wrestling Insider staes he is a professional, and Impact Wrestling News - Aug 16, 2009 , as shown here [[18]]. Who is right, them or you? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Because a magazine states such doesn't mean a person is a professional. It has been demonstrated that DiBiase fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed in the "top" level of his profession. The second point is that he has YET to do anything of note. ArcAngel (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC) So far he has appeared on WWE TV twice and is under contract to them, and was just sent to FCW. He has worked at the top level. He hasn't wrestled on tv, but if a person must wrestle, then we must delete alot of managers, interviewers, valets, and even some divas like Kelly Kelly (if you call that wrestling then being sober may help you).--WillC 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Just being employed by them is NOT considerd working at the top level. For example, articles on baseball players who sign with MLB teams are not consider to have passed ATHLETE until they play their first game. Even if you think wrestlers should be under ATHLETE, he fails that as he has yet to wrestle a match at the top level of his sport. Right now he is no different than a minor league athlete. TJ Spyke 14:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep ShoesssS makes some very good points. --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) How do you mean? Brett DiBiase does not meet the criteria of ATHLETE. TJ Spyke 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep per Shoessss. iMatthew talk • take my poll at 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep: Seems to pass notability standards.--WillC 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. While Brett will PROBABLY be notable eventually, I fail to see how anyone can think he is notable now. Two minor appearances on WWE TV and no actual accomplishments in wrestling does not make someone notable. He fails ATHLETE and even fails the general Notability guidelines. In the future he may warrant an article, but not yet. TJ Spyke 14:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't competed at the top level of his sport; in fact he is still in training (equivalent to the minor league comment above). He may or may not ever appear or do something of note in FCW or on WWE TV (WP:CRYSTAL). His only notability at present is his interference at SummerSlam, which is already covered at SummerSlam (2009) and Legacy (professional wrestling). See WP:ONEVENT. Nikki♥311 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Merge with the Legacy article for now, as that is his only notable involvement in WWE. That way we can also keep whatever information that is needed for a future article should Brett gain notability in his own right. !! Justa Punk !! 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Merge, per above. Since professional wrestling is not a sports WP:ATHLETE does not apply, and there's not enough significant, non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BIO. --aktsu (t / c) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Merge or userfy at the least. This is like a baseball player who's a star at the Triple A level. He may not be notable just yet, but there is every impending likelihood that he will be soon. Simple deletion is unsuitable, at least for now. I agree that WP:ATHLETE is unsuitable; the wrestling project would do well to come up with its own notability guidelines and propose them for inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:WRESTLER would be no less unreasonable to have than WP:PORNBIO). Nosleep break my slumber 05:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Couture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Randy Couture Cheers, I'mperator 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Ryan Couture Ryan Couture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Subject is an amateur mixed martial arts fighter only given coverage because he's son of Randy Couture. I'm unsure if the coverage he's received is substantial enough to meet WP:BIO as most of it seems to be routine coverage of the type "Hey, did you know Couture's son is fighting? He just won his latest fight, making him 3-1 as an amateur". I'm nominating even though I'm neutral because as someone who's interested in how he'll develop as a fighter I'm probably not the best judge of notability. --aktsu (t / c) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu (t / c) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect and merge to the father. Looks like he fails WP:ATHLETE and no evidence of substantial coverage in the news. JJL (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as an amateur fighter. Only thing that seems to be notable about him is being the son of a notable fighter. Doesn't qualify for an article, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Offspring of notable individuals doesn't carry over to said offspring, plus he fails WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badoo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Badoo Badoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article whose notability is in question; improperly sourced article lacking in-line citations and whose only "sources" are shaky. Corporation that operates this website is questioned as a data-mining service or large-scale spamming system —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete: I think this qualifies as a speedy delete as an article which threatens it's subject. It clearly makes unsourced statements about the website being a scam and such. It fails under WP:NPOV. Also, I see a lot of 2nd person language which seems to suggest original research. Most of the claims fail WP:Verifiability. The first two refs do not prove notability and the last ref is a blog. Why did this even go to AfD? This should have been a CSD G10.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) None of those seem like arguments for deletion to me. Cliché though this may be: Be Bold and Fix It. It seems to be a site popular enough to warrant its own article and WP:PRESERVE preaches the preservation of information. +Hexagon1 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep: I've clearly judged the article wrong. I am changing my vote to keep since the subject does have notability and someone fixed the attack.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Comment certainly not a G10 candidate as there are non-attacking / non-disparaging versions which can be reverted to. Maybe be original research and may be non notable, but certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Fair enough.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep The article could be improved but a website that is ranked 131 in the world (Alexa rank) surely has a case for inclusion. Lumos3 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.154.30 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, a prominent (apparently) website, article significantly different from the revision at nomination. +Hexagon1 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Nobody has demonstrated notability. If an Alexa ranking is the only criterion for inclusion, let's hurry up and create articles for all porn sites with high traffic rankings out there.74.62.38.20 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I see no problem with doing so (as we know Wikipedia is not censored), in fact I'm morbidly curious what the articles discussing them would contain. +Hexagon1 15:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, I may be curious myself and I have nothing against that idea either, but my point here is different. Tube8 is ranked 71 on Alexa, way higher than Badoo, but was deleted under CSD A7. So are many others. All we hear about Badoo is their little marketing 'press release' about high Alexa rankings for traffic. OK, we get it: spam, fake profiles and pictures of pretty girls can get you lots of traffic... Cool. Why do we have an article on BadOO and not on BadJojo, SlutLoad or Wank? Would someone who supports keeping the page, please explain?74.62.38.20 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The difference lies in the notability of the site. The Badoo site has attracted several press articles on it which make it notable. Porn sites seldom attract comment in reliable press sources. When they do maybe they would merit an article. Lumos3 (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep - appears to have just about enough references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Which ones? Other than the soft ball press junket piece in the Guardian from 2007? Some PR press releases... The The Daily Telegraph is a dishonorable mention. I hope you reconsider.74.62.38.20 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sang Lee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) James Sang Lee James Sang Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable individual. Acting roles mostly uncredited. Unable to find independent support for championships. Ghits lacking substance and no GNEWS coverage other than a couple of one line mentions. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sky Harbor (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Horse (Paradiso Girls album)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect to The Paradiso Girls. NW (Talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Crazy Horse (Paradiso Girls album) Crazy Horse (Paradiso Girls album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) this album is not sourced properly, relies hevaily on blogs and does not fully meet WP:Notability (music) because the group have only had one charted song. The page contains way to much speculation and according to the rules for an album to be considered notable it must have a cover, tracklisting and singles as well as background information. This page has one of the 4 criteria and the name is even sourced dubiously from twitter (how reliable is that source?), should be deleted until a firm title and release date are announced. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep – Ahh Lil-unique1 did you happen to notice the opening paragraph in music stating “…notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The "notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" line refers to the criterion for a band. This is an article about a possible upcoming album. The WP:NALBUMS section would seem to apply instead of the WP:BAND section. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - It has a good amount of citations. Although there is no release date YET, the album has some buzzing around it and it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.117.134 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep: For the reasons stated above. Oh, and Twitter is a perfectly reliable source. Tikkuy (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment, WP:Albums and WP:notability (music) clearly state the criteria needed for an album/song to be considered notable. The group have not had a highly charted song and the sources used in this article are not accurate nor credible. Twitter is not a good source because it is difficult to pin-point whether the Twitter accoutn is official or not plus many celebrity twitter accounts get deleted or hacked and so it is difficult to say for sure that something posted on Twitter is 100% truth. All i am saying is that the article should be merged into Paradiso Girls home page until further information is available. When a track listing, full release date and cover-art are made available then it is appropriate for a whole page dedicated to the album but in the mean time a small summary paragraph would be sufficiant. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)) Delete - According to WP:NALBUMS unreleased albums are generally not notable, but may be if there is significant independent coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources cited in the article either don't refer to the upcoming album or they are not reliable. Unless reliable sources can be found confirming the upcoming album the article should not stand. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete or redirect to band - per WP:CRYSTAL, since none of the sources provided demonstrate any evidence of notability under WP:N. If someone comes up with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the band I would of course reconsider. Rlendog (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. The Paradiso Girls themselves barely scrape past the notability standards. This poorly-sourced article actually contains nothing about the album that isn't already contained the The Paradiso Girls, and actually has virtually nothing about the album itself.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina Vaughn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Valentina Vaughn Valentina Vaughn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep given that a rollback of WP:PORNBIO is currently under discussion, and she would qualify under the previous criteria. (Also, she has recently appeared as a guest on the Howard Stern show.) Chewyrunt (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC) That discussion ended two weeks ago, and the majority opposed the rollback. Epbr123 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete for reasons given by nom, general failure to meet GNG. If there was anything close to a consensus in the "rollback" discussions, it was that criteria shouldn't be relaxed, with a significant, but not consensus, opinion that criteria were still too weak. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - based on WP:GNG, random coverage in the mainstream google news plus coverage on AVN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. She fails WP:PORNBIO. Speculating on what changes may or may not occur to that standard aren't reasonenough to keep this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puzzle Hub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The Puzzle Hub The Puzzle Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Though it consider a non-notable game, it doesn't classify the notability and it is clearly unverifiable source. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) - i just figured since i first found their puzzles in a professional magazine i buy reguarly and then found out they were becoming known internationally for their specialty subject puzzles especially amoungst pop culture fans that it was warranted, and was a bit surprised that they weren't under the category of 'puzzle makers' already. I guess it'd have to be an american magazine then? i am only new so don't know how this works. there is also a category for professional bloggers, does that not apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyroxmysox (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - The Puzzle Hub fails all 3 criteria of WP:WEB. If they were indeed known internationally for their puzzles then their would be coverage in third-party sources. Aditya (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:WEB. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Gentle (Blacktop)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Ken Gentle (Blacktop) Ken Gentle (Blacktop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Only a few references found mentioning him at minor art galleries; featured publications he's been in don't have pages Falcon8765 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - WP:ARTIST details the criteria, and as far as I can see, Ken Gentle has not pioneered a new technique, been the subject of significant third party coverage, been a major participant in a significant exhibition, etc. Aditya (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Ken Gentles Wiki page is an infomercial- its self serving- and the info is debatable base on no real history-- this artist has morfted other artists styles-- it is not worthy of a wiki page-- Keep - subject has been covered by a number of art magazines and other reliabel sources including this cover story, this indepth interview for a local TV station, a short writeup in NY Arts magazine, an in depth write up in the Piedmont Review magazine, and an extensive writeup in docnews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "Delete" yeas he has been covered in commercial tourist magazines not "art mags"- If every artist who had a shallow showing resume and spotty write ups could be qualify as a wiki subject then , open the flood gates!, but i don't think Mr Gentle claims on his infomercial are nothing more than his artist statements with a few writes ups to back him up, maybe this all it takes to get on here, wiki want general information, like advertisement does that count? if so than keep him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.155.89 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "Delete" per nom. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. Eusebeus (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zetetic Elench

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Zetetic Elench Zetetic Elench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable fictional group. 146 Google hits, no Google News hits, no Google Books hits and no Google Scholar hits. The term does not appear in a Google Books search, which suggests that the book does not actually contain the term, so a merge or redirect cannot properly be contemplated, as it runs afoul of WP:Verifiability. Deprodded by an admin without explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - I was the prodder. This group has no general notability, and no importance at all outside of its contribution to the plot of a marginally notable work. WP:NOT for plot over-summary. Savidan 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge with The Culture. No sources to be notable on its own, excessive plot summary. Cerebellum (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete' per nom. No independent notability here. Eusebeus (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submachine (game)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city‽ 04:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Submachine (game) Submachine (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested PROD. Completely unverifiable via reliable secondary sources. Likely madeup. MuZemike 03:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Looks like someone turned left on the way to the continuous story website. This could probably be speedied as nonsense. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete looks like nonsense!  Francium12  16:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Seems to be someone's fictional backstory for (or interpretation of) a nonnotable Web game. OR in any event. Deor (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- MacMedtalkstalk 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as Wikipedia is a community where people collaborate on factual happenings, not fictional stories. Perhaps userfy to creator Les paul166 (talk · contribs)? talkingbirds 00:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishi Alampur

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Rishi Alampur Rishi Alampur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Tennis player/Football coach - ATP.com [19] has no record of him, which, if he ever had a ranking, as the article claims, would not be the case. The article's ranking claim, including date, seems to have been made up. It claims he was ranked on January 16, 2001, but the ATP did not release a list on that day - a list of ranked Canadian players for January 15 [20] and January 29 [21] (two closest ATP ranking release dates) does not list him. He did play in qualifying for ITF Futures tournaments twice it seems [22], without ever winning a match. Without winning a main draw match he would not ever be ATP ranked, explaining the absence of a ranking and as well as an ATP.com profile page (without a ranking player s aren t profiled). As for football, being an associate coach of a CIS football team, if true, is not, surely, WP:Notable. Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. I don't dismiss the claims entirely but how can we verify them without any WP:Reliable sources and there do not appear to be any about him, unfortunately. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:ATHLETE which appears to be the closest claim to notability here, but his achievement is insufficient for inclusion. Eusebeus (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impolex

