Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 10: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Spring}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolarMagic}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolarMagic}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeggs: The Angry Hobos (book)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeggs: The Angry Hobos (book)}}

Revision as of 19:56, 10 March 2009

< 9 March 11 March >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Spring

Sir John Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Not properly referenced. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SolarMagic

SolarMagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pulled from db-spam queue. Tone is not overly promotional, but since this is a product that is scheduled for a May release, notability is in doubt (but not completely out of the question). {{db-inc}} doesn't fit, so taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article doesn't look spammy to me. The article already contains one reliable source writing about the technology. [1], [2], [3] amongst many more would indicate that many have taken note of this technology. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. This page has four third-party, independent references, three of which are linked, and the subject matter is clearly now being referenced and discussed in vertical media. A Wikipedia entry that is factually-based and objective, as I believe this is, is entirely appropriate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naracsuah (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — Naracsuah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear hoax with no queries producing results seicer | talk | contribs 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeggs: The Angry Hobos (book)

Yeggs: The Angry Hobos (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be hoax. Google search turns up nothing, and search for the awards turns up nothing on those purported awards. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the alternative, as those searches indicate, if it is real it fails WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resources Global Professionals

Resources Global Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The creator of the article doesn't understand what we need, but the company is probably notable and it would be nice to salvage the article. Taking to AfD out of respect for the tagger, User:ttonyb1. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Notable company, but article is pure spam. Delete if nobody is prepared to rewrite it as NPOV with independent references etc. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of whether the business is notable or not, this text is purely promotional in tone, as well as vague to the point of evasiveness: Resources Global Professional provides international professional services that helps business leaders execute internal initiatives. Partnering with business leaders, they drive internal change across all parts of a global enterprise . . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged it earlier for non-notability and for spam. A lot of the spam has been removed, but some still remains. I am at a bit of a loss to discover from the article what they actually do. "Partnering with business leaders, they drive internal change across all parts of a global enterprise"? Are they buzz-word consultants or hatchet-men? (Or women, of course...) I can't tell. There again, perhaps the people that hire them don't know what they (and other similar companies) do either. (Before someone decides to reinstate the article as was, I couldn't work it out then either. Peridon (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pacific Northwest Corridor. merge to Pacific Northwest Corridor; there is not yet sufficiently advanced planning for an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia high-speed rail (proposition)

Cascadia high-speed rail (proposition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At the moment this is still just a proposal - the only article about it says " The Eugene to Vancouver, B.C., corridor is one of 11 corridors designated for possible high-speed rail development. There is much to be done regionally before LaHood assigns priority funding for the engineering and development of the Cascadia high-speed rail line." Thus it lacks notability and, as the saying goes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. dougweller (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Are you suggesting that the sources that happen to be in an article started a few hours ago are the only ones available (which is the criteria for notability)? A quick Google search turned up references to Cascadia hig-speed rail proposals and activity in published books [4] [5], an apparent US government document [6], a transportation study by an Oregon city [7], another opinion piece, this time from the Seattle Times [8], a resolution from another Oregon city [9], a Canadian opinion piece [10] and other sources of varying reliability.Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not suggesting that those are the only sources available, but those are the only ones provided. Thus "until there are more sources" the article in its current state fails notability. If there are more sources, as is likely, feel free to add those that are reliable, third party sources to establish notability. But primary sources (e.g. city resolutions, government documents) and opinion pieces have limited weight towards establishing notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability attaches to the topic, not the article. Per WP:FAILN, "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." Primary sources and opinion pieces have limited weight towards establishing notability, but the topic is also covered in published books and magazines, of which I just provided two links that were readlity available from a Google search. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the book (don't see a mag that isn't an opinion piece) is not about the rail line, thus it is not exclusive coverage. Its not trivial either, its somewhat substantial (or significant as NOTE uses), but the amount of coverage is limited. Thus multiple sources are needed. As to WP:FAILN, keep reading it. "Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface." One source, the book, exists and is usable. Throw a couple more up and you are there. It's not like I haven't heard of this (not for a decade or so now), I just question whether it meets the notability guidelines. As of now, its borderline. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added references from a couple of books. Not sure it was necessary, since I didn't merely assert that additional sources exist, but provided links to some. But given that this is a new article by a new editor who may not know better yet, it was worth just incorporating a couple of the references into the article on his/her behalf. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that sources must be exclusively about a topic to establish notability, just that they be non-trivial like a "passing mention" or a "directory listing". The coverage of this topic is far beyond the scope of either. --Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, that's why the discussion about exclusive coverage was followed by "THUS". But, exclusive in a large book would usually do it alone, as indicated by footnote one at WP:NOTE. That is to say, if it is not exclusive if a large book (or other well recognized media), then you need multiple of the significant coverage, which is all covered at WP:NOTE, see "General notability guideline" and the first part of that. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "large book" clause anywhere in WP:NOTE. Coverage demonstrating notability could be an article or even non-trivial coverage within an article about a different topic. It does not have to be a "large book".--Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no one said there was. Please read what I have said (word such as then have specific meanings). If there is coverage in a large book (see the footnote in NOTE where the number of pages of a book on IBM is detailed), then you don't need to go further. But if there is not that type of coverage, then you need multiple sources that detail the topic in less depth/exclusivity than a book all about IBM would afford to the notability to IBM. Got it. That is, there is no book requirement, there is no exclusivity requirement. BUT if an EXCLUSIVE book did exist about a topic, then you do not need anything else to demonstrate notability. Much like a single, trivial source can actually be enough for notability in situations where you have the what I like to call the "automatic inclusion criteria" such as a Senator, where a single line in a newspaper article saying someone was a Senator is enough for notability, as it establishes one of the specific inclusion criteria of BIO. But no, there is no large book requirement, and nobody said there was. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(indent for readability) You're completely missing the point. The coverage of this topic is independent, significant and non-trivial. All of your talk about a "large book" is irrelevant. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not missing the point (you are the one who wants to keep mis-reading about "large books"). The point about the books is that the coverage in either of the books (the Al Sayyad has little more than a page of coverage and the other one paragraph) listed above ALONE (all by itself, is in if it were the only source given) is not enough to confer notability. That's it, period, end of story as to the exclusive coverage in a large book argument. Period. End of story on large book. Period. If there are a handful of other sources that also provide significant coverage that are independent and meet RS, then the coverage in the books listed above and those additional sources taken in the aggregate are enough for notability. But the other sources given are either primary sources (no notability conferred) or opinion pieces, which do little for notability. In fact the Seattle opinion piece does not discuss this topic at all, it discusses in one whole sentence the expansion of existing Amtrak/rail service (nothing about a high speed rail from Eugene to BC) and in another one whole sentence discusses high speed rail, but it is ambiguous as to if they mean between Seattle burbs or a BC to Eugene system (taken in context of improving Seattle transit I think they mean Renton to Lynnwood type of service). As to the other opinion piece, at most three whole sentences could be considered coverage of this proposal. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is a notable proposal as indicated in the sources provided by Rlendog. Even an opinion piece, provided it is secondary and independent of the topic, is considered a reliable source to demonstrate notability. There is no requirement that such sources be unbiased. --Oakshade (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Changed to Redirect to Pacific Northwest Corridor as suggested by Matjamoe below. That seems more appropriate for now.--Oakshade (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or completely rewrite The concept may be notable, but the information given in the article is scarcely encyclopedic. (a) We are told that a proposal exists, but almost nothing about the circumstances of the proposal, such as who has made the proposal, or by whom it is being considered. (b) We are told that "American citizens think that ...", but not what American citizens, or how many of them, or how it has been ascertained what they think, or what other opinions other American citizens hold. (c) We are told "Proponents of the Cascadia high-speed rail also believe ..." but not what opponents think. (d) We are given a long quote exhorting us to "Imagine boarding a high-speed rail train in downtown Portland [etc etc]": the quoted passage is designed to encourage us to have a particular feeling about the proposal, to take a particular view of it, not to provide us with information about it. All in all the article lacks factual information, lacks objectivity, lacks evidence, and attempts to support a particular point of view. It is more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pacific Northwest Corridor, as that is the official federal name for the designated corridor. If this project happens, it will be because the feds fund it. -Matjamoe (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is admitted there are no sources yet; deleted but permit recreation when there are. Userification optional. DGG (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metel el Helm

Metel el Helm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NF, unless the production is notable in itself, WP:CRYSTAL applies and this unreleased movie is not notable for Wikipedia yet. It may be once it is released, so rather than deletion, I actually propose moving this to userspace so it can be moved back when released and notability can be established. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete I really think that the article mustn't be removed for the following reasons:
1-The movie is already very known locally (In Lebanon).
2-The movie is record-breaking ,the production team broke a world-wide record and is considered to enter the Guinness world Records(Still awaiting a reply)
3-As the movie isn't released yet,the media coverage is very minor (a couple of interviews). A press conference will be held before the movie is released and links to the interviews will be posted on the page.
4-The Wikipedia page is being consulted daily by visitors who have heard of the movie and want to know more about it and it's record-breaking fact.As Wikipedia's goal is to spread knowledge and information,I respectfully believe that the article must remain accessible to the public.I know some of the people who worked in this production so I can always add new categories to this article and already people are asking questions about the movie ,I will speak with the production team so we can redirect them to this Wikipedia article (along with the official movie site.)