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Impolex Impolex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable film. Lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM ttonyb1 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. There are no independent, reliable sources that discuss the film in depth in the article and I can't find any via google. There's a fairly robust web presence but all the substantial coverage I saw was in unreliable sources and all the reliable sources were minor mentions. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Eluchil404's research and reasoning. Drawn Some (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartworks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Smartworks Smartworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Orphaned since 2006, unedited since 2007, one-line unsourced stub with no claims for notability. Only edit by the initial author. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep - Amongst all the press releases, I did find [23], [24], and [25]. If an article on the company Standard Register existed, a merge there would probably be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Get rid of this orphaned one-line stub. If this company ever gets notable, the article can always be re-created SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. A a web-based interface from a business we don't have an article about. If that business is notable, we may some day have an article about it that could mention this. If not, we don't need an article on this product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaqua (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Aaqua AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Aaqua Articles for deletion/Aaqua (2nd nomination) Aaqua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) non-notable website - notability is not inherited from parent organisations. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - this has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Indian Express, Linux Journal, More from Indian Express, Telegraph UK. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Unless someone can come up with a good merge target for farming in the internet age type article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep due to sources provided by Whpq. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep – Multiple in-depth coverage from international – reliable – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [26]. Thanks ShoesssS 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David JPC Hilton

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  18:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC) David JPC Hilton David JPC Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) BLP with no reliable sources given (or found) about an individual who does not meet WP:BIO in their own right. The information about the movie "My Little Eye" seems to refer to a different David Hilton who was active professionally in 1983 when the subject of the article was 10. TheSmuel (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Hasn't recieved the significant discussion in reliable sources required to write an encyclopedic aritcle. Also the "references" in the article don't back up what's written. ThemFromSpace 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Forman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Omgpop. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Charles Forman Charles Forman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable individual. Lacks GNEWS coverage and no GHits of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Omgpop, however, someone more familiar with notability guidelines regarding websites needs to take a closer look at that one, too. I'll change to "delete" if Omgpop appears to fail WP:N. Location (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect per Location. The one reliably-sourced interview on deal.com doesn't make for sufficient coverage. The website appears to be notable and he seems to be important only in relation to the website.Drawn Some (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Peer, II

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peermusic. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Ralph Peer, II Ralph Peer, II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Ralph Peer ,II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Fails WP:BIO - while I can find sources, none of them fulfil the requirements (third-party, reliable, detailed coverage). Indeed, the one third-party source I can find is a direct copy and paste from his biography on the peermusic website. Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/Redirect to Peermusic based on this link. Not enough verifiable info to fulfill WP:BIO. Location (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Merge/redirect – to peermusic. When, and if, more information becomes available concerning Mr. Peer, a separate article can be developed. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Girls

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors favouring deletion with one exception offered nothing to support their arguments, and the coverage cited in support of keeping the article is convincing.  Skomorokh  18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC) City Girls City Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Seems to lack any evidence of notability, they don't even have an album out yet. Whole article seems to be a little speculative and rather spammy. magnius (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:BAND. Rodhullandemu 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - sources are a little hard to find, due to the generic name of the band but they do exist. The band was formed as some sort of national competition, so they are fairly well-known in the UK/Ireland despite not having put out an album yet. Stories to establish notability include: City Girls get ready to take on the world, City Girl Sian makes TV debut in Nintendo advert, Sophie's Behind The City Girls, Girls are hot in the city, City Girls to release single, and even this story about the fifth member being picked from before the group even had a name . --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) They do have an album out have a look at iTunes! Jonni_Boi (Talk) 11:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep: Having just looked over Thaddeus' links, I'm convinced.  Ravenswing  00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) With non-trivial coverage in the Birmingham Mail, The Bolton News, The Irish Post, the Bromsgrove Standard, and the Lancashire Telegraph, that's sufficient for the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:BAND. I don't see any substance in the links above that establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La posada de los muertos

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Consensus that the topics are not notable, but no reason offered as to why the pages ought not to be redirected.  Skomorokh  18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) La posada de los muertos La posada de los muertos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Satania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't assert notability, is a song in an album, and La posada de los muertos was previously nominated for speedy deletion (it's not clear to me whether it was speedily deleted and then subsequenty recreated) LjL (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating Satania for the same reasons. --LjL (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: It was speedied. this version was only created on 10 August, the speedy tag was added on 7 August. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to the album articles. No notability established, but I believe album tracks are considered plausible search terms. Jafeluv (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete both: no charts, covers, awards, sources that are third-party. talkingbirds 00:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kade

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with regrets. In light of the cogent nomination, the burden of proof is on the asserters of notability to prove their case, and unfortunately the sources produced in this instance do not support retaining a biography of a living person.  Skomorokh  18:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Alex Kade Alex Kade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Prodded by me and contested. Does not appear to satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. Google Web, News, Books, and Scholar searches for "Alex [or Alexander] Kade +"General Motors" establish that, yes, he has received or shared some patents but turn up no information at all about the person, so that the biographical information in the article seems basically unverifiable. Of the two references supplied in the article, the first contains no mention of his name, and the second is one of those self-supplied what-I'm-doing-now alumnus notes in a university magazine. Other than the in-house GM ones, the "awards" listed seem to be for GM innovations rather than for him personally (though I'm just guessing, since I can't find any evidence of them online). Deor (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep for now. The article is only a week old, created by a new editor, and the core content appears verifiable. Rather than filling the new editor's page with templates, it would have been better to offer some help. Article appears salavageable by someone with access to the not-online archives of the magazines giving the awards mentioned in the article (or, alternatively, an editor with such access could report that the article subject isn't mentioned). No rush here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC) My main point, perhaps obscured in the nom, is that even if everything in the article were verified, I don't think the result would demonstrate notability. (One thing that seems unlikely to be verified is the statement that he was born in Austria in 1956, then "immigrated to the United States of America, arriving at Ellis Island in 1955." Aside from the obvious chronological problem there, the Ellis Island immigration facility happens to have been shut down in 1954.) Deor (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) weak Keep Senior technical fellow at GM is notable. I assume the dates are typos, but this is the sort of thing that has to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Clearly fails both WP:BIO and the GNG. Not even verifiable for the most part. This kind of misinformation is harmful to the encyclopedia. There is no consensus that a senior researcher at GM is notable, that is merely DGG's personal opinion and it is not backed up by anything credible in this instance. That an article is new does not mean that the subject is notable. Let's deal with facts and reality and not wishy-washy I Like It or I Can't Really Tell arguments. Drawn Some (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete There is no information to indicate subject is notable. The first reference does not mention the subject's name, and even if it did it did, the fact that a company gives an "award" (probably in lieu of a bonus) is not notable. The second reference is a very minor document from the engineering section of a university, with a list of any graduates who have done anything at all of interest to fellow graduate engineers. Searching finds nothing notable for the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch (etymology)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Witch (etymology) Witch (etymology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Nothing but etymology, which is dictionary content. Also includes unrelated section on the word "Wicca". Powers T 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. The talk page indicates that this complicated etymology was broken out of the Witchcraft and Wicca articles. There's easily enough referenced information here to support a stand alone article; it couldn't be merged back without either loss of data or undue emphasis; and the etymology is complicated enough to warrant a full treatment. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Loss of data isn't a problem; this is dictionary content. The discussion on terminology in the Witch article is quite sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. Powers T 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep A whole article on the etymology of a word. Isn't this what makes Wikipedia a great resource?  Francium12  16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) No, etymology is dictionary content, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Powers T 12:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - Beyond the scope of Wiktionary, although maybe this could be copied to Witchionary. Plenty of sources and encyclopedic content. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Wiktionary's scope is not our concern. Powers T 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) That's true. The point I was originally trying to make is that Wiktionary is for definitions and Wikipedia is for subjects, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY item #2 states that in some cases a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. For example, we have articles on Negro, Ain't, and plenty of other words. I wouldn't have a problem with moving this article to Witch (terminology), though. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, we have lots of articles about words, some of which are worth keeping. Those that are worth keeping have extensive encyclopedic information about the word, like cultural impact and famous individual uses of the word. This article has none of that -- it's nothing but an extended etymology, which is dictionary content. Powers T 00:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Take a look at the Modern "Wicca" section; it has plenty of historical context beyond simple etymology. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Perhaps some, but I've been mostly ignoring that section because it seems completely misplaced (having very little, if anything, to do with the etymology of the word "witch"). Powers T 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC) "Wicca" is an older form of "witch" that's been reappropriated by a modern religious movement. That seems directly related to the word's history.--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Well the article never actually says that, as far as I can tell. And even so, then the further development of the term "Wicca" still has nothing to do with the word "witch". The relationship could be covered in all the detail necessary by one sentence. Powers T 11:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete this is dictionary material covered by the Wiktionary entries wikt:witch and wikt:wicca. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Keep per Smerdis. Contested etymology of a culturally significant word. It's relevant to how Wiccans in particular see the history of witchcraft; for example, the spurious connection to Witan is quite prevalent in Wiccan literature.--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Any information of relevance belongs in the witch and wicca articles, then; not here. Powers T 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete This clearly violates our policy WP:DICDEF and is redundant to our articles Witch, Wizard, Wicca &c. Keep. Notable information that seems to include content what would not be in included in its Wiktionary entry.--Pink Bull (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Wiktionary's content is irrelevant to this discussion. Powers T 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjool Malde

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fences &*windows says, this is borderline WP:BLP1E. tedder (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Anjool Malde Anjool Malde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I can't see how he is particularly notable. There are millions of journalists out there, many who can refer to famous people they have interviewed, so why is this one so notable? Andrew Duffell (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Agree. Does not seem to notable. Summary seems to be: Young guy who worked for an investment bank, interviewed a few musicians 4-5 years ago, organized some parties with some friends and made newspapers after commiting suicide. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if everyone with a good job and side interests had a page on Wikipedia there would be no room for anything else. 198.240.128.75 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Keep and see WP:NOTPAPER - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Was wondering about the reason for the keep - is this becasue you think the article is notable? If so, could you say what you think is notable about it as this will be useful for discussion to reach consensus - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Delete page has following issues WP:BLP1E WP:COI not notable see WP:BIO 213.120.3.11 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Disagree. Seems notable because of prominent achievements and substantial press coverage in major publications following his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapachella (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Could you give an example of a prominent achievement with a reliable source - I do not see anything notable in the current article. Also read WP:BLP1E regarding press coverage of his death - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  16:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - Looking at the comments made so far, it seems that the main question that needs to be answered is "Is this person notable?". If they are, then the article should be kept, if they are not then the article should be deleted (as per WP:BIO). I suggest that the best way to reach consensus would be for anyone who thinks that this person is notable to take a look at WP:BIO and then indicate on this page the criteria that they feel confers notability. This can then be discussed to try and reach a consensus, cheers - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete--does not strike me as notable. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep per coverage in reliable sources from 2003 through 2009 seem to meet criteris of WP:GNG. Sad about his death, but he was being covered for years before that final event. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC) coverage of what? a routine suicide? Delete DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I agree with MQS. The article is not about the suicide, it's about the person. They've been covered substantially over several years by various reliable media. I don't think it's a great article so it's not the end of the world if it's deleted, but I think it meets the notability requirements for a biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. The article was initially created just before his suicide, probably to advertise his events management company, but he's only been written about in the press due to his suicide, which made the news due to him being an investment banker. This is a classic one event biography. He wasn't a notable journalist, nor a notable investment banker, nor a notable events manager. What MQS and CoM see as notable coverage before his death amounts to some articles he wrote as a student and a BBC intern, a tiny piece in the gossip section of the Mirror referring to some email exchange he had when a student journalist, and a single piece in a local paper about coming second for an award. He might have been someday, but that'll never pass now. Fences&Windows 03:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Kettela

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Derek Kettela Derek Kettela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) There is no evidence of notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as the nom says. Kevin (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - I can find this credit but no coverage about him in reliabble sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caio Iwan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Caio Iwan Caio Iwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Similar to the Les Davies nom. Iwan seems to fail WP:ATHLETE for not playing in a professional league or for a professional team. Most of the coverage I could find is trivial at best. Spiderone 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG failure --Angelo (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete Non-notable footballer.--EchetusXe 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Involved

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Culture. Redirected for now. An editor can reach into the history in order to merge content per the below. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The Involved The Involved (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable fictional group. Some searching using the authors name revealed no Google News hits, no Google Books hits and no Google Scholar hits. This searching also reveals that the title is not appropriate for redirecting. Deprodded by an admin without explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 23:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC);: Delete - I was the prodder. This article has no general notability, only the potential to over-summarize a particular plot element of the work in question. This clearly violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Savidan 01:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Merge into The Culture. Zero sources asserting sufficient separate notability to keep. BusterD (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Weak merge with [[[The Culture]]] per BusterD. However, The Culture is awfully long as it is, maybe this could be a legit spin-off article of The Culture if someone could rustle up any sources. Cerebellum (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Leave in tact. If you're not going to delete the 10,000 pokemon or startrek articles, then leaving this most certainly isn't going to do any further damage to the encyclopedia. --122.106.251.190 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trifectant

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 create redirect if you want. Wizardman 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Trifectant Trifectant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Notability not established. This is a brand name not a generic product. There are 2 news articles available on google news and both of these old articles only mention the product in passing rather than establishing any notability. Sources for notability unlikely to be found and as the page has been tagged for improvement for 15 months without addressing the issues, this counts as a near hopeless case. Ash (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, non-notable product referenced only to the manufacturer's site. Google news search reveals only casual mentions in stories about sites that required cleaning with disinfectants. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect, to virkon, the more common name for this range of disinfectants. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - Virkon is apparently another brand name, apparently used by the same company that makes this brand, Antec International, now a subsidiary of DuPont. Now, the very brief article about Antec does reveal that As of 2006] many of Antec's products, such as Virkon, have been undergoing a slow process of rebranding. This makes me wonder whether this is a new name for the same product, or a different but related product. This may well require attention from janitorial pro's; for the moment I suspect the best thing to do would be to merge and redirect both virkon and trifectant at the Antec page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Merge with Antec International. The Google News articles should be added as references. Unsourced information should be removed, although it would be nice to find sources on the ingredients. Rain74 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) merge Virkon into this, especially as the links for Virkon no longer work. It does seem to be really a name change, and this is the fuller article. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addison Alves de Oliveira

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Addison Alves de Oliveira Addison Alves de Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article is unreferenced and is about an athlete who has not played in a fully-pro league. Prod was removed by editor claiming that he has played for professional clubs (Cartagena and Hercules), but he played for them in the Segunda B which is a regionalized and not fully-pro league. Article fails general notability guideline as well. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Withdraw - I've added the sources that User:Herculano pointed out in the Spanish Wikipedia article on the same person and believe the article now passes the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) *Delete for lack of notability. Spiderone 08:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) NOT delete. You say that is not professional, one notices that do not know the Spanish Segunda B, professional category. Addison last year was scoring goals at Tottenham. If you delete this article, should be eliminated thousands of items from players, who even have less information than this. In addition, the player holding the Wikipedia articles in Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese. I do not understand this persecution with this player. --Herculano (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - I made the nomination because the article doesn't satify WP:ATHLETE (which is correct - friendly matches against Spurs do not satisfy the fully-pro league requirement), but I would like to withdraw the nomination because the article in the Spanish Wikipedia appears to have sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. I apologize for not checking that article first and will add the references to the English Wikipedia article shortly. Jogurney (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately you can't withdraw while there are unstruck delete !votes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete sources are trivial and do not cover the subject in detail (I am excluding the first provided source, since it is definitely not an independent one - football club paper), but only cover his several moves and transfers here and there, plus some marginal coverage from interviews to his football managers, so to me he still fails WP:GNG. And WP:ATHLETE too. --Angelo (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Zass