Although the article lacks a (or some) picture(s),there are some posted on the movie's website and on the movie's fan group on Facebook.I will try to get one from the production and I will add it to the article.

Thank you for your understanding and support,

sincerely

Georges Halim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Lebnan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Given the information above, can you substantiate item #1 with reliable sources documenting this popularity? With respect to #2, the fact that you submitted something to Guiness does nto establish ntoability. With respect to #3, that is a reason in favour of deletion. As for item #4, wikipedia is not a web host. That's what your web site is for. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • The movie is notableI appreciate your reply but I have some clarifications ,concerning Item #1:I can't add reliable sources now documenting the movie's popularity because there is no press coverage yet ,the popularity resides in mouth to mouth advertisement. The post-production has ended and the movie will be soon published.ABout Item #2:I am sure that Wikipedia must have articles about world records in the movie domains as it covers various other branches ,[Item #3 ]:As I have mentioned earlier, I will provide you with links to reliable sources as soon as possible.Concerning item #4 WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and one of an encyclopedia's goals is to provide readers with information ,I don't mean it being a web host but a source of knowledge.

I want to thank you again for your fast reply. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm afraid that 'word of mouth' notability doesn't count for much at Wikipedia. Movies not yet released are only classed as notable when they are are by Spielberg or someone like that. Christopher Karkafi - I can only find here and Facebook. Metel el Helm - once again Facebook and a forum in Arabic which gives a mention in a list of Lebanese films (and possibly on a rather odd 'search' site that I haven't worked out yet). Not yet notable, sorry. When the film is released and getting audiences, try again. Wikipedia is for recording, not promoting. We can't help you onto the ladder. We can record you when you've gone up a few rungs. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Userfy I respect your opinion for deletion and I am sure that the movie will have an article very soon that won't be deleted .As I noticed,you need enough proof that the movie is being made.

I wish you could move the article or something so it wouldn't have to be rewritten.--Lebnan (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can. It can be moved to userspace, or simply copy-pasted by yourself. Moving maintains the edit history and is thus preferable. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't you track the number of visitors per day and judge then whether you delete the article or not.Then you can judge the notability,if you don't have an administrator living in Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the same as popularity. General notability is established by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Per the analysis of the links in the article, there are currently no reliable sources cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if they can or can't, but can't you see the potential for error? (To put it politely...) The number of clicks a site on the net gets can affect revenue from advertising - there are people sitting there ckicking sites to boost this. I'm not saying you would do this, but some well-meaning person might decide to boost the figures without asking you. An admin living in the Lebanon? Could be. But admins have to be neutral wherever they live. We judge notability by what we can find out. And once again, we are NOT here to help promote something or someone and we have policies that have been agreed. Everything on Wikipedia is notable? No. You may find an article consisting of "Shane is the MOST AWWWWWWSSSSSSOOOOMMMESTTTT person EVAHHHHH!". Normally these get deleted very quickly, but some clever ones get through - for a time. If you spot one - tag it, please. Peridon (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion ,wait for a couple of weeks(3 weeks maximum),if some references were posted,leave the article ,if not userfy .We will give the article a chance till mid-april. It wouldn't do any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am for not deleting the post. Lebnan,if they decided to delete it, they will surely be an article for the movie after a couple of weeks because I was told that it will be released soon and I guess Wikipedia keeps the article if the movie is genuine and notable.Several audio-visual students in the university worked for it and I asked jad about the movie yesterday ,he said that the post-production is in it's final stages so a bit of patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim malan (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Karim malan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete but allow userfication. The article fails to present any independent evidence that this unreleased film is notable. We can reconsider after the film is released. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative comment. The deleted comment and related reply from User:Whpq were not discussing the merits of the article, and in my opinion, removal has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— TheGodMothers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please find references...and indicate which notability (film) criteria it meets, since it doesn't appear to meet any of them. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of country songs

List of country songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. This list can never be complete, and the statement for inclusion notable country songs is purely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is WP:LISTCRUFT and redundant to Category:Country songs. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What possible encyclopedic value can such a list bring? It's not as if we don't have a search capability. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list does not need to contain encyclopedic content, it is valuable as a navigational and organizational tool. Browsing a list and searching for a specific item are almost diametrically opposed, so the fact that you can search Wikipedia is not germane to the issue. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally for these things someone always comes along and says "if it gets too big it can be split per 'WP:Lists can be split when they get too big"' or something like that. In this case I think it would be best to split it by decade (and actually sort it by year instead of alphabetically). I've made a start on adding dates. Nerfari (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit to include only those with a Wikipedia article--the usual standard for what gets included on a list like this. Most lists will never be complete. Neither will Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to say the exact same thing as DGG. (1) The requirement for inclusion in the list is Wikipedia's general notablility guideline-- in other words, if an article already exists or an article needs to be created for a song, then it gets included. (2) The list may never be complete, but that is not a problem in the least. (3) This list can be useful for redlinks to needed articles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point out that even if you limited this to blue links, there are 377 subcategories for the category of country songs, broken down by artist, and that even if you make a conservative estimate of only five songs per each artist with a category, it would be an unmanageable list. As far as current artists go, guys like Kenny Chesney have 34 blue-link songs so far, and there will be more. Once a list reaches thousands of entries, it's no longer useful, because it has to be broken down into "List of country songs that start with A", "List of country songs that start with B", etc. Maintaining such lists would not necessarily be impossible, but it would be pointless. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more of them there are, the greater the need for organizational devices. Even clumsy ones are a start. DGG (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I don't see the problem with splitting a list into multiple lists if it gets too long. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists serve different purposes. With a list you can link to non-existent, but needed articles, and you can include additional information, in this case the artist for each song. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hey, TPH, that's a good idea--to do them for the others. There seem to be enough people interested in popular music around here--well, do them at least for those genes where there are enough people to do the work. DGG (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have people work on the country music articles first (hint, hint). Almost all of them are in lousy condition. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, it's not up to you to decide what other people should be working on. If you think the country music articles need improving, then do it. Let other people work on improving this list if they so prefer. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and appropriately trim and split. Somewhere between a hopelessly unnavigable category with hundreds of sub-categories to wade through, and an unmaintainable list of potentially thousands, if not tens of thousands of songs purely in alphabetical order, there lies a happy medium. A series of 10-30 lists, perhaps categorized by decade, or maybe even half-decade for some periods, of notable country songs, would be far more useful and maintainable than either a plain alphabetical list, or a category of subcategories of subcategories of subcategories. It'll be a lot of work, but it's not impossible, and this list can be a start towards that end. Perfection is not required. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a firm believer in the saying "It takes a village to raise a child." This list will most likely never be completed and there will always be a question about the notability of the songs on the list but since Wikipedia is a community-based project, everyone has the option of refining it to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic 8 ball 1982 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not let the perfect be an enemy of the good WP:IMPERFECT -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much too general a topic. Aubergine (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – When it is impractical to objectively and non-arbitrarily define and identify a complete set (i.e. a specific set of items that is generally recognized as constituting a single, defined grouping, such as Sultans of Zanzibar, Miss Universe titleholders and Spooks episodes; in the case of this article, the "complete set" would be "all country songs"), I think that categories are superior to lists for purposes of navigation. However, the fact is that many editors and readers prefer lists to categories for purposes of navigation and browsing, and current consensus is that categories and lists complement one another. While this alphabetical list is currently not very much better than a category, it has the potential to be improved (in appearance, content, and organization) and to serve as a useful tool for navigation. I agree with the various suggestions offered by others to split the list by genre, time period, or something else. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What I'd really like is something short enough that I could browse through the whole thing. I think the Years in Country Music articles are great, and I wish I knew about them before I started editing this, but it's inconvenient to hop from one to another. Maybe a more restrictive alphabetical list would complement the category and the Years articles. But I think it's important to know where we are going before we invest too much time in this thing. Nerfari (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make-buy