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Julia Zass Julia Zass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Procedural nomination / contested prod. Prodder's concern was: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: (links omitted) Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." As prodder is an admin, I removed a subsequent CSD A7 tag and am bringing this here. No opinion on the merits. Tim Song (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as original prodder. Somehow, I missed this in my watchlist until now, else I would AfD'd this a while ago. This person has only cursory mentions in outside reliable sources and has no extensive filmography, which is not enough to meet the entertainers' notability subguideline or the general notability guideline. NW (Talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete-per nom and further comments. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: You mean per prod, right? 'cause I was quite clear that I have "no opinion on the merits". :) Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment – Yes. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, small-time radio presenter on regional radio, and no other claims to notability as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverage Digest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Beverage Digest Beverage Digest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I will expand the article. I found a fair number of news items quoting the magazine, which seems to be an authority or at least a respectable source of information on the soft drinks industry. Have to be careful to ensure it does not turn into a promotional article though. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep – Trade publications are always tough to establish notability. In this case, I looked at Google News, as shown here [29] to see if there were any in-depth pieces on the publication itself. Sorry to say, I was not able to find any. However, I did notice that all major news publications did quote from Beverage Digest. If we apply the same standard that we apply to creative professionals, in that “…The person (company) is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors’’ a case for their inclusion could be easily made. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (media) applies. Two of the criteria for magazines are: 3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area, 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources. The refs added establish that these criteria are met. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I created this article as a bare-bones stub because the publication was being used as a ref on several Wikipedia articles. Didn't do more than that because of the difficulty of finding sources discussing the publication despite the fact that it was being extensively cited by us and others, and I wanted to avoid making it look like a press release or a corporate directory. Thanks to those who have improved the stub. Carolina wren (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment – By the way, Nice Job. ShoesssS Talk 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J Newman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Andrew J Newman Andrew J Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article asserts no notability. Subject fails wp:prof, having only written a few papers. Article's references are poor. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep – Believe Dr. Newman books have been cited enough by reliable – 3rd party – independent – creditable sources as shown here [30], to establish notability under our academics guidelines. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment If you read wp:prof you will see that being cited by others is not, by itself, a criteria for establishing notability. Criteria 1 states that the subject must have made a significant impact in their field, and I dont believe being cited 26 times really qualifies. Bonewah (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: I believe it is more than 26 times. In fact, in jut one, it is showing as 28. However, either way, if you note the pieces Dr. Newman has been cited in, and continue to look at where those particular pieces are cited, I believe it establishes a case for inclusion. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment The book that is cited a paltry 28 times is not authored by Newman (I'm unsure why it pops up, because searching in the book for "newman" does not find any references to him). Of his own works, the most cited seems to be a 2000 book with just 10 citations. To qualify for WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, many hundreds of citations are needed, not just a few hundred. --Crusio (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. Top GS cites are 10, 6, 4 ..... Clearly inadequate for WP:Prof #1 as noted above. Cite patterns in this field could be significant. Input from Islamic scholars is desirable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC). Keep GS is irrelevant in a field like this, where three separate factors coincide: 1/ the book-oriented humanities do not give rise to significant numbers of citations, 2/ religion, and especially islamic religion, is a particularly isolated field, 3/ citations are likely to be from nonenglish sources, which GS almost totally omits. . Looking at the CV, the books edited as well as the two he wrote, and the journals articles, I conclude he is an authority in his specialty. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I did not !vote "delete" based on the very low citation counts because I am unfamiliar with this field and kind of suspected what DGG now confirms. Notability established based on other accomplishments than citations. --Crusio (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment DGG didnt actually establish notability, he merely established that GS might not be the best way to judge this person's notability. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - Your absolutely right - However, he did established Mr. Newman was an authority in his specialty, there by worthy for inclusion under creative professional. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Respectfully, I disagree. He may well be an authority in his specialty, but that still doesnt satisfy wp:prof, in my opinion. Any professor will likely have several published works, and, one would hope, be an authority in whatever speciality he or she has chosen. This is why wp:prof was written, in my opinion, to advise us to only write articles about those who stand out, those who have done more than the typical professor. My opinion anyway. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. I fully agree with Bonewah's comment above. Also, based on my (significant) experience with non-english sources, I haven't found any evidence that GS systematically omits them. They just usually don't show up at the top, because they are less cited themselves (because they are not written in scientific lingua franca), but show up in the count anyway. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. I was not aware that Google Scholar has anything like the coverage in Persian or Arabic (the most likely non-English languages that would have coverage of the subject) that it does in English. Could you provide some evidence from your significant experience that these languages are covered? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Comment. No, I claimed that the experience was significant, not all-encompassing :) --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Question. If we are going to decide that WP:PROF#1 is satisfied based on non-english sources, do we have any evidence of Persian or Arabic citations of his work? I'm asking because I think that Wikipedia policy is that someone is non-notable unless shown otherwise, not the other way around. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. He may be an authority in his speciality, but we have no evidence that he is. Thanks to CronopioFlotante for the reminder that Notability requires verifiable evidence to justify inclusion, and I believe previous contributors to this discussion already have made a reasonable good-faith search for such evidence. WorldCat Identities' results say his two authored books are held by 185 and 120 of the libraries they cover, while the two he's edited are in 124 and 6 libraries. This is nowhere near the level (nine books, most widely held in 809 & 639 libraries) shown by Cheryl Rubenberg, another scholar of the Middle-East, whose recent AfD generated much discussion. Without such evidence, what can we say about him? No more than his university homepage, which bears a strong enough resemblance to the current wikipedia article to raise questions of copyright violation. The current article is entirely reliant on this single first-party source. Surely that goes against the whole purpose of the Notability Guidelines. Qwfp (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per Qwfp. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —NW (Talk) 22:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wynters Mixtapes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Wynters Mixtapes Wynters Mixtapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable mixtape; fails WP:SONG, download-only prelude to unreleased album; unreferenced  Chzz  ►  11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) WHAT? I spend a long time doing this and this it should STAY! It is not just 1 mixtape but 2 and also many more to come also. Alot of people would like to know about them and dont know where to go, Well in this page we are telling them. The 1st mixtape was a free mixtape on her website but the new mixtape "The Cure For Wynter" is going for sale on I-Tunes. THAT IS A LEGAL ALBUM. Not only that but they are releasing a WORLD WIDE SINGLE!! "Renegade" is to be an official single and the video has been shot. This page is not just a little page that nobody will visit or will never be updates cos there is no info. This will be very active and is IMPORTANT! Why is brooke hogan and many more allowed one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_Day_(Brooke_Hogan_album) Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mepolo (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. The relevance of these mixtapes needs to be proved. This means that there should be references to a high chart position or references to vaste, relevant and independent news coverage. This means, no artist or label websites, no Myspace/Facebook, no blogs; even local papers barely make the grade. 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by McMarcoP (talk • contribs) Delete. I'll change my mind if notability is proven - if not, there's not reason to keep this. And as for Mepolo, don't get upset. The mixtapes aren't notable until proven so. Also see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete the mixtapes fail WP:MUSIC in every way. ArcAngel (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion on the talk page is free to lead to a redirect into a parent article if that is desired. NW (Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. His peerage would have made him a member of the Irish House of Lords and he would thereby pass WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep – Baron Inchiquin is one of the older titles in the Peerage of Ireland. The Peerage of Ireland is the term used for those peers created by British monarchs in their capacity as Lord or King of Ireland. As such Mr. O'Brien imeets Wikipedia notability standards. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Doubtful leaning to delete. Public source don't provide any clue as to why this distinguished bloodsucker is (present tense) notable; his son had a say in history, but, alas, all I can find on the fifth baron is that he fathered the sixth one. Is there any sign that he might be notable, say, perhaps he invented gunpowder or turned water into wine? If not, one unlinked line in Baron Inchiquin will do just fine. NVO (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The sign that you seek is that he would have been a member of the Irish House of Lords, the upper house of a national legislature. As I read WP:POLITICIAN, no-name back-benchers pass WP:N no matter when they were in office or whether or not they made it in via daddy's money (today) or daddy's title (peerages of yesteryear). youngamerican (wtf?) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Why a separate stub? If there is no more to be said, why not just put this (minimal) information into the entry in Baron Inchiquin? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, but what did he do other than being catalogued in the list of peerage? This alone does not make him any more notable than any of his peasants whose existence is just as well attested through church records. Yes, I know, some folks assume that some stud books confer divine notability... the whole story reminds me of the King's advice to one title seeker: 'That's right, Mr. Lyndon, raise another company; and go with them, too!' :)) had the subject been "with the companies", ever ? NVO (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep as a member of the Irish parliament, which did exist at the time. Historical figures of this sort are notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - passes WP:POLITICIAN and there's no reason to think that this is all there is to say about him. Someone should go to a library and check out what Complete Peerage has to say, for example. john k (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Probably no point arguing it, but I don't see the point of an article in the Encyclopedia that gives virtually no information and could easily be redirected to a parent article that gives the same information, plus context. What is the value of a separate entry? How does it help our readers? Make a separate entry when there is some content to put in it. (I am not impressed by the Complete Peerage. I come from an ancient family with unbroken descent on both sides for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps more. There are just some gaps in the record in my family's case.) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. (Genesis 36.11). Any volunteers to make articles for each of them? Think they meet the same notability criteria as this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The notability criteria in question here is WP:POLITICIAN. Granted, I haven't checked out the OT in a while, but were they members of an Edomite parliament? There may be a criteria for including or excluding those people, but it probably wouldn't have anything to do with how we would judge O'Brien's article. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) They were dukes, members of the Edomite ruling family. Eliphaz was the first-born son of Esau, brother of Jacob. Their half-brother was Amalek, who was notable, but very little is known of these dukes. In the Irish and English systems membership of the House of Lords was hereditary, and gave certain powers to propose or approve laws and taxes. The same presumably applied to the Edomite dukes. I don't see either as "politicians" in the democratic sense, more as members of a hereditary junta, but maybe that is enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Technically, perhaps both Dermod O'Brien and duke Teman of Edom qualify for their own article. But very little is known of them apart from their parents, wife and children - they are just entries in genealogical tables. Ireland and Edom are small countries. If we included all the entries in all the recorded aristocratic genealogies of all the countries of the world, there would be hundreds of thousands of articles, very few of which would give more than parentage and offspring. I dislike extremely short articles, because I think they are annoying to our readers. Better to redirect the title into an article that covers the dynasty, and gives the known information about each member of the dynasty, with individual articles only where there is non-trivial content. That way the reader gets the same information, but also sees the context. This is more courteous to the reader than taking them to a point-form article, from which they have to navigate to find the context. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Cool, I learn something new on here each day. Also, I can sympathize with the frustration you feel towards short articles. There have been many times when I have clicked on a stub and thought "well, there goes 8 seconds of my life." That said, if the subject of a stub (in this case, O'Brien) passes a criteria for inclusion (WP:POLITICIAN), being a stub should not be a reason for deletion or even merging. Just because we cannot readily find sources to enhance the article, that does not mean that such sources aren't sitting on a library shelf somewhere in the British Isles waiting to be found by a future Wikipedian. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Lord Inchiquin was a real person, who actually lived; the Edomite rulers are names in a work written centuries after they supposedly live, for whom there is no independent evidence. Furthermore, you are simply assuming that there is no other information available about Inchiquin - this is not necessarily true at all. As I've said before, Complete Peerage is sitting around at any good research library and probably has some information. And nineteenth century local histories of County Clare are also likely to contain information. Basically - there is almost certainly considerably more information available about the fifth Baron Inchiquin than is apparent from the article now. john k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I would not recommend deleting the entry, just redirecting it. It is quite possible that some future editor will find interesting information about this person in a dusty family history. If they find no entry for him in Wikipedia, start the article, then when they go to save get a forbidding warning that Wikipedia has decided he is not a worthy topic, they may be discouraged and give up - not a good outcome. But if they find there is an entry, but it redirects, they are can simply expand it into a full article, which would be good. But until that happens, and it may never happen, it seems better to redirect than leave a trivial article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) That seems to be where we disagree. If the subject of an article is inherently notable, then an article being a stub is alone not enough to merit converting said stub to a redirect. It would, IMO, be easier for a potential writer on this topic to figure out how to expand a stub rather than a redirect, especially if they are new to the project. For me, notable = keep, even as a stub. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC) It's not a stub. It's nothing, really. There's not enough info even for basic categorization (was he a politician? military? poker player? nope, silence). Hell, if defenders of automatic notability really think it should stay they'd rather add some categories. Nope, no one cares. Good bye, fifth baron, the family article is a better place. NVO (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Categories and a stub template, along with one reference, have now been added. Still needs plenty of work (and I doubt it'll change your opinion), but at least someone "cares." youngamerican (wtf?) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC) He was an aristocratic landowner. john k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I have difficulty with the concept of "inherently notable". To me, if there is nothing much to be said about a subject, no sources with any depth of coverage, it should not have a separate article. The guideline says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This is sort of ambiguous, leaving room for common sense. I suppose it is mostly a question of taste - lots of little articles versus fewer, larger ones. Hard to feel passionate about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Almost certainly there is more to say about him, though. Redirect to Early Barons Inchiquin#Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin, a page I just created and am using to sort out and record the facts. The articles on the Barons Inchiquin 2-5 are inaccurate excerpts from thePeerage.com, which in turn seems a dubious source. For example, the article on Murrough McDermot O'Brien, 3rd Baron Inchiquin says he was the son of Margareth Cussack, while thePeerage.com says he married Margaret Cusack. but was the son of Margaret O'Brien, his father's wife. The article on the 5th Baron (this one) says he was son of Mabel Nugent, but according to another source, which may be more accurate, Mabel Nugent was his grandmother. This set of trivial articles is, to put in politely, garbage. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Obviously inaccurate information should be removed - that Library of Ireland material cites its source, and seems probably more reliable for the genealogy. It's worth noting, though, that the current articles can be garbage without that meaning the individual is not notable. As I've said a few times now, Complete Peerage certainly has an entry on each of the Barons Inchiquin, and there's almost certainly other sources that discuss them, as well. john k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) If I stay interested in these O'Briens, which I probably will, I will update Early Barons Inchiquin with accurate information, and remove inaccurate information from the stubs. I leave it to another editor to duplicate the sections in the parent article into the stubs. This is not a question of notability but of organization. I see no value in separate articles when sections in the parent article are sufficient. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) After digging a bit, I would say that Cokayne's Complete Peerage, the source for thepeerage.com is more accurate than O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees, the source for Library Ireland, but both are incomplete. The stub inaccurately transcribed from thepeerage.com, making the 5th Baron's wife the mother of his illegitimate daughter Honora. I have taken that out. The problem with these trivial and unsourced point-form articles is that errors and inconsistencies like Margaret Cusack the wife/mother of the 3rd Baron do not stand out since there is no context. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Keep needs some expansion but is certainly notable in regards to the points raised above with WP:POLITICIAN. Around 100 results on Google Book Search. During his lifetime he was the head of perhaps the most famous Irish royal dynasty. Unfortunately nowadays because of "democracy"/communism noble titles aren't as significant today, but a baron would be obviously a notable figure during his time. - Yorkshirian (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No WP:RS at all, and no evidence of WP:NOTE. Verbal chat 09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Superman STRONG[31] Delete: obscure independent film lacking even the assertion of meeting WP:NOTFILM. Only sources cited in the article are the website of the film's own production company. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. No reliable third-party sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) keep. Let's not exaggerate here. The film is just as notable as countless other independent films with IMDB coverage. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure IMDB counts as an RS, and I really don't think that an IMDB entry for a film establishes the notability of the film. However, I agree this film is at least as notable as other IMDB films. The question is, does it meet our criteria? Verbal chat 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Strong Keep It has been covered on various cult film websites, but I suspect most of these are not considered reliable sources. However, I think the coverage indicates notability of some degree. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Not RS = not evidence of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "RS" is reative to the subject matter. Personally, I am willing to accept IMDB as a quotable source. I am also uncomfortable because this AfD clearly grows out of Wikipedia's "immune reaction" against the attempts by User:Logos5557 to tout material related to L/L Research. It is good to see that this reaction does kick in when needed, but this article has nothing to do with Logos5557, and I doubt it would have occurred to anyone to AfD it if it hadn't been for Logos5557's attempts to overdue coverage of the Rueckert/Elkins publications. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The point is that nobody is likely to have noticed this article sans Logos5557. Having been noticed it has been scrutinised and found to be wanting. On 'relative RS', WP will at times stoop to marginal sources to fill in the gaps, but generally does not grant notability based upon such sources. This is particularly true of indiscriminate sources such as IMDB that aim to cover all potential entries in their field, notable or not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I hear you. This is still a case where I would tend to vote "keep", but I appreciate it is possible to vote "delete". (At last! A genuine AfD! Not like 99% of AfDs that are in fact merge discussions). In fact, I would recommend merging the article on the film into L/L Research as a last resort, but if that is also going to go, this is not an option I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eluchil404 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) STRONG Keep With respects... let's forget about the unloved IMDB. There is a bit more to be found away from that site under the film's tongue-in-cheek alternate title of Invasion of the Girl Snatchers. New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, British Film Institute, All Movie Guide, and others. And it appears that there may be enough for further expansion and sourcing in a few books. Yes, the current article will need some work, yes... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Blunt rebuttal: the NYT blurb is just a repeat of the AMG one, which explicitly titles itself as a "Plot Synopsis" not a review. The BFI entry is merely a credits list. The RT entry show zero reviews. Does any of this come within light years of "significant coverage" -- not even close. Likewise, does a mere Google book/news/etc search show any evidence whatsoever of "significant coverage"? Of course it doesn't. Lacking citation of specific publications with coverage, it is only evidence of mere trivial mention or citation in these works. Is there any substance behind this 'keep' vote? No a shred. I see little 'respect' in such tendentiousness, nor in it being unnecessarily spammed to my talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Wow. I asked quite politely if you'd like to help improve the article on the 36-year-old film. A simple "no thanks" would have easily sufficed. That the film had a commercial re-release more than five years after its initial release is worth considering per guideline, and having found much in only a 20-second search allows me the reasonable expectation that there is more. I will look toward bringing the article into line with policy and guideline. Please accept my sincerest apologies for my having asked you for help, and trust that I shall never bother you or your talk page with any request to improve any article ever again. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC) No, an invitation that starts with gross misrepresentation of the (in fact negligible) level of coverage is about as "polite" as a mafia kiss before a bullet to the brains. Are you surprised that I would be offended? If so, then you're an even greater fool than you took me for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Again, wow. The request you removed from your talk page showed the results of my quick search, shared my belief that more may be avaiable to improve the article, and offered a simple invitation for assistance. Again, I aplogize for extending an invitation to improve the article, and I am sorry that you were so offended by that invitation that you immediately assumed bad faith in my request. But please, continued incivility in respone is inappropropriate and not helpful to this discussion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC) <Shrug> If you really didn't bother to check the contents of the pages you also linked to here in the AfD, then you were acting in bad faith through reckless careless haste. Did you "misrepresent" the sources or your knowledge of them? Why should I care? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I have now apologized to you several times for asking assistance on your talk page. I have politely explained why I did so. I maintained decorum throughout. Your continued declaration of bad faith in my attempts to improve an article is beginning to be a bit much. Please cease. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep per dab. The article is marginal, yes, but the few sources that are available tip the scales, in my mind, towards notability. Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: the {{refspam}}ing has begun. As of this edit, three of the seven citation in the article are for the alternate name. An issue "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I think not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Per WP:NF, "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Yes, under an alternate title still counts. This compliance with that portion of NF is being WP:Verified. Have WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL been consigned to historical in the last few days? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I rather doubt that "re-release" on home video counts. Can you find a WP:RS that confirms commercial theatrical re-release? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete considering there appears to be a complete lack of any kind of critical commentary of the subject I think it lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. The notability guideline for films specifically mentions that films are subject to the general notability guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Accepted sources for establishing notability are listed as "published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews". Sources specifically excluded are "Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film" and "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database". All the coverage presented (and I can't find any more) would appear to fall into the later category. Entries in directories or databases should not confer notability, the Yellow Pages is a notable directory but not every business in it is notable. As a side note whilst there may be some overlap the criteria for inclusion on IMDb are different from those on Wikipedia (see [32]), for example "is listed in the catalog of an established video retailer (e.g., Amazon.com)" and "has been downloaded in 'large' numbers from some website(s)" probably wouldn't cut it here without independent coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I agree... WP:V does not always equate to WP:N... but I am continuing my own efforts to improve the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Since the problem is not verifiability or any other core content policy but notability if you can find the appropriate sourcing I will gladly revise my opinion - in any case it would be rendered somewhat meaningless if the significant coverage which I state is lacking is found and presented. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC) When significant coverage is lacking (as not everything in these pages immediately meets the GNG), editors are encouraged to check the other inclusion criteria at NF to see if N can be met. Since RS used as V is not mandated to be significant for simply V, I believe I may have already verified meeting the NF General Principle of "commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"... but one never hangs one's hopes on a single prong of NF. I will continue my work on the article, as there is more yet to be done. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (films) says "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.". The criteria you mention do not seem to in themselves confer notability per the guideline but "generally indicate... that the required sources are likely to exist", after establishing that a topic met a "prong" the sources themselves would still have to be found. Good luck finding the sources and improving the article. Guest9999 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Your courtesy and good wishes are appreciated. In my noting WP:NF's other evidence of notability, I read "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. The quoted section grants that some notable films might not "pass the test" of the preceding sections (IE: they might fail meeting the GNG), indicating that failure to meet GNG is not the ipso-facto death-knell of a film article. Might you concur that the section seems to indicate that verification in reliable souces of the film having a re-release 12 years later is worth considering? It would stand to reason that if verifiable reliable sources were in-depth, there would then be no failure to "pass the test" and the section would have no reason to exist. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC) My initial thoguht - the ones my arguement was based on - was to disagree with your interpretation. As a general principle the guideline states "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." to my mind it would be odd to interpet anything comeing after that as being effectively "forget that, no it doesn't". On that basis I considered the "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." to meen that films that don't have any of the attributes that generally indicate notability (as listed above) may still be notable - as in meet the general notability guideline - here might be why. Re-reading the guideline I am no longer confident in that interpretation, I think the guideline is malformed and contadictary, there are plenty of other notability guidelines which incorportate the general notability guideline, give additional alternative criteria and explain how best to deal with a topic when either or neither is met. "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." is in the section that refers to the general notability guideline and is only given as an attribute that makes it likely that sources exist - they still have to be found. Guest9999 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Keep the film meets WP:NFILMS as it was "was given a commercial re-release ... at least five years after initial release." It also meets the GNG as evidenced by the sourcing added to the article during the course of this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Question: what (WP:V to a WP:RS) evidence do you have that it was "was given a commercial re-release ... at least five years after initial release"? The closest the article itself comes to asserting this is to claim an unsourced claim of a home video release (which would appear to neither meet WP:NFILMS nor to add to notability): "…until 1985, when VCI Home Video, under the 'United Home Video' imprint, released it re-titled Invasion of the Girl Snatchers as part of their 'Le Bad Cinema' line…" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I guess it hinges on whether on two things: whether a video release counts and whether one considers WilliamGirdler.com a RS or not. On the first point, I don't see why it wouldn't - if the notability guideline intends to limit it to theatrical release then it should say so. On the later point WG would appear tpo pass the RS requirements. It could be argued that it isn't an independent source, but that shouldn't matter a basic fact like the date it was re-released. For good measure, here is another usable review of the film and here is one of marginal quality. Thus, further establishing the GNG is met. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Keep notable since its an Oscar winner's early work, as well as somewhat of a cult classic. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhu Bajyar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted as A7 by Fribbler. NW (Talk) 03:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Prabhu Bajyar Prabhu Bajyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I nominate this article with sadness as the subject sounds like a fine upstanding gentleman - but sadly not notable. His wartime decoration, the Africa Star requires only one day's service in North Africa and there must have been hundreds of thousands of them issued. This is not enough, in my opinion, to meet WP:BIO. His status as a politician is only at the village level (if I have understood the term Panchayat correctly) and so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing else in the article amounts to a claim to notability and there are no references, failing WP:N. SpinningSpark 09:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 13:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 13:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. A search did not show up any sources to establish notability, and the article suggests there are unlikely to be any. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete not notable. Buckshot06(prof) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: per nomination. The Africa Star is a campaign medal that soldiers received for serving in a location. Many soldiers received this, including my grandfather, but he's not notable by wikipedia standards (doesn't mean that either of them aren't worthy of respect, of course). The subject therefore needs more claims of notability, but they do not seem to be there. It also lacks sources so it does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Google search produces only 3 hits, all of them on Wikipedia or derived from Wikipedia. No indication of notability. In fact this looks to me like a speedy delete: I see no indication of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Note: Some comments were left in the article text by User:Rembuire so I've moved them here. ... discospinster talk 18:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) This article is not an original unbiased view or argument. It explains facts about a person who had certain good qualities which can be followed for the general wellness of the society. Whatever is explained about Shri Prabhu Bajyar is really the same what a majority of people explain about him. Other deatails like regarding his being cited as a receipient of Africa Star medal, War Medal, Exempelary character certificate etc can be very well verified with his orginal military discharge certificate. This article is not about the author of this article and rather explain about some person who expired 39 years ago. Such articles are helpful in knowing the life style of common people living in earlier decades. This article is not about the author of this article and rather explain about some person who expired 39 years ago. Such articles are helpful in knowing the life style of common people living in earlier decades. Please also see talk page for other clarifications.---rembuire -- User:Rembuire The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Robloxian Hearts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The Adventures of Robloxian Hearts The Adventures of Robloxian Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) non-notable youtube creations - fails WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Self-advertisement for a YouTube creation with no claims for notability; no sources presented except for YouTube itself and the "project"'s website, no sources can be found. McMarcoP (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as non-notable. Not a hard call - quite probably a speedy really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. It's just a random YouTuber. Not even Richard Michael Alvarez could have his own article. Jeremjay24 msg 13:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.beonline.ws

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no showing of minimal importance and obvious advertising to boot: solutions company established ... to develop and manage web sites that help customer to communicate there message, products and services to potential clients and existing customers - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Www.beonline.ws Www.beonline.ws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) completely non-notable company/website - fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete notability, WP:ORG. also delete image File:Beonline-Logo.jpg That image is on Commons. Tckma (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete Non-notable company and website, per CSD A7. Tckma (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment on history: Ironholds added a CSD A7 tag to the article, but the page was subsequently blanked by User:Qusay.khateeb, who created the page. After a somewhat confusing flurry of CSD, blanking, and reverting, Ironholds PRODed the page with the concern, "no assertion of notability". Qusay.khateeb removed the PROD tag but made no edit summary or significant changes to the page's content. Cnilep (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Yup, which isn't a problem. The CSD tag was removed by an admin declining it, and the user is allowed to remove PROD tags. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) speedy delete. No evidence of notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert state

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Desert state Desert state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article is based entirely on its assertion that a desert state is comprised of at least 50% desert. However, there is nothing to support this - nor could I find anything. Therefore, the whole thing appears to fail WP:V. I42 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete. - Seems a useless neologism, no sources. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete. Ditto  Cargoking  talk  13:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Bodimeade

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Holly Bodimeade Holly Bodimeade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:ENT , simply appearing in a notable TV show does not guarantee notability. hardly any indepth coverage of this actress. [33]. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep - I think she just squeeks by for notability with the Paradise Cafe and Summerhill roles. This meets WP:ENT#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.". Her roles in both shows were noted in the press and are cited in the article. ponyo (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —ponyo (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep - as per ponyo above. Thelb4 07:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep as meeting WP:ENT. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistreat (band)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Mistreat (band) Mistreat (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Totally fails WP:MUSIC; no coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources... all that can be found are the likes of Myspace, Last.fm, forums, and entertainingly, Stormfront. No releases even on notable indie labels, no significant tours, not even a website. There is a claim to notability ("the best known RAC band in Finland") hence me bringing it here rather than slapping a speedy on it, but without a source, this is just spam. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Undecided. They appear to have recorded a lot of albums, and there are claims for notability in the article, albeit unsourced. I would suggest to the creator to bring on reliable and relevant sources to prove this band's notability. I searched a bit, but my total ignorance of the Finnish language is indeed an obstacle in this case. If sources can't be presented, I will change my vote to Delete. McMarcoP (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. For a band with so many albums, there is bugger all out there on them. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 13:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Mega Delete for being "the best known RAC band in Finland", I can't find a single WP:RS on the band. Maybe it should be "the best known only RAC band in Finland"? (Note: I have since removed that statement from the article, as it isn't neutral). TheWeakWilled 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vikasa Swami (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Bhakti Vikasa Swami AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vikasa Swami Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vikasa Swami (2nd nomination) Bhakti Vikasa Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable swami - primary sources article. was already deleted and AfD is on record, no other publications since. All recently added references do not refer or support notability. Has to be deleted and redirected to ISKCON. Wikidas© 07:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep This topic was disscussed on previous AfD debates on ISKCON personalities. One of the opinions that was given by Wikipedia editors, is that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. Additional criteria for notability was membership in Governing Body Commission. Bhakti Vikasa Swami is a swami and initiating guru in ISKCON, which makes him a member of a highly selective small group of religious leaders. I've made some research into the topic. Presently, there're 85 swamis in ISKCON, but only 50 of them are initiating gurus. Being just a swami or an initiating guru in ISKCON doesn't make one notable, but being both at the same time does. More so if one is a member of the Governing Body Commission (which is not the case here). Another opinion expressed in previous AfD debates (with which I tend to agree), It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". ISKCON leaders can have notability established from ISKCON's sources due to ISKCON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and Wikipedia's general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note Please do not ignore the fact that article was deleted via previous AfD because of the lack of notability. Not even a member of the Governing Body Commission and every single mention in third party reliable sources is of one of his books. If a particular publication is notable, it can be used for an article about the book. There is nothing special about this particular swami in ISKCON, one of some 170 who received sannyasa. Any particular notability since the time of the article about him deleted? I guess you did not even look at previous AfD, it had a clear consensus of delete. It is against the basic rules to recreate the article that has been deleted and then move it to the previous name as well. Anything published since 08 that makes him notable? Ignoring this is not an option. Wikidas© 11:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The were 0 third party references in the article when the previous AfD debate was closed to delete. Now I've added a few. Plus I have new arguments to keep this article, you can't just ignore them. To become sannyasi or initiating guru in ISKCON is much more difficult than to become a governing body commissioner. Hence, the group of guru/sanyasis is more selective and important. Each of 50 ISKCON leaders, belonging to this group of guru/sannyasi does deserve an article in Wikipedia just as leaders of any other notable religious denomination. BTW, at least three of his books were used as sources in academic publications.--Gaura79 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) You should consider the fact that diff you have removed the tag of Notability - I suggest you are not partial to this particular individual and are pulling references out of thin air, all references cited do not pull notability at all and that is besides that fact that they all were published before AfD taken to be delete. There no way one can recreate an article on such dodgy references -- (mention in) Europe's Journal of Psychology. and {even dodgier) "It's (Still) a Boy...: Making the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques... " - absolutely not. There is no difference between first and second article -- I guess you are the same Gauranga who was the only person to voice an objection to otherwise obvious deletion in the first conclusive AfD. Wikidas© 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The deletion was far from being obvious. I think it's better to discuss and find a consensus on notability of ISKCON leaders. There're no specific notability criteria for religious figures, but de facto, religious figures of the same caliber from other denominations are considered notable, and practically all the articles on them don't have any third party sources at all. Why in case with ISKCON (or with Vaishnavism or Hinduism in general) it should be different? My proposition is that 50 ISKCON swamis/gurus/GBCs is a sufficiently small group and each member of this group potentially can have article about him in Wikipedia (most of them already do have one).--Gaura79 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The status of guru in ISKCON is open and at the rate new gurus are created[34] it is clear that beside present hundred gurus there will be more and more. Being a sannyasi (e.g. swami) is just a stage of life, e.g. renounced stage, it is not a reason for notability. How by attending a 'guru' seminar and being 'old and single' one can just assume to be here if there are no sources to even suggest that he is a leader? There are so many gurus that are not leaders, same with sannyasis. There absolutely no source to suggest that this person is a leader in ISKCON. It is not a place to discuss general notability of ISKCON leaders, but in this case it is clear -- previously deleted article of a guru and sannyasi in ISKCON was recreated, even the notice on the Talk page was deleted - I had to remind that this article is already deleted! Wikidas© Still we are talking about a small and highly selective group of about 50 religious leaders. It is a small and highly selective group now, and it will be always in the future. To become a sannyasi in ISKCON one has to fulfill many requirements, the same thing is with becoming a guru. It's not just through attending a guru seminar or becoming an old and single that one becomes guru or swami.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I think you miss the point - he was a guru and a sannyasi at the time of first AfD, thus no other reason is found to include already deleted article. Wikidas© 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) This article is still non-notable and was recreated against consensus per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Vikasa Swami - and as such should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete Recreation of a previously deleted non-notable subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete As per Ism schism--Notedgrant (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedarpc

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Cedarpc Cedarpc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable business, references provided do not satisfy WP:RS. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - advertisement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - They make a difference in my community, if you're not from Northern Virginia, you could care less, but some of us are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetineer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Whether they make a difference in your community or not isn't material. As I said above, the references do not satisfy WP:RS. Did you read that policy? Customer ratings sites are not reliable sources. The Chamber of Commerce site just has an address listing (what does that prove?). The newsletter just, again, lists the name of the company, a location, and say absolutely nothing about it, same with the Economic Development Authority site. The Fantastic 50 winners site could, with a great deal of creative interpretation, be used to satisfy "verifiability", but it does not establish notability. We need reliable sources, as specified under WP:RS. Otherwise the article will be deleted. Also, you uploaded a corporate logo to Commons under a free license... that's copyright infringement. The company owns the copyright on the logo, not you. I see this every day. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Alright, this was my first editorial, so please take it easy on me. I am open to suggestions and willing to listen, so long as the other party is open minded. Fact: CedarPC managed to develop a Multi-Million dollar corporation in the worst recession in what some would say since the great depression; creating new jobs, all while helping young people through apprenticeship and training programs. Sournce - http://static.mgnetwork.com/vab/pdf/fan50.pdf Source - http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/10/20/daily34.html Source - http://www.myskillsource.org/home/documents/EYEProgramFinalReportPresentation2008.NVWIBMeeting.pdf Opinion: Why don't you develop a multi-million dollar corporation and win #11 out 50 of the fastest growing companies during this economic crisis, since you see this "every day". Copyright: I asked management at CedarPC for permission to use their logo and trademark for Wikipedia through their "Contact Management", they agreed, and are going to get their corporate attorney to draft a written authorization. If I had put the wrong terms of usage, that can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetineer (talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Only freely licensed images can be uploaded to Commons. No sane corporation would release their corporate logo under a free license as it would allow other people to use it commercially for themselves. Logos are always fair use. Your defensive stance above makes me think you're an employee (or the owner) of the company. Please read WP:COI. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete A electronics discounter employing 10 people? The refs are straight PR, including the one for the Virginia Chamber of Commerce award [35]-- the citation for which is written in the 1st person! Suggest speedy delete as G11 promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - I had to write a project about companies in my local area that were successful and produce high levels of growth during the recession, and their market focus, the article helped with my research. Thanks OP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC). The previous account has contributed to nothing except this discussion. Votestacking attempt is likely. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep They are medium size by revenue (although not by employees) and their business model is different from other electronic discounters. Mir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC). This doesn't indicate why the company is notable. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per DGG. I have searched through the Google results and Google News Archive and have been unable to find any coverage in multiple reliable sources. The "keep" votes fail to explain why this company is notable. Notability is defined by how much coverage this company has received. It is not defined by needing to use the article for a project (WP:USEFUL) or by the revenue (WP:BIGNUMBER). Cunard (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David "Yankee Thunder" Snider

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) David "Yankee Thunder" Snider AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/David "Yankee Thunder" Snider David "Yankee Thunder" Snider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article isn't needed until the athlete goes pro. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Agreeing with the nomination - Non-professional athletes aren't notable unless clear, numerous, reliable sources can be presented to prove their notability. McMarcoP (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Flunks WP:BIO for athletes. No prejudice to recreation if he later goes pro. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete unless notability can be shown, which the current article doesn't even attempt to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - not seeing any notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Looked all over internet for David Snider after seeing him ride. Glad you guys had a page on him. More people want to find out more. Wyoming, is a pretty small city, what's the harm in keeping this up? User:Beckysue 09:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.232.200 (talk) NOTE Undid blanking out of discussion page. If I did something wrong please contact me and let me know. McMarcoP (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrainian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Terrainian Terrainian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable neolgism, invented. Talk page says "This word has been added as a protologism" but that is a justification for deletion, not keeping the page. Also nominating: Terrainianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hairhorn (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete both - no source, not notable, and per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete both Per NOT#DICT, NEO as above. no notability, no source, no common usage--ClubOranjeT 10:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dawes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Bill Dawes Bill Dawes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) no third party reliable sources to attest to his notability Theserialcomma (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:BIO and has been in one blue-linked film which is a small indie. Maybe later he will be notable if his career is successful, no prejudice against re-creation at that time. Drawn Some (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Lack of significant coverage by multiples RS's. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5-Hour Energy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 5-Hour Energy 5-Hour Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article is written like an advertisement. There is asserted notability, but it is unsourced. All of the sources listed are from the producer, so they can't be used. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep article quality is no reason for deletion. I am Australian and had never heard of the brand, but found it mentioned in this story, for instance, in about five seconds. Secondary sources will improve the tone definitely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep These gnews results are enough to provide notability for me. The article definitely has some editorial issues, but I don't believe it should be deleted. Jujutacular talkcontribs 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I agree with the others. This product is notable and well known. Dakart (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. The sources seem to be proving notability, a fast Google search gives several hits (even excluding the product's website). McMarcoP (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Well-known drink (if you'd call it that); it's hard to find an American gas station that doesn't have these lined up at the counter, or at least it is in the southwest. Advert tone isn't a reason to delete, neither are references from a producer. A simple Google search pulls up plenty of refs. I'd even consider speedy closing this one, myself. 161.13.111.74 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Being money