Make-buy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Make vs. buy analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sourcing intermediaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These 3 articles created by the same editor are all essays about generally the same topic. One is currently tagged with a prod template, however I felt it would be easier to group all 3 together than to tag each individually with prod templates. Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madslashers

Madslashers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: No sources at all. Subject is the unofficial nickname of a platoon. Questionable whether the unit should even have a seperate article of its own. Entire article consists of legends and assertions about undocumented conversations between unknown people at unspecified times. A merger discussion has been in place for a couple of months and there has been little interest in supporting the merger. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadbodhini boys high school

Sadbodhini boys high school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete another school, this one a high school with virtually no context again. There is no Sadbodhini to redirect to; no verifiability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough-- I looked at that and at Matriculation in India and I understand that there's an 11th and 12th standard, but that one has to pass an exam after completing the 10th standard in order to go on. I can see that the same reasons that we assign notability to 12th grade high schools-- i.e., that they are the highest level of education within the school district -- might apply if a certificate is conferred on persons who complete the 10th standard. Mandsford (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can verify the existence of this school, this article should be kept because all high schools are notable. At the very least, what is the harm of merging/redirecting this school to its geographic location? The article has a little context: "class rooms from 8th Standard to 10th Standard" which can be merged. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm unable to repeat the search query that got me my previous result. It wouldn't have been a good source anyway, since it only gave an address, the actual article content we have couldn't be verified with it. -- Mgm|(talk) 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP & improve/expand. the existence of the school has been verified apparently, if you read thru this whole debate. it's not very good as is, i admit, and needs work, but if we have a policy that high schools are noteworthy enough to have individual articles, per se, then this qualifies. did anyone think to look & see if the school has a website.

also, why are the "decision was delete, archived, etc" notes already on the text of this page? the debate is NOT closed, & the article has not already been deleted. it's very confusing to see that, when you go to write a comment. Lx 121 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, in the very brief time it has taken me to write the above comment, the debate has been closed & the article deleted. that seems to be jumping the gun a bit. this was not a CSD Lx 121 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last word, i wouldn't normally do this, but i want it on the record. after extensive searching: it is almost certainly "Sad Bodhini". two words, not one, at least in roman scriptLx 121 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadbodhini primary school

Sadbodhini primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete speedy deletion of schools is frowned upon but this is almost A3. In any case there is no indication of notability here, and we have no article Sadbodhini to redirect to, assuming that the name is of the place where this is located. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Harir

AfDs for this article:
Dalia Harir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ms. Harir was a teenager murdered in 2004. Her death received the typical amount of news coverage for a murder -- a couple of stories in local media. Otherwise, there appears to be nothing that makes her more noteworthy than the hundreds or thousands of other murder victims each year. I realize that this went through an AFD in 2007 and the result was keep, but I'd like to see what people think about it today. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbwires

The Barbwires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this group meets WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…Sounds Like Trouble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Spring I

Sir William Spring I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't see that the whole line was being considered. Need to compare sources to articles.Vulture19 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What Vulture has cited is imaged on Google Books, which seem to call into doubt Kitty's accusations of a hoax. Still, what did Bill Spring (or any of the others) do that was notable? Even the royalty-fans don't insist on inherent notability for inherited nobility. Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. A gBooks search on "William Spring" yields a whole lot of information that I just don't have time to digest or write into the article right now. The problem is that there are a few different "William Springs" from the same lineage. Is it possible that the entire discussion be consolidated to a single discussion? Vulture19 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, what appears to have happened here is that someone's conjoined the (verifiable, true) information regarding the Spring family pre-1641 with an imagined title of "Baron Lavenham". So there is a hoax, but the articles on earlier members of the family do appear to be accurate. Choess (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"William Spring" Lavenham is a bit more salient to the discussion. The same search on gScholar.Vulture19 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for genuine higher nobility, I think precedent is we do include every holder of the title, for, at least until very recently, they do play significant roles (and English barons used to be always in Parliament.) Not inherited then applies to children without the title & , probably spouses. For baronets, like these, and equivalent lower nobility elsewhere, we do not include unless individually notable for something. DGG (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not peers or nobility. Possibly Lords of the Manor. I have no problem with Spring Baronets and (proven) MPs. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spring I

Thomas Spring I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Hoax. Not properly referenced. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dakete

Dakete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not covered in reputable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Spring II

Sir William Spring II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rayment says that is Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different people: in 1625, Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet was only 12 years old, so the MP, mentioned in Choess' source has to be another one.
  • Comment. I was asked to comment here in a note from Kittybrewster on my talk page. My first thought is that MPs from before the late 19th century need a lot of caution, because of the proliferation in many areas of identically-named members of the same extended families. In this case, the two sources we have are:
So those two sources are in broad agreement that a "Sir William Spring" was MP for Bury in the Long Parliament, differing only on whether a William Spring was returned to the start of the Long Parliament or later. Matters get somewhat tangled here, because of the complex parliamentary history of the civil war era: dates alone may be an inadequate indicator, because of the overlap between the Long Parliament and the First Protectorate Parliament and its successors. I can see that a bare listing of MPs by date in that period might get tangled by different perspectives on the legitimacy or otherwise of the three Protectorate Parliaments, the third of which was replaced by the Long Parliament in the prelude to the restoration in 1660. On that basis, I'd be inclined to proceed with a lot of caution and seek further sources, but it's important to note that the article on Sir William Spring II does not claim that Spring II was the Bury MP. Instead it claims that he was the republican father of the royalist Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet, and that does seems possible.
The least plausible possibility so far seems to me to be Choess's suggestion that the Sir William Spring II was the Bury St Edmunds MP. Neither of the sources unambiguously supports that, nor is it claimed in the alleged hoax article.
As to the rest of the article, I think that the essence of its claim is possible: republican father of a royalist son.
However, I am very suspicious of the article's apparent reliance solely on local history sources, which can be of highly variable quality. All too often, the authors fascination with their subjects outweighs their scholarly rigour; their selection and interpretation of the primary sources can be flawed, and in some cases closeness to the subject can bring severe bias.
In this case, the article on Sir William Spring II refers to the arrest of "his royalist son" in 1656. Rayment lists the first son as having died in 1654, so either this is simply wrong, or the father had two royalist sons; possible, but less likely.
As to the reliability of Rayment as a source, I have at times queried Rayment's accuracy wrt to MPs from Baronet families, but 9 times out of 10 I have been persuaded that I have misread things. However, the scanty nature of Rayment's bare listings makes it difficult to check in ambiguous cases.
So my best suggestion is to delete both Sir William Spring II and Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet. So far I don't think that we have enough unambiguous reliable sources to support the central claims of either article with anything near enough certainty to justify publication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham

William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Spring, 2nd Baron Lavenham

William Spring, 2nd Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spring, 3rd Baron Lavenham

Robert Spring, 3rd Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Spring, 7th Baron Lavenham

Henry Spring, 7th Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidenly Hall

Bidenly Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason LaRay Keener

Jason LaRay Keener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article barely claims notability with their films made. After searching for info on these films to see if they're notable, I found only one news articles about any of the films. The article was written by Jason Keener. Here's my other searches for news on the film: [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Here's my searches for Jason LaRay Keener that show no articles: [18][19]. I see no proof of notability and obviously haven't found any on my own. OlYellerTalktome 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Spring, 8th Baron Lavenham

Basil Spring, 8th Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Spring, 9th Baron Lavenham

Michael Spring, 9th Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spring, 10th Baron Lavenham

Thomas Spring, 10th Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spring, 11th Baron Lavenham

Anthony Spring, 11th Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Attanasii

Domenico Attanasii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has previously been killed here and on the Italian WP. Author is not notable. sinneed (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

The author is on google books:


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.187.20.202 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I didn't realize that about the IT wiki. I tend to mine the other language wiki's for potential sources, and thought it merited a mention. I do understand each wiki has different rules. I appreciate the feedback and struck the note for clarity. All the best.sinneed (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's just fine to look at other wikis for sources etc. What I was referring to is policy. If the itwiki policy caused the article to be deleted there, that doesn't mean that enwiki policy would mean it has to be deleted here. See also WP:NOTDE. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Lavenham

Baron Lavenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Google searches make this seem legit. What evidence do you have that it is hoax? Mystache (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I get nothing on Google apart from endless Wikipedia mirrors. No obvious reliable sources, no Google books results apart from one which is clearly fiction. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Springs of Lavenham did exist but were simply a wealthy line of merchants, there is no record of any of them holding a barony. I have to concur that this is a wide-ranging hoax so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was only one keep !vote here versus at least three for deltion including nominator. If she satisfies notablilty in the near future, by all means, recreate. But for now it has not proven notability and has been defeated in AfD Valley2city‽ 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simona McIntyre

Simona McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable. The Fashion Model Directory shows a very brief, minor career. A Google search turns up the usual forums and directory listings, and Google News turns up nothing. Prod removed w/o comment.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, she has significant roles in multiple productions according to the very link the nominator posted. Gaultier, Marc Jacobs etc. would be multiple productions, and in themselves so large that her role must be significant. The length of her career is irrelevant to notability, and is indeed probably caused by her being new on the big scene. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A significant role in a runway show would be opening or closing that show, as these are often spots of privilege in the line-up, and there is nothing to suggest McIntyre did so for either Gaultier or Jacobs, her two notable runway credits. Furthermore, magazine covers and fashion contracts are the bread and butter of notable models, and McIntyre has only managed one ad and no covers, which are huge red NN flags. As OlYeller21 said, she might be notable in the future, but she certainly isn't right now.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't consider being in a fashion show as a "significat" role. Saying that the two shows she was in are "multiple" is grabbing at straws as well. The litmus test for all notability is if the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A bio isn't significant coverage and a Fashion Model directory isn't independent of the subject (especially since anyone can submit model bios there). Perhaps she will be notable but just not now. OlYellerTalktome 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not fulfill the requirements of our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding my keep. A user pointed out the need for reliable sources; while I disagree that appearing in fashion shows doesn't convey notability (how else would a model be notable?), I agree that those appearances should be backed up with reliable sources. So as it stands, I find it hard to think that people would disagree that the article should be deleted if its contents can be verified by WP:V WP:RS. According to WP:ATD, we should probably try that first - according to WP:DEL, Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed are supposed to be deleted. Well, this isn't the case here. Here are a few non-trivial mentions of this person, appearing in what I would consider reliable sources: [20] from New York Magazine, establishes her runway appearances and already cited in the article, though not as an inline reference; [21], also from New York Magazine; I've also found a bunch of articles from a website called papermag.com, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article where I can investigate it to see if it's reliable - but it does seem independent of the subject. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Runway work is the entry point for most models into the industry. They don't become notable until magazine editors and designers dub them as so by investing in them - by giving them mag covers and signing them to contracts. Without these, a model is just another of the hundreds that hit the runway for a season or two and are never seen again, and I see no reason to believe McIntyre is not another of them, especially since many of the 2009 Fashion Weeks are over and she wasn't in any of them. As for the sources you provide, one is little more than a directory entry and the other only proves she's the new girl on the block, meaning she has yet to become noteworthy, and w/o appearances in 2009 Fashion Weeks, it already seems the industry has left her behind.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri genocide

Azeri genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

  • Delete Poorly sourced, virulently anti-Armenian in tone article with absolutely no historical basis to it and one which is not even recognized by a single genocide scholar (the PACE source is inadequate and highly misleading as it is a non-binding resolution and one which the Council of Europe doesn't officially recognize in any capacity). --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article again ,historical basis is well explaned.85.105.157.122 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where to start? No real references. Croissant's book was never referenced, simply placed under references. The bibliography, which appeared to be what someone found after a 3 minute google search, had books not referenced in the article. My 17yr old son does a better job of historical research than this! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real references?You should check the article ,too.If you have time except deleting the citations or a section.85.105.157.122 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? You should learn how REAL historical research is done. Typing something doesn't make it a fact! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose the deletion of the Dersim genocide article, then I would support that proposal as long as its contents, with the genocide allegation, were to be merged into the Dersim rebellion article. Meowy 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't bother. The word genocide has already lost any meaning, as it is used in wiki to describe any massacre. If that's the way they want it, so be it. To me, genocide is an extremely politicized term, and the existence of the above articles is a good demonstration of this fact. Grandmaster 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe at some future date I will propose its deletion. It is precisely to stop the word "genocide" loosing its correct meaning that articles like this "Azeri genocide" article (or the deleted "Kurdish genocide" one) should not be allowed to remain. Meowy 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Double Standards. What is your obsession with Turks? Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and Dersim genocide already exist on Wikipedia even though Dersim genocide has no document or recognition.However Azeri Genocide was recognized by Council of Europe and Azerbaijani Government.It is ironic, Armenians allways complain about denial of Armenian Genocide by Turkey but they deny Azeri Genocide.Abbatai (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is by no means "recognized by the Council of Europe", but only by 30 representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (that is less than 5% from the total of 636 representatives), and that on a personal basis only: the declaration states that "[it] commits only the members who have signed it". Of those 30 individuals, 20 happen to be either from Azerbaijan or Turkey. - Ev (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one also has a source, the decree of Azerbaijani president, referring to the massacre in Khojaly as a genocide. Also a declaration of some members of PACE, who also believe that Khojaly was an act of genocide. It is exactly as many sources as the articles about other genocides have, but no one cares about those other articles, and this one is proposed for deletion. I understand that the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not justify the existence of another poorly sourced article, but a fair treatment would be nice. Otherwise this place turns into the mouthpiece of anti-Turkish propaganda. It is no good that some well organized ethnic communities managed to impose their POVs into wikiarticles. Something needs to be done to maintain objectivity. Grandmaster 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone those with a half a brain cell know that the claimed PACE document is trash which was an answer to this draft tabled on 24 April 2001 by Jirousova (Czech Republic) on the day of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. That PACE document which you are referring to was tabled on 26 April 2001 by Mehmet Ali Irtemçelik (Turkey), who is known apologist and the voice of the Turkish government in Germany. 2/3 (20 out of 30) of those who have signed that draft were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan. Several of the remaining are also known propagandists pushing the inclusion of Turkey in the EU (and who oppose the recognition of the Armenian genocide). For example, Tadeusz Iwinski or Younal Said Loutfi. The content of that draft is so ridiculous (not to say, the surprise of the majority of PACE members when they saw anyone even supporting such a draft) that even Azeri lobbyist in the US only refer to the draft and don't dare raising it's content. (for instance that On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city.) As for well organized community if I were you I would not bring up the word well organized anywhere. If you want to oppose it's deletion, go ahead, otherwise stop WP:SOAPboxing. VartanM (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, you do have a point about double standards and the virtues of "fair treatment", and I appreciate that you raise awareness of those issues here. You're right: something needs to be done.
Deleting this particular entry is a step in the right direction, by both removing sub-standard content (to say the least) and helping to raise the threshold for inclusion in this type of topics: such precedents can simplify the deletion of other similar entries.
I would really, but really love to delete a substantial part of the entries on genocides, massacres, ethnic cleansings, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of a substantial portion of those claims of victimhood does not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors to make them compliant with our content policies.
However, actually deleting those entries involves an unpaid volunteer willing to check all kind of sources and websites dealing with the worst of human nature... willing to read often depressing & exhasperating talk page discussions (and rants)... and willing to iniciate a discussion whose quality is much too often marked by the already standard accusations of [Ethnic-group]phobia.
My apologies, but right now I really don't want to do those things to propose other similar entries for deletion. However, when someone actually starts the process, I will try to do my little part in eliminating a small portion of this poison from what is supposed to be a simple encyclopedia (not a free megaphone from which to claim victimhood). - Best, Ev (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that a lot of the articles on that genocide list do not deserve to be there and some serious pruning is required. But I don't think it would be that difficult to remove most of the unsubstantiated ones - there will be editors around who will know enough about each specific subject to distinguish the fake from the real. I've already mentioned to Grandmaster that if he wants to propose the deletion of the Dersim genocide article, I would support him. But I wonder why he is taking part in this discussion. He is neither supporting the retention of the Azeri genocide article, or supporting its deletion. And when given support for the deletion of an article he does objects to, he rejects that support. Meowy 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree: if someone does the necessary checking of / search for sources, and the subsequent corroborations, it won't be so difficult to remove those entries. I just tried to explain why, according to my perception, few people are actually doing that work.