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Being money Being money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable YouTube video. Prod declined without comment. The "reception" section speaks for itself in terms of lack of notability: " over 200 hits as of mid 2009". Delete. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. A YouTube video isn't notable unless it has been WIDELY mentioned in independent, relevant sources. McMarcoP (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Quick google search reveals nothing. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) response edits were done with comments - user removed all external links to youtube. in addition, what is officially classified as "non-notable?" I believe we are all talking subjectively and based on opinion. The facts are that this is an actual video shown on youtube. Jimbomaniaz01 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "Actually existing" falls far short of the standards of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) as it states in the standards of notability "It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbomaniaz01 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Well, you'll have to come up with some reason your video is notable. "It exists" doesn't cut it. Hairhorn (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. You might want to find sources (in print or - better because easier to verify - online) stating the relevance of the video - not simply its existence. Coverage in major publications should do, blogs/Facebook/Myspace don't. Local news are debatable. McMarcoP (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be that this is a POV fork. NW (Talk) 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2nd nomination) Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 1. This is a textbook example of a WP:POVFORK. The creator has forked material supporting the conspiracy theory from Russian apartment bombings and Theories of Russian apartment bombings, while at the same time conveniently dropping all criticism of the theory and all other points of view. Imagine if someone forked Evidence of US government involvement in the September 11 attacks from 9/11 conspiracy theories - that would be a similar case and would definitely get deleted. 2. The article fails WP:SYNTH: it combines different events and different sources to advance a theory. 3. This material is already present in other articles. The two articles Russian apartment bombings and Theories of Russian apartment bombings cover all this material in a much more neutral and balances way. Ryazan incident is available at Russian apartment bombings#Ryazan incident Explosives controversies is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings#Explosives controversies Incident in Russian Parliament is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings#Incident in Russian Parliament Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings#Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma Obstruction of Kovalev commission is available at Russian_apartment_bombings#Attempts_at_independent_investigation Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin is available word-for-word at Theories of Russian apartment bombings#Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin ...et cetera, et cetera. Since the material is already present at other articles, and since we already have a valid content fork of Russian apartment bombings (Theories of Russian apartment bombings) I see absolutely no need for this kind of POV article. Offliner (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. The original article Russian apartment bombings is very big. So, it only makes sense to create a number of sub-articles per WP:MOS and briefly summarize the corresponding content in main article. I wanted to do just that but I could not, because nominator of this AfD reverted all my changes there. But that is what should be done. Note that we have the following sub-articles on this subject in ruwiki: ru:Террористический акт в Буйнакске (1999) ru:Террористический акт в Волгодонске ru:Террористический акт на Каширском шоссе (1999) ru:Террористический акт на улице Гурьянова. Besides, nothing had changed since the previous AfD discussion of this article (one could read it).Biophys (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) We already have a perfectly valid subarticle: Theories of Russian apartment bombings. Why is that not enough? Can you please explain we need this article which (in addition to being a textbook example of WP:POVFORK) simply duplicates content from Theories of Russian apartment bombings? I can think of no other reason for the existence of this article other than to push a POV. Offliner (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) A lot of duplicated content in Theories of Russian apartment bombings should be removed or briefly summarized. Actually, I would nominate for deletion article Theories of Russian apartment bombings. But nominating articles for deletion is not the way of resolving content disputes.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) So you would delete the neutral article (which discusses all points of view), and keep the POV article (which discusses only a single point of view, and doesn't even mention any of the other POVs)? If you want to have a subarticle, then can you tell me what exactly is the advantage of having an inherently POV article titled "Evidence of..." instead of a balanced one? Are you sure you have read and understood WP:NPOV and especialy WP:POVFORK? Offliner (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) A lot of existing article are POVish form the point of view of individual editors (including Theories of Russian apartment bombings of course). This is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:POVFORK. When Biophys doesn't reach consensus with other editors, he starts spawning numerous fork articles like Operation Sarindar or adding fork content to already existing articles like Nuclear terrorism. Nuclear terrorism talk page alone deserves reading to learn about Biophys straightforward tactics. Common pattern of behaviour. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep As per policy WP:MOS.--DragonFly31 (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Per what in WP:MOS? Can you elaborate? Offliner (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as POV fork. The appropriate information will be preserved in the primary article so this should be non-controversial. Editors should be reminded that having an article about something in Wikipedia doesn't make it "true". Drawn Some (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete covered in other articles, and an intrinsically POV title, inappropriate for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment The article needs considerable work, obviously. It is very good at expounding on its subject without being PoV (where editors in this and the previous AfD contend that by expounding its subject, it is PoV), but the nominators and respondents are quite correct in stating that mentions of alternate views are completely lacking. Lacking a perspective can itself be described as PoV, but for the sake of the distinction, I hope you will agree that there is no other sort of PoV in it. As usual for AfD, the nomination overreaches the mandate of WP:DELETION by suggesting that content is grounds for deletion. As usual, this is a matter for the talk page. Note that there are only three entries in talk, all by the same person. That AfDs are commonly used in lieu of discussion and improvement is all the more reason to oppose such attempts. It is 'Theories' that is PoV, and insidiously so, with a sentence-as-paragraph at the beginning: "A number of conspiracy theories question the official account on the Russian apartment bombings" This also applies to any article with 'conspiracy theory' in the title. Articles should present the evidence, not frame it. I am not saying it is easy to find a NPOV title for POV information, but there has to be an alternative that introduces readers to the subject, without telling them what the facts constitute. Anarchangel (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as per nom and DGG. This is a classic WP:POVFORK created by User:Biophys to use Wikipedia as a tool for advocacy and promotion of his own POV. As the article is available in its entireity in other articles where it is possible to be covered in an NPOV way. --Russavia Dialogue 11:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Please abide by WP:AGF. --Martintg (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Keep, per Biophys and per previous AfD "keep" rational by myself and others, here, here and here. In other words, it is a reasonable sub-article split from an overly long main article, per WP:MOS. If there are POV issues, this can be rectified in this sub-article. --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Have you read what I said in my nomination? There is already a valid subarticle (Theories of Russian apartment bombings). Please tell me why that one is not enough. The POV issues in this article can be fixed by redirecting this page to Theories of Russian apartment bombings where all of this material is already present and where it is discussed in a neutral way, under a neutral title. Offliner (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Actually Theories of Russian apartment bombings appears to be a POVFORK of this article, since that article discusses a number of "conspiracy theories" whereas this article merely presents evidence of FSB involvement without taking a POV on "conspiracy theories". --Martintg (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Your only concern seems to be the title of Theories of Russian apartment bombings, so I moved it to Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings. Happy now? Offliner (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Delete - an article purporting to give "evidence" for a controversial conspiracy theory seems like a darn clear case of blatant violation of WP:POV fork (we are not supposed to have such articles on Wiki). Any chance we'll have something like Evidence of CIA involvement in the World Trade Center attacks? PasswordUsername (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC) And how about deleting Evidence of evolution? If we had a lot of sourced, reliable and widely accepted evidence about CIA involvement in the World Trade Center attacks, that would be a legitimate article. But we do have a lot of such evidence about FSB involvement, as described in multiple reliable sources, and as admitted by many main-stream historians and politicians in Russia and US.Biophys (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Evolution is a scientific theory accepted by most scientists. Sorry, you have no case. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Brick Wall Day

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC) National Brick Wall Day National Brick Wall Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) un-notable unofficial holiday Abc518 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Very strong delete. No indication of any independent coverage. Complete lack of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: Without sourcing, this really seems like something some guys thought up one day. Pigman☿/talk 02:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Speedily, if possible. Hoax. Location (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, made-up/non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Very strong delete. Just someone making up fake holidays. Dakart (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete. A funny idea, but made-up holidays that didn't receive any independent coverage can not be considered notable, and therefore don't have a place on Wikipedia. McMarcoP (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete. Blatant and obvious hoax, per CSD G3. Tckma (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, but not speedily. This is not a hoax as there is no deception involved. The article does not, for example, try to masquerade this as an officially designated day or claim it has widespread recognition. There is no established notability, no reliable third-party references, no in-depth coverage in neutral reliable sources, etc, and so it has no place on Wikipedia. I suspect it fails WP:ONEDAY as well, but none of that makes it either a hoax or a speedy deletion candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Gibb (drink)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy Delete G3. Admrboltz (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Barry Gibb (drink) Barry Gibb (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This has no sources and may well be a hoax. It provides no evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Obvious hoax and vandalism. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - no source; Wikipedia is not for drinks made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) User creating huge number of unreferenced stubs. No references to establish notability and Baronets are not automatically notable. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Strong Keep Wikipedia has many articles containing nobility characters. This person should be no exception. First hit on yahoo on this person's name ([36]) prooves his existence and noble relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFly31 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - Just being nobility isn't enough to be notable. As the nominator said, Baronets are not automatically notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - first few ghits seemed to be clan cite or things like geocities. Family or related/POV cites can document their own opinions or add detail but they can't establish independent notability. I've been a big defender of the obscure as an encyclopedia should include more than common knowledge but maybe not trivia. But, you'd have to ask what independent notice of him was there that makes the other details interesting to a reader? Notability is not inherited and not every person who exists would form the basis of a more general article- do you want to have my bio come up everytime you type words into google that happen to relate to something I did? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. As a baronet, he would not have had a seat in the House of Lords like peers and he seemed to do little of notability based on the sources. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Switch to Keep per User:Phoe's edit that show that he was a member of the Irish House of Commons. With this in mind, he now obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Per Youngamerican.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete unless someone can find a reliable source which asserts notability. Majoreditor (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Switch to Keep due to MP status. Please work to expand the article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Week Keep and work harder to expand beyond birth, marriage and death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep as member of the Irish Parliament and per WP:Politician ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 11:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - a member of the Irish House of Commons, and also someone who was created a baronet. The article is terrible right now, but with decent sources (Complete Baronetage?) might be improved. john k (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep -- Being an Irish MP makes him notable. People do not get created baronet without doing something notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: Erm generally yes, however there were the famous exceptions to the rule. Especially Charles II used baronetcies for money raising ... the usual fee was 1095 £ (Charles II even granted people the right to sell a patent for a baronetcy). It was the medieval version of Cash for Honours. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Except that Charles II didn't live in medieval times  :) Majoreditor (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) It was before the Internet caught on: doesn't that make it mediaeval, or is the right word "prehistoric"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Keep MP. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake and the Burtones

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Jake and the Burtones Jake and the Burtones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) In my opinion, this band does not meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Flunks WP:MUSIC. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) article is relevant and vital to spread the knowledge of underground music in the american south —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinsfann24 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — Skinsfann24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I agree with Skinsfann24, This artical is relevant to music to show the importance of how larger bands impact the small community, also this band is not as small as you may think they are, just last spring they were on the front page of the washington Post, Loudoun section — Jamband1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Delete. I don't see any notability here. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, as noted above, and is not widely and extensively discussed in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) This page certainly does meet the notability criteria, I don't even know this band and this page is useful, I'm writing my thesis on the effect of folk music throughout Appalachia, and this article is very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudmomof5 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — Proudmomof5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Academic advice. Don't cite Wikipedia in your thesis. Seriously. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I just came across this page while doing research for a local festival in woodstock Va, are you blind! This page is great, and just look them up, there is a wide varity of independant sources citing the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustangracer65 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — Mustangracer65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note on sockpuppetry. Given the timing of the previous comments, it seems likely that they are all from the same person. Just out of curiosity, I've blocked the most recent one as an obvious sockpuppet. I wonder whether autoblock will prevent the creation of further accounts? New user, please note that creating multiple accounts to try to create the illusion of widespread support for keeping this article- especially without specific information about how it meets Wikipedia guidelines- will reflect badly on you and actually make it more likely that the article will be deleted. Wikipedia editors enjoy saving articles from deletion; if this band truly is notable, you can sit back and trust them- if there are sources to be found that show notability, they will find them. Unless, of course, a flood of sockpuppets makes them assume that the band is non-notable, leading them to not search quite as hard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Well, none of them actually provide any proof of the claimed notability. Dear new contributors: when the opinions expressed in this AfD are evaluated, the complete lack of evidence will weigh against your opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edudigm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the "per x", it's notable, "not notable", and "number of employees" arguments and the exploratory nomination, we have two editors who maintain that the cited sources confer notability, and one editor, Whpq, who gives a more detailed analysis to the contrary. There is insufficient discussion between these two perspectives to determine consensus, and a third relist would be inappropriate, so I close this now without prejudice against recreation at a later date.  Skomorokh  18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Edudigm Edudigm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) More of advertisement. Might fail WP:N Srikanth (speak) 06:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) They have more than 1000 students right now. In Calcutta, where I belong, they have tied up with a lot of schools and have given presentations there. --122.173.178.172 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (moved post here as it was in between nomination statements -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)) Keep. The two refs and two of the ELs within the article show more than sufficient notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Keep per Spiff; organisation is notable. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Insufficient notability for test prep company established in 2008. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Let's review the references and links that are being used to establish notability. Reference 1 is to the careergraph area where material is submitted to the newspaper. The actual article text looks like press release rehash. Reference 2 consists almost entirely of quoting the founder. That doesn't look like any sort of significant editorial oversight. As for the external links, link 1 is to their website and is clearly not independent. Link 2 is a short article but is okay. Link 3 is again the Telegraphs careerpath section and has the same problem as reference 1 reading like a rehashed press release. Link 4 is an advertisement, and linke 5 and 6 don't even mention edudigm. Taken together, this doesn't represent coverage of sufficient depth to establish notability. My own search for additonal sourcing found nothing more so this appears to the totality of coverage for this company. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Keep http://www.edudigm.in/images/media/statesman.JPG on their site. There are more media links. (PS: I had started this page) --Paperjoiners (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Whpq Shyamsunder (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per comments of Whpq. Has only 3 employees, and claims of other media links are irrelevant if they are not included. Transmissionelement (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Shakir