As for Grandmaster's participation in this discussion, I think that by merely raising those issues his imput was productive & helpful, as a reminder of the bigger picture. :-) - Best, Ev (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for that rambling trip to nowhere. And your comments on... anything relevant would be? Personal opinions and beliefs are not a valid rationale for deletion. If you believe it notable, improve the article yourself (mainly through neutral sourcing - which, no offence, I'd love to see you attempt). +Hexagon1 (t) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the Armenian population of Baku and Nakhichevan? Are you able to discern ethnic cleansing from genocide? --Vacio (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to discern a relevant topic from an irrelevant one? This is a deletion discussion for a badly written POV article. Not the Hague tribunals. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the double standard Wikipedia has when it comes to Armenians. Is it because of turcophobia, racism, religion or because considerable amount of moderators in this site are Armenians? Has any international court recognized Armenian Genocide? Not to my recollection. Yet, it is stated in this site as if the events of 1915 were indeed genocide when there is still a considerable amount of debate going on over the topic and many world renowned historians reject the thesis, I repeat it is merely a thesis at this stage. I would like to see some objectivity in this site with regards to history and historians and if you are going to be deleting Azeri Genocide then you should also be deleting Armenian Genocide and all other made up genocides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.14.179 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, purely for fairness and NPOV. It's interesting to see Armenian editors nominating or overwhelming voting to remove articles on other nation's genocides, or simply trying to remove facts, photos or references from articles like Khojaly massacre in past. Why? If not for POV pushing and OR, then for what? Atabəy (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Armenian?? Amazing! My apologies to Vartan for interrupting, but I couldn't resist.... --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX doesn't mean we get to keep pages because other (inapropriate) pages exist, it means we should go ahead and delete any particular page if it doesn't fit in with the policies and guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much evidence is needed anymore to understand your true purpose here, but sometimes it helps when you reiterate your purpose for others to witness. VartanM (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VartanM, you should have asked that question to yourself, and perhaps, this ArbCom based on your false accusations against an editor, only due to his ethnic background, would help refresh the mind. The only thing that does not make sense to truly neutral mind is when someone extensively advocates recognition of genocides suddenly tries to hide, fight off, remove, rename some factual evidence from encyclopedic articles. Isn't that part of nationalistic battleground editing? Ask yourself, why would Armenian editors get involved in nominating every Azeri massacre articles or images for deletion or removal, but we would rarely ever see a reverse trend? Atabəy (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by reverse trend do you mean when you were denying the Armenian Genocide[22] and have now voted to keep this trash? VartanM (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion, perhaps you might want to translate this article to az.wiki before it gets deleted from here. VartanM (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate other genocide articles for deletion. Otherwise you were already told about WP:WAX VartanM (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this one did happen and has sources and recognition.Abbatai (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think it happened, doesn't mean it did. It has no valid sources or recognition and is a fabrication. Meowy 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last phase of a genocide is denial as some of you are doing now.85.105.157.122 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As currently framed, the entry is a propaganda pamphlet infringing virtually every content policy we have. Maintainability issues make me skeptical of other possible alternatives: some entries are simply not worth the vast amounts of time they demand from non-partisan editors to assure compliance with our policies. – To avoid future problems, I recommend protecting both capitalizations from re-creation, to ensure re-creation through deletion review only. - Ev (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Atabay has a very good point up there about the Armenian editors here but noone including VartanM dares answer him other than indicating that what is provided here is trash or propaganda. It is really very sad and disturbing to see that this Turcophobia of some small minds is taking over Wikipedia.

    So called Armenian Genocide is just a thesis but Wikipedia is reflecting it as a real and committed genocide through brainwashing young minds just because Armenian editors want it that way. Political acception because some countries have hidden agendas against Turkey does not mean international recognition. Historians decide that. Oh sorry according to some, it is just how things are done, I just forgot, my apologies. There are many world renowned historians disagreeing with the thesis and then accused or labelled of being pro-Turk and that is not propaganda? So sad. Just because the editors are Christians or Armenians allow them to reflect debateable issues as happened but when it comes to indicating a massacre with proof, it is propaganda. Go on then, make new genocides up like Greek or Assyrian and continue to publish them. Show to world how credible wikipedia information is.

    Two wrongs do not add up to one right some say up there. Azeri Turks in certain regions did not vanish from earth's space just in one night. Whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. Historians are here to do that, not Armenian editors. Therefore I urge from those who think that just because there are other articles in this site in similar positions to be deleted does not mean that this one should be kept, to be that sensitive to those debateable articles as well. If there are other articles in similar positions about genocide thesis that you agree up there, then where is your critism to those articles. Please guys try to be a little bit objective at least. That is the least you can do.ECDS (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment. I forgot to add one thing. Even the picture used in armenian genocide section in the site is not related to Armenians. It is a picture of Russian soldiers taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. Go ahead and delete my comments. That is just going to prove how right I am.ECDS (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And your thoughts on the WP:OR nature of the article in question are? You know, that is why we're here... no-one cares about your nationalistic rant. Whether we agree or disagree is utterly irrelevant. All you're doing is hindering the process of finding out whether this article complies with policy or not and stirring idiotic nationalism. It's not the "other nation" that stirs nationalistic hatred when you post your opinions on irrelevant high-traffic pages, it's you. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* These boringly standard allegations of "[Ethnic-group-prefix]phobia", "racism", religious sympathies and "brainwashing" say more about the mind-set of those making them than about anything else. - Ev (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with this discussion is that nobody has yet done a paragraph-by-paragraph dissection of the article to demonstrate that every allegation within it is falsified to the extent that they are nothing more that propaganda, and the article's existence is a gross misuse of the very serious word "genocide". I am not going to do this time-consuming thing, mostly because I hope it will be clear to every well-informed good-faith editor who just reads the article that the article is indeed propaganda and a misuse of the word genocide. I think the way the discussion is going will result in the article's deletion - but if it is retained it needs to be re-nominated for deletion, this time with a proper dissection of its contents. Meowy 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MarkusBJoke, your comparaison with the Armenian Genocide disqualifies your comment. I can create an article about bicycles and source my claims with notes about potatoes and individuals like you will claim it is well sourced and keep-worthy. Here is a section by section analysis of the article.
Russian Expansion of Caucasus. This section has nothing to do with the Armenians or the Azeri?
Massacres in 1905-1907, he copied the entire text from the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907. See the beginning of the second paragraph. He did not even bother to place a link on the lead of that section to the main article. THe wording doesn't give anyone the chance to understand that it was a both sided clash.
March Days, this has nothing to do with the prior events which was over a decade ago. Months later even a higher number of Armenians were killed. See September Days. Does this gives me the right to engage in OR and selectively take every massacres at the hands of the Azeri and create another Armenian genocide article?
Khojaly Massacre, what is it's relation with events having happemed ¾ of a century ago?
International Recognition, which one, the Council of Europe never recognized such a thing.
Political, he copied that section word for word from here.
The intro of the article does not even coincide with its content, it starts with: The Azeri Genocide refers the mass killing of Azeri people by Armenians during World War 1 and The Nagorno-Karabakh War. None of the events described in the text have happened in WWI. Obviously this inaccurate info was placed there as an apologetics rhetoric to claim that Armenians massacred too in WWI and paralleling it with the Armenian Genocide. As for NK war, only one event described here happened during the course of the NK war.
Now go back to the Armenian Genocide article with its 181 notes and take a look at it and then come back with such a comparaison. VartanM (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vartan M, the Armenian Genocide section of this website is so biased that I do not even know where to start with. First of all as I indicated before the picture used in the site has not any relation whatsoever to Armenians or Turks but was taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. The many commnunities of the Armenian Diaspora had been founded long before the events of 1915 in late 19th century to make Armenians seperate land from Ottoman Empire which indeed led to events of 1915. SD Hunchakian Party and ARF(Dashnaktsutiun) were founded late 19th century with differing ideologies but similar goals. They sided with Russians in WW1 to achieve their goal of Great Armenia and backstabbed Ottoman Army but they started their massacrings of Muslims and Turks long before that. A quick look at the Niles-Sutherland report is enough to prove the situation of Turks and Armenians after WW1. They were never suppressed under Ottoman ruling and they even had seats in the Parliament. Many were dealing with trade and they were managing silk factories (sourced from Jean Louis Mattei). The Malta Tribunals of the British proved Turks innocent as stated in many telegraphs sent at that time. Here are some of them:
The letter sent by Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington to Lord Curzon:
July 13th, 1921
‘I am sorry to say that nothing to be used against the Turks prosecuted in Malta as proof could be found.’
Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8519
The letter sent by British Attorney Generalship in Malta to British Foreign Office:
July 29th, 1921
‘No proof against Turks prosecuted has been found.’
Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8745
Here is an extract from the report given to II. Socialist International by Mikael Varangian to specify some of those goals of Dashnaks:
'We organized in most parts of Anatolia.
Our organizations are comprised of mobile and stationary units, groups responsible for funding and logistics, groups of women responsible for communication and dispatching and groups of intellectuals responsible for making propaganda.
Our guerillas killed the Mayor of Van.
We attempted to assassinate Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamit.
Our bomb store was captured by Ottoman Security Forces.'
The site does not even make reference to Manifesto of First Prime Minister of Armenia Katchaznouni where he technically admits that they killed many Muslims and Turks in the region to gain freedom from the Empire and that they sided with Russia and then when Russia failed them they lost everything.
The section talks about international recognition where indeed it is no more than political recognition by 21 countries and indeed no international court has made any decision related to the dispute so far which they can not when there are so many contradicting views and opinions over the topic.
There are not any references made to historians with counter-claims who spent their entire lives studying the subject matter on hand like Erich Feigl, Justin Mcarthy, Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw other than labelling them agents of the Turkish goverment. Should I continue?
If that is your sytle of objectivity and basis of critism of other articles, I rest my case.ECDS (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not remember anywhere in my comment above I suggested that the article should be kept as it stands. It definitely needs modification and the use of word genocide should not be that easy. Am I repeating myself here or is it just me? Historians who spent their entire lives on history should not be overlooked and you can not just label an event genocide because your 'nationalistic rant' requires that way and unfortunately it works both ways. But you also can not ignore any massacre or wrongdoings done to any nation because they are not genocides. There is a historical fact here with proof. For objectivity's sake, the critisms should be on that basis and through out all other articles in Wikipedia not just this one. If that disturbs some people who indeed have real nationalistic rants but accuse others of having, that I can not do anything about. I repeat it for the last time, Azeri Turks did not vanish from Earth's space just in one night, whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. It is historians call. Just show some objectivity to other historical incidents or events as well and critise on that basis, that is all I ask. ECDS (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete – This article consists of little more than blatantly biased (statements such as "outrageous facts", "tragic history", and "clear sign of Armenian nationalism" speak for themselves) original research; though efforts have been made to improve it slightly, the very premise of the article is unsalvageable. It attempts to present a number of atrocities and repressions perpetrated over a period of more than a century and, indeed, separated by a period of more than 70 years, as "genocide". A genocide is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", and three distinct events in 1905, 1918, and 1992 do not a genocide make. And how is the Russian expansion into the Caucasus related to a claim of genocide by Armenians against Azeris? Perhaps a decent article could be written about the Azerbaijani day of observance ("day of genocide of Azerbaijanis", March 31), but this article is flawed at its core. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boot house

Boot house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Article contains little to no content and there are no citations, references, or sources. Veraladeramanera (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has already improved beyond all recognition, now well worth keeping. References have added credibility and aforementioned dubious statement clarified to something meaningful. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fawlty Language

Fawlty Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without comment, no notability asserted, only ref is primary. Black Kite 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lots of google hits, but I am unable to find any reliable sources in those search results. Lots of directory entries, blogs, and forum posts though. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert its notability. There are hundreds of compilers/languages out there. You need to show some kind of notability since simply existing is not sufficient given the nature of the field. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I guess I'd have to say Delete, since this article doesn't tell me anything that the line "Fawlty Language (FL) - another IDL clone (closed source, but freely usable)" (which I took from the IDL (programming language) article) doesn't tell me. It's also very hard to find anything on Google about it other than announcements of its release, people asking questions about it on mailing lists, etc. Matt (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a feature list. IDL is a $$$ software and I think users should know about free alternatives. Also, there are two IDL clone articles: FL and GDL. Delete both or keep both. (flwiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flwiki (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to keep in my view. This is not a software directory, free or otherwise. Indeed, the fact that it is simply a free alternative to something else makes it less notable in my view since it is not covering new ground. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Issues are largely cleanup - consensus here is to keep - if you disagree, I suggest going straight to deletion review since I've read this several times already in my evaluation Fritzpoll (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator above. (S)he said it perfectly. TharsHammar (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep am going to recommend closing this discussion because it is slowly devolving into a bashing of Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another bloviator, whose noteworthiness seems limited to having been thrown out of somebody's office (rather minor, I'd have thought). -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this was nominated a week ago, this would surely have resulted in a delete. As it is now the guy has managed to cement his notability, even if by doing so he has undermined his credibility as a journalist. Mfield (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the Yeshiva University controversy as well as the later career. As for the later career, there's documentation from the Jerusalem Post [23] ,[24] & UPI, in addition to the incessant publicity from the places he works for.DGG (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both those articles you referenced are behind a paywall. Could you please provide some details as to how they discuss the subject? My cursory reading (including the Jerusalem Post abstract) is that there might be a case for a (marginal) article on Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans - to a Jew! (which could include a discussion of the JP article from which it apparently derived) - but not enough info for an article on Aaron Klein as a person. *** Crotalus *** 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have now cleaned out the WP:PUFF mentions of individual appearances on radio shows and added a couple of cites. THF (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, back to a full-fledged Keep with the latest 24 hours of stories, plus an op-ed in The Nation that was about Klein. THF (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While it should be irrelevant to anyone's keep or delete suggestion, note that this deletion nomination is going to be perceived by and covered by the outside world as retaliation against a reporter who criticized Wikipedia. THF (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below) Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of that going around. THF (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia controversy should be discussed in the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, not presented as a biography of a non-notable critic. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"[S]taged a phony scandal" - perhaps, but the same thing happened to me just recently, including on my talk page, and indeed I experienced the reported problem on the reported page many months back; it was so bad that I just quit editing that page -- so when I read Klein's article, I knew he nailed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable given well-covered notoriety. Any BLP problems are of the subject's own making, and thus, not cognizable under BLP policy. We deal with problems here, rather than deleting them. There is enough encyclopedic material in the article to salvage, even if as a stub, and enough reliable coverage to write a proper article. Further, the lack of known details about the person's personal life is no reason he is not notable. Many articles about journalists, businesspeople, etc., cover only their professional lives. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, "keep to punish the article subject for hating on Wikipedia" has already been rejected with other subjects, such as Daniel Brandt. Secondly, the BLP problems are not limited to Klein - this page and its associated talk page have been used as a platform to launch BLP-violating attacks against Barack Obama. It's just not worth the trouble for a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument goes strictly to notability. BLP problems are dealt with as BLP problems, not by nuking the forum where they occur. If he is truly non notable then his article should be deleted. I don't think he is - plenty of reliable sources report on his professional accomplishments, such as they are.Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by DGG and THF. While the subject might have messed with Wikipedia entries like Barrack Obama, that is not a reason to delete the article of that person if they pass our guidelines. It's almost like editors are trying to "punish" the topic. Deal with the bothersome editor the standard ways like with warnings and blocks, not with an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, was also profiled and interviewed on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor. [25] --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. to call the article's subject notable would be a stretch. as a side note, the fact that the article's subject might have written part of his own article, and another article, but then cried to fox news about wikipedia's bias, is just a testament to the fact that the editor in question should not be here. whether such speculation is true or false is irrelevant to this particular article, because the article's subject doesn't appear to be notable. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fascinating. What's your opinion of Dcourtneyjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post? THF (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure, it's okay to cry to the huffington post, or fox news, or wherever. it's also equally ok to ban them from wikipedia forever for this exploitative and exponential degree of disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no "stretch" to call someone notable when they're the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As a matter of fact, that's the core criteria of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The Fox News profile/interview referenced above had nothing to do with Wikipedia but about his journalist work in the Middle East .--Oakshade (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs) [reply]
you mean the link to the youtube video[[26]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't youtube but it's Fox News which is a reliable secondary source. It's linked here to demonstrate he was profiled and interviewed on Fox News. Just because the piece was uploaded to youtube doesn't magically mean the piece doesn't or never existed.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An auto-biography that is far from notable even if it were to be cleaned up. I don't see any independent verification that he is a journalist or media personality of any significance whatsoever. Writing for a single fringe publication does not mean you inherit its notability. If it wasn't for the wiki drama this person has stirred up, there would be no question about deleting this. Steven Walling (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being the subject of Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and UPI are indications of notability, even if we may have the opinion he's just some "fringe writer." --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important person because he is a controversial, publicly noted and critical reporter and Wikipedia editor. This means critical as in criticism and critical as in critical thinking. Don't delete people just because you have disagreements with their edits. If Wikipedia continues to censor unpopular views and persons in at the expense of objectivity then it will lose its credibility. 66.91.255.120 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note: I had an issue recalling my username/login yesterday. This is my comment. Ithkuil (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original author of the article on wikipedia is Jerusalem21, who is mentioned in the wired article as an employee of Klein, for more info see this article from gawker [27]. For more info on the history of Klein's socks / meats with this article please see the SPI TharsHammar (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you just joined this discussion I will point out who Aaron Klein is, he is a [World Net Daily] author who wrote an article yesterday about Obama's article on wikipedia being censored [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] that got picked up by drudge. The wired article was a commentary on Klein's article, and the wired article contains an email from Klein about Jerusalem21, who created the article being discussed here, Aaron Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I might be confused, so if you are asking about the blog on wired, it was written by Kevin Poulsen a senior editor at Wired News. TharsHammar (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you were confused but I think you now get my point. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that if it was written by one of the Wired columnists (now we see that it was), the fact that it is a "blog" should not take away from contributing to Klien's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the idea to merge into WND. WND is, for whatever reason, considered an unreliable source. So the suggestion to move Aaron Klein to the WND page is a clever way to say Aaron Klein is an unreliable source. You can try to prove that, but it should be on his own merits, not by attaching him to WND. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By coincidence, Klein's story is being discussed THIS MINUTE on WOR 710 AM right now, the Michael Smerconish Show. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Not sure if Kos is considered a reliable source or not, but here's an article on him from them: [28]. With added bonus- it refers to the shenanigans he's pulled here. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KillerChihuahua. A journalist for a well known publication isn't inherently notable, but the controversies he's been involved in tip the scale to notability. AniMatetalk 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Just because you're a conservative, and claim to be railroaded by the liberal "drive by" MSM call it what you will doesn't mean you're notable. If all it takes to be notable is to be thrown out of a politicians office and making controversial edits on wikipedia, give me a half hour and I'll be back, and we can make a page for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.189.4 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per KillerChihuahua. Subject seems like a bad person yes; and part of his notability is certainly his destructive efforts against Wikipedia. But as much as I don't like him, Klein seems to have received at least enough media attention (and written enough articles) to merit an article. LotLE×talk 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The sources are pretty good. He is "the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and they are reliable, in particular The Jewish Daily, which is independent and professionally written and edited. I despise Fox News, but they have legitimated lots of idiots. My only concern is that we don't want to publicize a flat-earther. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Meets WP:BIO. That's what matters. DGG and others have provided more than enough sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after much thought. There are no articles about him, any temporary interest in him seems to be his little wikipedia stunt (which has not achieved wide interest) and in the end he's just a columnist for for a fringe publication.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to his role as reporter and commentator, he has been involved in various notable controversies, and his book is noted in mainstream news coverage such as from the Boston Globe here [29], the New York Post "MIDDLE East terrorist leaders are dishing American celebrities. A book, published by WND Books, out Sept. 11, has the longest title in captivity: "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans - to a Jew!" Our sworn enemies tell Mideast-based, 20-something U.S. journalist Aaron Klein who they'd like in the White House, kvetch over showbiz types like Madonna, Britney, Spielberg, Mel Gibson, bigmouths Jane Fonda and Sean Penn and conservative talkers Limbaugh and Hannity, plus Richard Gere, who did a commercial urging Palestinians to vote. Well, they did. And elected Hamas." [30], Jerusalem's National Post "Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state. They were especially enraged by our equal treatment of women and our tolerance of gays and lesbians." [31]. That's just a sampling of the citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those three links are actual reviews of the book, they are mentioned in passing within larger stories of other events. The NY Post one is bizarre though, in that this appears as a blurb amongst gossip about Desperate Housewives and Conan O'Brien. So no, I don't believe any of that passes WP:CREATIVE. There may be a case for the novel itself according to WP:BK, but it'd be a bit tenuous. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The origins of this article are suspicious see [32]. The creator's username contains the name of the subject's home base, and the subject wrote an article in regards to the edits of the creator[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114]. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no contention with the dubious original versions of this article (it's been very publicly vetted), that does not negate the fact this person passes the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Besides, the current version has generally been written by established Wikipedia editors rendering the "origins" argument moot.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sirius Mystery. MBisanz talk 09:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirians