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Mohammed Shakir Mohammed Shakir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league Spiderone (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - Mohammed Shakir is the main starter for his team and he is called for the Olympic team that will be played in October in Tehran. Mussav (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Um, the Olympics aren't until 2012! GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Iraq Olympic team will play in an official tournament that will be held in Tehran in October and this tournament is called the 2009 Islamic Solidarity Games. Mussav (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Regardless of the notability of playing in such a tournament, it isn't until October, and is once again a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. GiantSnowman 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) He played in the AFC Champions League 2008 with Arbil (his number is 20) [37]. Mussav (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) The no. 20 at that link has a very different name from that in the Wiki article? Eldumpo (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) That's Ahmaed Mohammed Karzan, I knew that I added a source of Karzan being played in the Champions League. I thought I added this info there but it seems I added it here mistakenly. sorry for confusing you. Mussav (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - has played in a top-level, continent-wide, professional competition. GiantSnowman 14:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I'm striking through this and unstriking my previous 'Delete' vote, as the source proves notability for a player with a different name. GiantSnowman 09:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - plays in top level of Iraqi football; Football is huge in Iraq, and there is no indication that the league isn't professional. Nfitz (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - It seems the first keep vote is now invalid since it was revolving around a source about a different player. Spiderone 08:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Where do you get that? A Mohhammed Shakir for the same team is listed as scoring goals in games - such as May 1 2009 - [38]. Nfitz (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I'm talking about Mussav's keep vote which involved Karzan and not Shakir Spiderone 08:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC) His reference to Shakir wasn't in his keep vote - it seems to have been several posts later, when he seems to have posted to the wrong AfD, for which he later apologised. That mistake doesn't invalidate his keep vote ... and below he has since attempted to make it clear he is still Keep. I'm afraid you are only clouding the issue. He meets WP:Athlete playing in a league listed at List of professional sports leagues#Football: Association Football. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - He is called for the Olympic team and he will represnts Iraq in Islamic Tournament in Tehran. Mussav (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) You already said that, please don't !vote twice -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep This footballer plays in a top tier league in a country. While he may not be known to us and the article lacks depth, it is no reason to delete it.--DragonFly31 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep per Dragonfly31. His team play in the Iraqi Premier League. Why is that insufficient to make him a notable athlete? SpinningSpark 14:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Because the league isn't professional therefore failing WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia says it's profesional - List_of_professional_sports_leagues#Football:_Association_Football Nfitz (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) That list is utter rubbish. There is no proof that the Bangladeshi, Azerbaijani, Cypriot, Albanian and Iraqi leagues are professional. Spiderone 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Only the Iraqi league is relevant to this debate. Do you have proof it is not professional? It may possibly not be, but you are conducting original research by assuming it is not. SpinningSpark 12:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC) If there is no proof for either then can we assume it isn't professional or that it's professional? Spiderone 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) [39] talks about the Iraqi professional league which indicates that such an animal exists. SpinningSpark 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Per GiantSnowman. Even if the League is fully pro, there is no evidence he has played in it. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC) He seems to have scored a few goals in this league he doesn't play in. SpinningSpark 23:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Prove Provided - SpinningSpark gave you the proves so I think the final answer is keep. Thanks SpinningSpark for your efforts. Mussav (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Comment The final answer isn't keep until an admin says it is Spiderone 08:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. According to this, Iraqi clubs were excluded from the 2009 Champions League because the league isn't fully professional. This shows that this player fails WP:ATHLETE, and there's a lack of available sources to establish notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Comment - We couldn't host clubs matches and promise for security at that time so our scors wasn't high for the AFC Champions league standars but now the AFC gave us the green light to host matches (Clubs and International matches) so I guess our score got higher and we might play in the Champions League next season. Mussav (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per Bettia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is a player in the top league of a large country where football is the number one sport. Let's not get into lawyering about whether every player in the league is paid a full-time wage and use a bit of common sense: policies and guidelines are to be followed by their spirit, not by their letter, and can anyone seriously say that the spirit of our guidelines means that a player in Iraq's top league is less notable than a fourth-level player in England? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Delete fourth tier in England is full-pro, as per Bettia's source the Iraqi league isn't. The inclusion criteria for sportspeople is they must have played in at a fully-professional level, not a top league of a country. There's also no independent media sources about the subject of this article, failing WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased Zoids

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Unreleased Zoids Unreleased Zoids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is a trivial list of canceled toys with absolutely nothing to verify their existence. TTN (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) By "nothing," you mean other than the pictures of said toys on the page in the references section? Or are you suggesting those are fakes, or...? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. I did Google search for a couple of the ones with unusual enough names to avoid false positives; "Bio-Diplodocus" has only ten results, "Energy Zaber" has only 7. The conclusion I draw from this is that not only do these unreleased toys fail Wikipedia's standards for notability, they barely pass Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, and are not of general interest even to fans. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Abductive. Picking one at random, Holotech Energy Liger, I got zero Google hits excluding mirrors and forks. Not even a mention on the site which 159.182.1.4 points to as a (the only) "reference". Actually, there are no pictures at all on the page linked, but I did search all the other pages of the site and did not find it. So working back the other way, picking one at random from the "reference" which does have a picture, Deathsaurer, I find that this is indeed in the article. But what does the website say about this model? - "This version is a custom made by a friend, which can represent what could have been this Deathsaurer...." So it is a one off toy made by an unidentified friend of the owner of an obscure private website as a guess at something that never existed. Pretty close to the perfect example of non-notable I'd say. One more quote from the reference web-site relevant to Deathsaurer; "This section is maybe one of the most important of this site...and second because it is here that we will see items absolutely unknown or very partially." By their own admission their most important page is non-notable. SpinningSpark 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheyarafim

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mutant (Marvel Comics). — Jake Wartenberg 04:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Cheyarafim Cheyarafim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This fictional race of angel-like mutants has only 94 regular Google hits, zero Google News hits, zero Google Books hits, zero Google Scholar hits and zero notability. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Google is not notability. --Noclevername (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. What little I found was not sufficient to allow me to link this to a specific edition of a comic book; it seems to be essentially backstory for X-Men, and I can't find any reliable sources to justify its retention here.' Accounting4Taste:talk 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Minor part of the X-Men's backstory; maybe a mention in the X-Men article would be enough. McMarcoP (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - It it is to be merged, it along with Neyaphem would seem to more naturally slot into Mutant (Marvel Comics), Angels (Marvel Comics), and Demons in the Marvel Universe - J Greb (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Merge this and Neyaphem to Azazel (Marvel Comics) Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Merge with Angels (Marvel Comics) (and ditto for Neyaphem to Demons), as suggested by J Greb but there should probably also be a section in Azazel (Marvel Comics), as pointed out by Sharksaredangerous. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)) Merge with Mutant (Marvel Comics), as this seems to be a sub-group of mutants, and other sub-groups (a la Omega-level mutants) have been merge into Mutants-proper. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC). Merge into Mutant (Marvel Comics), along with Neyaphem. They're supposedly not "real" angels or demons (whatever that means in the MU), i.e. not supernatural, just mutant bloodlines who happen to resemble them. And aside from a few now-abandoned storylines, they don't play a signifigant role anyway. --Noclevername (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Donatiello

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Antonia Donatiello Antonia Donatiello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The only reason of notability appears to be "a lot of prize[s]" which seem actually pretty unheard of and, when googled, return almost only personal pages of people who won them (and in some case, this very article is the first result returned). Goochelaar (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:V. Also unable to locate in the Italian Wikipedia. Location (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete because Unable to locate the "Premio Aeropago Cirals" prize other than in her article. The Premio Internazionale città di Pomigliano d'Arco prize gets ghits. The prize does not get it's own article on the Italian Wikipedia but it does get a one sentence mention at it:Pomigliano d'Arco#Università e cultura that Babelfish translates to "The city is moreover center of the prestigious international prize "City of Pomigliano d' Arco" , biennial of poetry, novellistic, visual limbs and journalism founded from Small Vat in 1992." The Premio Pithecusa prize gets ghits (with this article being first) but is not on the Italian Wikipedia. Presume non-notable. Unable to locate any reference to this author on the Italian Wikipedia. Zero ghits for the the author name in the news (using all dates). The book came out in 1989 and so this lack of coverage is ok other than it should have picked up the 2005 "Il grande occhiale." The book gets 253 ghits but then I subtracted a sentence from the WP article finding two sister WP articles, fr:Antonia Donatiello and de:Antonia Donatiello but which are small, a single paragraph on one web page, and this which says she was a famous female poet/writer. One hit in Google Books but it sources the English WP. One hit in Google Scholar. The page found is not available but the snippet offered mentions that "Il grande occhiale", 2005, and Antonia Donatiello looks like it's part of a long list of names. She does not appear to be getting significant coverage in English and there's insufficient evidence of WP:N in Italian to merit an English WP article. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) since the language of coverage is irrelevant. I suppose you mean, the sources, both in English and Italian, are not sufficient to meet the standards of the enWP. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) My wording was the result editing that chopped things up a bit. In English I found next to nothing much less WP:N and in Italian there's a more but it seems not enough to tilt into WP:N. For example, is Premio Internazionale città di Pomigliano d'Arco notable enough that her win, assuming it could be verified, tilts her into WP:N? I made a judgment call based on its limited coverage in the Italian WP. However, a WP is not the source of notability and to really do this justice we'd need to hunt for RS about it. It is getting covered in the news[41]. but I don't know the media to know the independent RS. Globally, I did a search for allintitle:Antonia Donatiello and looked through all 75 pages without success. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monobook (skin)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A1, apparently not something for article space Tone 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Monobook (skin) Monobook (skin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Improper cross-wiki CNR, is not an article and does not point at one. MBisanz talk 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete. Probably created in error. McMarcoP (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: Shouldn't this be handled at RfD? No objection to deletion via AfD. Cnilep (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abutre's

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Abutre's AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Abutre's Abutre's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails criteria for WP:BLP. This article contains significant negative information about living persons, but only offers one article in Portuguese to verify the long list of allegations against five named persons and the club as a whole (54 chapters, unknown number of people per chapter). There are perhaps 20 news articles found by Google that mention this group, but they are all in Portuguese. The language issue would not normally be grounds for any action because the article could wait for translation help. But this article has remained in a poorly-cited state for three years now. If these accusations of drug dealing, extortion, prostitution and so on are false, how many more years will they remain here damaging the reputations of a sizable number of living people waiting for Portuguese and English speaker come along undo the damage? BLP says "We must get the article right" but even if a skilled translator were to come along, aren't there hundreds of far more important articles about Brazil and Portugal that need attention? It might well be that articles detailing lurid criminality by living people, based solely on non-English sources are beyond the current capabilities of en.Wikipedia. Going into this much depth on topics without any English-language secondary sources might have to wait for a future time when circumstances change, but that would avoid harm to real people, at the cost of an article of very low importance. All the negative information could be deleted, but then what is left to justify notability? The fact that they like to ride black choppers? Dbratland (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Delete not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Only 5 G News hits in Portuguese, all related to the same incident. Portuguese Wikipedia article pt:Abutre's_Moto_Clube is even less informative than the English version. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of Barristers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Listed for 27 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The Order of Barristers The Order of Barristers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) All that I can find is trivia mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep - This is a big deal at some law schools, but is less so at others. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep This article is relevant and its sources are viable.--DragonFly31 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Theta Chi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – a non-notable organization per WP:ORG. JamieS93 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Alpha Theta Chi Alpha Theta Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article contains details about three distinct organizations: a sorority at Vincennes University, a fraternity at Hope College, and a sorority at the University of Michigan. As far as I can tell, none of the three meet notability criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Peacock (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) i agree this article should be deleted. as you can see from the talk page i thought so a while ago but kind forgot to AFd it after asking for informal comment. Trey (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, single chapter student clubs. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete non notable college club Admrboltz (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails WP:ORG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalamanthis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Kalamanthis Kalamanthis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This fictional drug has no reliable third party sources available anywhere. The article does not claim that is important within its fictional setting. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete as per nom. There are a lot of articles about minor D&D topics, many of which should be merged, IMO, but this seems too non-notable even for that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - minor fictional thing in D & D, not notable enough for its own article and has no useful history. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best Bad Luck I Ever Had