Sirians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this article does not warrant inclusion. The one reference given is not a reliable source in my opinion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but expand to include a clearer discussion of the sources that refute this so-called theory. At least five references were supplied when I looked.—I'm not thrilled with the inclusion of this piece of fringe science, either, but I believe I have to concede that while this is nonsense, it's notable nonsense. My memory says Carl Sagan even discussed it in Broca's Brain. I was tempted to suggest a merge with Dogon people but I don't believe this has a place in what should be a serious anthropological article, so all I'm left with is "keep".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GodivaCake (talk · contribs) removed the AfD template with an edit summary saying the issue is resolved. I've replaced it. dougweller (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looking at the contributions of GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), the creator of this article, it's possible that they are not the same person, but not likely. dougweller (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The delete "votes" are rather weak, so I feel the editors in favor of keeping the article made a stronger case. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elora Danan (band)

Elora Danan (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. No mention of awards, no mention of charted singles or albums. Rtphokie (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and rename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs)

Amaranth Games

AfDs for this article:
Amaranth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD and prod tags have been removed by a primary editor of the article, taking it to AFD to get a consensus... There is a single reliable reference, to a state website showing that that paperwork was filed for incorporation of the company. Of the remaining 31 references. 8 are from primary sources (the company website), 5 are broken links and the remainder are unreliable sources such as blogs, message boards and one to a company selling music from the games.

There is a single english and a single Chinese Google News hit on the company name. This article just doesn't seem to pass the WP:N test of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Rtphokie (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Comment: To put money where my mouth is, I'm willing to take the article in my user space for the purpose of splitting out the games that can be salvaged if a consensus to this effect is being reached. MLauba (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Aveyond series and keep As Winston Churchill once said "excessive merging farts in the mouth of progress". Amaranth Games = Amanda Fitch. Amanda Fitch is known for the Aveyond series, the almost-but-not-quite notable time management games here are just muddying the waters, neither they nor the entity Amanrath Games need an article. The original Aveyond has reviews on Ace Gamez (8 year old review site where submissions go through the editor), Grrl Gamer (10 year old site specializing in women gamers' points of view), Gamezebo (a good reliable site anyway, but also by Marc Saltzman) and Game Chronicles (13 years young). Aveyond 2 has its own Gamezebo review (Erin Bell) and was a runner up in Game Tunnel's indie RPG of the year 2007 awards with some useful reception info. Aveyond 3 is due in May. Has scads more potential than this mish-mash. Someoneanother 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded & Proposal I went ahead and did just that, would appreciate input on This sandbox construction as the new article. MLauba (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Ahriman's Prophecy has a short review on Download.com and a larger review on Game Tunnel. Game Tunnel is a well-established indie game site, which covered these things long before most sites even bothered, and all the content goes through founder Russell Carroll. Carroll is a game director for Reflexive Entertainment, not some random schmoe, his experience in both developing and reporting on games in this area isn't to be sniffed at. I'd suggest merging all the release dates etc. into one infobox if the article is to remain a combination of all the games. Someoneanother 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Addressed the infoboxes issue. The GameTunnel Review is already in there, regarding the download.com one I'm more skeptical about it's viability as an RS (no mentions on the reliable sources noticeboard archives that I could find). Any more input? And do of course not hesitate to tamper with the sandbox if you can. MLauba (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's part of CNET Networks which was recently merged into CBS Interactive, and stable mates with GameSpot. Download.com's reviews are infrequent and never exhaustive, which is probably why nobody's falling over themselves to have them listed as RSs. The editor's opinion ultimately tracks back to CBS so I can't see a problem in using it as a source in this capacity. Someoneanother 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, this is Amanda, owner of Amaranth Games, LLC. I'm not familiar with how to add something, so hopefully I'm doing this right... I have several dedicated fans who put up this page on Wikipedia and they've recently alerted me that someone is trying to have it removed. I'm not sure if it matters, but no one from my company has ever added anything to this article. It is completely maintained by fans. I'm not quite sure how the rules work here, but if you need reliable sources for anything, please list them and I'll find them for you. Our games have won several casual games awards and have been listed in several magazine articles. Our games have been number one, and top-ten hits on most casual game portals. I don't do as many interviews these days, which may be why a number of articles are old. I'm not sure where all of these references for deletion are... I'll look for them. My company has been an LLC for two years now. -Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astarah (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The way things stand now, the article for Amaranth Games is being challenged because there are not enough reliable, independent 3rd party sources who have written, substantially, about Amaranth. When Wikipedia talks about "notability", it really means that a subject has been noted and commented upon sufficiently to help write and maintain a neutral and verifiable article here. At present, and from what sources could be found, Amaranth Games LLC doesn't pass this hurdle but several of your games do. If you do have additional articles or references for Amaranth Games itself, please post them here. If you have additional sources for Gaea Fallen, Grimm's Hatchery or Yummy Drink Factory, please post them to my talk page instead. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is kept, it's got to have some better references. The sandbox link above is a better article but it is still relies to heavily on blogs for references. Kudos to {{User:Astarah}} offering assistance instead of getting into COI issues.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page needs cleanup in a bad way but there is info about the company on IGN, games are available for purchase from Amazon, and games have been featured at the IGF. Kagetto (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Aveyond series and keep this is a good proposal. Judging from WP:VG/S the references there are actually reliable despite appearances and may be as good as we can get on this subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Aveyond series and cleanup Games do seem to have some notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fenton