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The Best Bad Luck I Ever Had The Best Bad Luck I Ever Had (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested prod. Book by apparent non-notable author. Only provided refs are to authors homepage and Amazon. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. References and links are to the author's page and to Amazon, there is no notability claim. McMarcoP (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: Google test shows no non-trivial mentions/non-indices results, and in a more thorough check of databases I did not come across any suggestions that there might be harder-to-access sources. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest paid American television stars
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) List of highest paid American television stars List of highest paid American television stars ([[Special:EditPage/List of highest paid American television stars	edit]] | [[Talk:List of highest paid American television stars	talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/List of highest paid American television stars	history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/List of highest paid American television stars	protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/List of highest paid American television stars	delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is an unsourced, trivial list. Logan | Talk 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Incredibly inane unsourced listcruft (is Maury really being paid $7 million a year to proclaim "you are the father"? A little high). Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Comment No excuse for this not being sourced, since I'm assuming that the author got this from somewhere. Even at that, I question the accuracy of comparing someone's income from ownership of a show to income paid to someone who is working for others. Still, I don't think that we need to have a series of articles listing the highest paid TV stars in each year. A smaller list would be appropriate as part of an article showing the results over a longer period of time, since compensation of performers is encyclopedic, and it would illustrate the increase in worth over the year. Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Keep and add references and qualify salary versus production income. It is no more "inane" than any other financial list put out by Forbes or Business Week. I have always believed there is no such thing as a trivial topic, just trivial people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Most of the text is copied verbatim from the Reuters article referenced, and is therefore a copyvio, but the opening section is based on a contradictory article on AOL. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to how the contradictions are resolved, except apparently through OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) You can't copyright facts. If it was a list of some subjective matter it could be copyrighted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) It's not just facts. It's facts,descriptions, annotations, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Listcruft and copyvio as stated above. Tckma (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - trivial for one year alone; as Mandsford suggests, may (may) be worthwhile for more years, along the lines of the List of highest paid baseball players (itself fraught with issues). - Biruitorul Talk 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Just as a general note, we do not delete based on the nonsense non-word "cruft". Anyway, if nothing else definitely verifiable through a reliable source concerning a notable subject. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep it is worthy to see, it is confirmed by the new refrences, so i think it should stay. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I think with the new refrences it is verifiable, it has a link and and the sources are reliable. --Pedro J. the rookie 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Even if the individual salary figures are referenced, the claim(s) that these are the highest figures are not reliably sourced. For quite a few of the prime-time performers in ensemble shows, the references don't even support the claim that they're the highest paid performers on their shows. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Even so it mthose say the amount that they get paid and the top are mainly known Oprha, Dr.Phil, Simon Cowell, those are quite obios. --Pedro J. the rookie 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Keep I'd like to see a lead section that summarizes the information, but the ample reliable and verifiable sources that have been added meet the necessary requirements and address issues raised re sourcing. There are no copyright issues here and any argument where "cruft" is offered as an argument for deletion should be an automatic keep in my book. Rather than including a year, the as of date should be listed in the article rather than in the title. I would Also suggest capitalizing "American" and making the title for the article "List of highest paid American television stars". Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete I don't see what purpose this article serves. Who cares what celebrities make? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Many pepol care a lot what stars earn and even more editors and readers that are in to Hollywood, and stars, so i would think the artical could be helpful for many readers with some updates it maybecome a great artical. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Keep, requires some cleanup and clarification (is it current salaries only or historic, my opinion it should be historic), but it is a notable subject and easily verifiable. --kelapstick (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Yes it should be historic. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I've started converting the lists into sortable wikitables, with a section for "year" as well.--kelapstick (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Keep The article improvements have reliable sources which verify notability. So per our policies and guidelines seem to indicate this is a keeper. In response to the the "who cares" delete... I would simply say that one man's folly is another mans indulgence. I'd quite imagine there are WP readers and editors who care little about the Detroit Lions, but that doesn't make them any less desirable to our encyclopedic effort either. No offense intended of course. — Ched :  ?  05:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Note to closing admin: While the sourcing for some of the individual salary levels has been greatly improved, there is still virtually no sourcing for the claims that these are the "highest paid" performers. The newspiece which started this whole thing is a feature that runs annually in TV Guide, giving examples of top-level salaries, not a comprehensive analysis. Note, for example, that the "morning" section omits Barbara Walters, verifiably sourced in her Wikipedia article at a much higher salary than all but one of the "top" performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I have corrected that error, and as i said it can be changed and updated anytime, so it can be helped and make it acpectable for wikipedia, and again as i said with some work this could become a very good artical. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Fixing one error doesn't address the problem of general unreliability on the central subject. And since when has "America's Top Model" been a "morning" show? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I think that section should be axed all together, I don't think that The Price is Right and Judge Judy qualify as "morning shows" either. But that isn't a reason to remove the entire article.--kelapstick (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I can't access the references, but the "morning show" might be for The Tyra Banks Show, not America's Next Top Model. Just speculating here.--kelapstick (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Checked on Tyra, it is solved and what do you mean with Axed. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I mean that the entire article should not be deleted because of one section (morning show).--kelapstick (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) i see. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Keep There is plenty of mention of this in the news media, so it meets the suggested guidelines for notability. It is something that is mentioned regularly, and should be commented on. An encyclopedia that doesn't show how much some of the most influential people in the world make, wouldn't be completed. A list for television stars, one for those involved in the movies, one for wealthiest businessmen, etc. Its all good. Dream Focus 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete per my belief that this is in the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Numbers can be crunched any which way and you can make a list out of virtually any subject, but I'm not sure that this enables meaningful encyclopedic coverage. I know it's not the greatest rationale, but it's my opinion, just throwing it out there. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solosol

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One comment normally doesn't constitute a consensus but it did establish that this newspaper exists. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to discuss the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Solosol Solosol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I tried to find a source that indicated that this underground Argentine newspaper ever existed, but failed. It only lasted for one year, until the founder left his country. Bringing to AfD in case somebody has better luck than me. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Not going to give an opinion on notability, but I found this interview with Gustavo Aguerre, the claimed founder of the magazine. It is in German, but it has a picture of the front cover of the magazine thus verifying the existence of both Gustav and the magazine. The article says there were four issues and a circulation of 4000. I don't know how notable that is for an underground magazine but four issues does not sound very many to me. SpinningSpark 12:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I don't seem to have linked to the German version above, it is some other language - never mind, same thing. The only other thing I came up with is this which appears to be the transcript of a radio programme that mentioned the magazine and Aguerre. SpinningSpark 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tens System

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Implementing DGG's suggestion.. NW (Talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Tens System Tens System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Nines System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Eights System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Is this term standard?? None of the first 30 results in Google meet both of the following criteria: Must talk about this scale Cannot be Wikipedia or a Wikipedia mirror. Georgia guy (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. This article refers to the commonplace grading practice of giving an A to 90% and above, a B for 80-89% and so forth. However, internet searching reveals that the term is used as an alternate name for "decimal system" in some educational literature. I could find no sources that analyse (or even mention) the grading practice. Furthermore, the article does not enlighten us as to why this is interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. No evidence this is genuine terminology in the field and the subject is already adequately covered in Grade (education). I got the same result as Georgia Guy - mirrors and forks only, some of them copyvios. I would also like to add Nines System and Eights System to this nomination, just as soon as I work out how to do it. There is equally little no evidence for these and even less evidence that they are actually used. SpinningSpark 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I've added the other two articles. Not sure if this is entirely the Kosher way of doing this - could someone else please sort this out if I have got this wrong. SpinningSpark 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete –At this time. I did find one Scholarly work related to the Tens System with regards to grading, as shown here [42]]. However, all other Google Scholar hits, as shown here [43], uses the term as an alternate name for "decimal system". This is what the article should address and then would be happy to support. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect tens system to decimal system, delete the other two. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I think possibly you meant redirect to decimal. The decimal system page is a dab page. SpinningSpark 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Bergström

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I personally would suggest a redirect until the marriage but that's an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Jonas Bergström Jonas Bergström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unreferenced BLP, fiance of a princess. How is he notable? Lara 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Princess Madeleine per WP:BLP, section "Articles about people notable only for one event". Feinoha Talk, My master 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep. I understand that notability isn't inherited, however, I think an exception could be made in this case as he will soon be the member of a royal family (i.e. he will be the Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland). Location (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect as above until he does something notable in itself. The engagement, btw, was on Swedish TV so I'm sure *that* can be sourced, preferably by someone with a touch more Swedish than me... Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep as he is the future husband of Princess Madeleine and will share her title upon marriage. Ari Behn and Jaime de Marichalar, Duke of Lugo are not inherently notable in their own right, but they have articles and are spouses of younger children of monarchs. Morhange (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know that they're going to get married. Any number of things could occur between now and their expected wedding which could prevent it. Your argument would be for an argument once he's already got the title, in which case it would be best to redirect from this page to hers and create his article under his new title once he actually holds it. Lara 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep Let's say the engagement fizzles and he does not marry her. Shouldn't en.WP answer anyway the question "Who was that guy again who got engaged to that gorgeous Swedish princess that every guy was hoping to catch?" If he does may her the article will already be there to expand. No vital reason to delete the article as I see it, as it is as relevant as many other short ones about peripherally notable people. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't en.WP answer anyway the question "Who was that guy again who got engaged to that gorgeous Swedish princess that every guy was hoping to catch?" No. This is an encyclopedia. If you please, look over WP:BIO and find something to use as a keep argument. Thanks. Lara 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC) OK! "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." Probably hundreds of pages already in this case in Swedish, German, Norwegian, Danish, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch... Ref. here and on de.WP article, which I do not have time to transfer/translate right now. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them(sic, should be it )". The Swedish government had to approve the engagement and thus, if you will, awarded Mr. Bergström the right and "honor" to marry the princess, who is third in line as head of state and functions officially as Regent of Sweden from time to time when her father, sister and brother are not available. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Reconcile 1 with WP:BLP1E and 2 requires discussion to establish that it qualifies as an honor or award. As an aside, it's "them" not "it" as it's speaking on honors and awards. Lara 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I am not aware (1) that there is any guideline that a person always is to be considered irrelevant if there has only been one notable event so far. Seems to me we should delete a great many articles if so. Also seems to me that the clear likelihood of his being known for more quite soon also might enter into consideration in this case (that's what I meant by "no vital reason to delete" above). I am not aware (2) that I have demanded anything or otherwise argued against discussion. And I am not aware (grammar) that "a notable award or honor" can be followed by "them" in any case at all in correct English. Seems to me the phrase either must be "notable awards or honors" or "a notable award and honor" to qualify "them". I (too) am being a bit overly argumentative, I know, but I guess that's discussion (?). SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 1/ There are a lot of articles that need to be deleted; that's for sure. However, there are exceptions to BLP1E. One example is when the event the subject is notable for is historically significant. Becoming a prince by marriage would qualify, but he's not there yet, which is where WP:CRYSTAL comes in. 2/ That said, please show me the discussion that says being granted permission to marry a princess is considered an award. That gives me flashbacks to Aladdin, and I would have been as offended as Jasmine to be considered "a prize to be won." 3/ The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for [a notable award or honor]. While singular individually, they're still two things, thus "them". Lara 12:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Re: relevance, it says award or honor. Ergo Bergström was granted a very high and unusual honor by the Swedish government, not an award. You can hardly be serious, can you, in questioning that, by zeroing in on the word award, only one of the two specified criteria? Why would you want to do that? I am not sexist, though you may have misunderstood me above on that (sorry if so!). Why argue now just to argue? I find that such a waste of time and effort better spent in other ways. Re: grammar, it says award or honor. I am in my sixties and may have missed something along the way as to what still is or is not singular. As I have learned and successfully written English from 1953 to 2009 "an award or honor" is singular because of or being in there, not and. Hope that makes my grammatical POV even clearer than I thought I made it before. "An award or honor" is it, not they. Such as in he wanted to give her an award or honor, but she turned it down, no matter which. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Your use of awarded is what I was going off of. Regardless, where's the discussion that concludes such an honor is notable by itself? And I read it as The person has received a notable award or [a notable] honor, or has been often nominated for [a notable award or a notable honor] which would be two singulars, thus "them"; but would also be extra unnecessary wording. Lara 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - If he marries her the next year, he will be notable as member of the royal family. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to delete the article and recreate it in a few months. Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl and the Sea

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Girl and the Sea Girl and the Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:MUSIC Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - How does this fail notability? The first line of the second paragraph of WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." It's not a single track single, and has even had one song played in The O.C.. I would think that gives it more than enough notability. -WarthogDemon 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. Since the band is notable and a track from the EP has been used in a major TV series, I see no good reason to delete this. I found plenty of mentions of this EP where it was described, for example, as "pristine melancholy".--Michig (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) See this and this for instance.--Michig (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, ignoring the fact that it looks as though it has been set up wrong (ie as the single), as the 2004 released EP it passes WP:Albums for the info Michig has dug up.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, per sources found by User:Michig, would appear to meet criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC). The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Jones (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Carrie Jones AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Carrie Jones Articles for deletion/Carrie Jones (2nd nomination) Carrie Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 00:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect back to Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious not notable singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect per ApprenticeFan. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect restore last AFD's redirect to Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious. new references provide not much more and none are reliable sources. no notability outside TV show. new band shows no notability past "notable" members. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect as above and page protect to prevent this from happening ceaselessly. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angels of Modern Destruction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Angels of Modern Destruction Angels of Modern Destruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:MUSIC Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Delete non-notable subject. Wether B (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Comment This could meet criteria 6 of WP:BAND as there are two members who have standalone articles: Jordis Unga and Carrie Jones. I feel that the notability of the band members should be established before deciding on the notability of the band. I will set up an AfD for each. SilkTork *YES! 00:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) As Duffbeerforme says, if one or more of the AfDs of the band members close as delete or redirect, then I would say delete this article. 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) and when one or more of these new articles close as redirect (or delete) Delete this article. No other claims of notability outside members. no independent sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. A passing mention in the respective artists page (which are both up for AfD BTW) is all that is required. No stand alone notability.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running and ski brand

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy close as a test page. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Running and ski brand Running and ski brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Subject is adequately covered by Karhu Sports and Karhu articles. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.