Peter Fenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Had PRODded and a user improved it somewhat and removed the prod however the linked reference proves an album existed but no evidence that it or anything else by the artist charted. So not sure he passes WP:MUSIC. Doesn't seem to be an appropriate merge to the band since he was only with them briefly. Thoughts? StarM 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-administrator closure. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuessner effect

Kuessner effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This should be a scientific/engineering term. However, searching for "Kuessner effect" gives no hits in Google Books, and only one hit in Google Scholar. While for an eponymous term one expects a significant coverage in the scientific literature. So: not notable, in my opinion Crowsnest (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I am not an IEEE member the following appears relevant: "Nonlinear output feedback control of underwater vehicle propellers ...Kuessner effect (gust). In this paper, we are considering a deeply submerged vessel ... Kuessner effect, which is caused by a propeller in gust, will ap- ... ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/48/18135/00838987.pdf?arnumber=838987 " [33] refers to "Kuessner effect", and so on. Books relating to Naval Architecture and related fields are mainly classified, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable eponymous term. Doesn’t matter the single paper which mentions this phrase is an IEEE article. I would have !voted as keep had there been at least a couple of papers that uses this phrase. Salih (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Abstain. THF (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{resuce}} tag to the article in light of these references. OlYellerTalktome 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Excellent work, Edcolins! What remains is to incorporate these references and a proper description of the effect into the article (as well as move to the correct name). -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added these references to the article, and rephrased the stub article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet(Grand Theft Auto)

Bullet(Grand Theft Auto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merge or delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT, into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Also nominating Cheetah (Grand Theft Auto), San Andreas construction series, Xoomer and T.U.M.E. Construction cf38talk 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier's Curse

AfDs for this article:
Frasier's Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since the last AfD from two months ago ended in a no consensus, common sense tells me I should not do anything with this abandoned article without seeking input from AfD again. The article is still unencyclopedic (WP:NOT#PLOT), still non-notable (WP:N), and Frasier (season 6) already has a non-copied plot summary of equal depth so that nothing needs to be merged per the GFDL. No good reason left to keep this article and/or its page history, so Delete. – sgeureka t•c 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Toss the salad and scramble the eggs on this one. Looks like the last discussion ended up in a long argument and observations that people shouldn't utter the "m-word" in an AfD discussion. If anybody cared enough to mention it in the article about Season 6, they would have done so already, I'm sure. There's no indication that this episode was considered independently notable (and no, an episode guide with the words "New York Times" in the title doesn't mean that this was printed in the Times). Though some episodes of a TV show are memorable, such as "Who Shot J.R.?", the notability of a TV series doesn't mean that notability rubs off on every single episode of the series. This is a holdover from Wikipedia's TV guide days. There is a [39] for anyone interested in writing it up there. Mandsford (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsfor's points. OlYellerTalktome 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I wrote at the previous AFD, you did use several exact phrases from the original article in the season article: "his divorce with Lilith and being left at the altar by Diane"; "not keen to go"; "unemployed, single and living with his father"; "a catastrophic job interview at another radio station on the same day"; "is very cross"; "walking outside the supermarket in shabby clothes pushing a shopping trolley", etc. There is some superficial paraphrasing, but it's clear that the text in the season article is not wholly original. Thus, we at least need to keep this article's page history. (And why not? "Frasier's Curse" is at least useful as a search term, no?) Zagalejo^^^ 05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To what level does wikipedia/GFDL need to attribute information? Whole paragraphs or sentences - that is reasonable and common practise. Descriptive run-of-the-mill phrases of a few words - by that measure, wikipedia already and irreparably consists of unattributed non-original information entirely (not to mention that plot summaries have a certain copyright anyway no matter what the wording). "Frasier's Curse" can serve as a search term through e.g. delete & redirect !votes as well as just redirect. But I can't single-handledly redirect this article without being accused of intentionally flying in the face of the previous AfD (seen this, done that). – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what the cut-off point is for attributing information, but I think your text in the season article is close enough that we should play on the safe side. Some of those phrases are fairly long, and most could be worded differently with minimal effort. Zagalejo^^^ 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far too soon to reopen an AFD. I think that reopening the whole episodes dispute is a gigantic waste of time. There is certainly enough information available to write short, decent articles -- adding verifiable third-party information like ratings (published weekly going back years and years in USA today, and daily for quite a few years in the NY Times), DVD availability, etc rather than interminable in-universe stuff. The articles on lesser-known professional athletes would be good models. The necessary information is out there -- but it's mostly print-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable episode sufficiently covered on season 6 article. JamesBurns (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close this blatant attempt at forum shopping. Nominator claims that "I can't single-handledly redirect this article without being accused of intentionally flying in the face of the previous AfD (seen this, done that)", but this is not true, a "no consensus" AfD has never been a mandate against redirecting or merging. Nominator has made no attempt either to boldly redirect this article or even discuss redirection, despite having no compunction against boldly redirecting episodes from the previous four seasons. None of those articles needed to be deleted, and neither does this one. Nominator has completely ignored the advice of WP:BEFORE ("Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD"), WP:EPISODE ("Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research"), and the previous closer's rationale ("Consensus is that AfD is not for merge discussions and that this content is appropriate on Wikipedia in some form"). Nominator is also entirely ignoring opposition to his previous actions here. I'm not opposed to merging and redirecting, but I am opposed to abusing the AfD process like this, when deletion is entirely unnecessary. DHowell (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank God that the official merger discussion (linked from the merge proposal template) is at Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes then, where no opposition (or any input) has been forthcoming for three months now. (But this article doesn't need to be merged, so it may as well be deleted, and AfD is the only forum to get that accomplished.) After the joys of this, this and this where a group of people put incredible amounts of time to use bold mergers against me, believe me when I say that I know when to risk feeding their bad-faith accusations for my long-term harm, and when I shouldn't (like here). Can editors of this AfD now please judge the article on its merrits, or will this seemingly unfixable, nonnotable, unencyclopedic article have to undergo a third AfD to get deleted (or at least redirected)? – sgeureka t•c 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, website with no assertion of notability, hasn't even aired yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justine, Shannon and Kate Show

Justine, Shannon and Kate Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable YouTube show, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL CultureDrone (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED per CSD:A1 R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Padres Radio Network

San Diego Padres Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Originally speedily deleted via "A1: No context. Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.", for some reason has been restored. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RADIO and WP:V cf38talk 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Lives of Romeo Crumb

The Nine Lives of Romeo Crumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested on the grounds that this book series is notable. Unfortunately, I am unable to find independent sources that go beyond "where to buy it." The author is a redlink. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above, appears to be self-published (or at least from a publisher that doesn't seem to have published anything else) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NB. All I can find is stuff about where to find it. Interestingly, the book series gets some 3,000 GHits, while the publisher gets a few hundred - not in itself enough to establish lack of notability, but indicates a vanity press to me. Plenty of online-bookstores have a "award-winning book" in their description of this, but I am completely unable to find any information on what award this book is supposed to have won. Complete lack of notability, it seems, and incidentally, if books could be speedied, we could have called that on the article since there's no description of why this book is notable - it's just a lengthy plot summary and nothing else. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep. Weighing in from library land, OCLC's WorldCat indicates that this has gone through 6 editions and is owned by at least 280 260 public libraries. This might have some elements of self-publishing, but, if so, appears to have broken through the notability barrier. The article does need work. I'll go there and put in the OCLC and ISBN numbers so readers can click on them to find owning libraries. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stating that 280 libraries own it doesn't imply notability. Having an ISBN doesn't imply notability either. Neither of Quartermaster's points fall into WP:Book's 5 points to prove notability. While it is just a guideline, I still see no reason while this book is notable.OlYellerTalktome 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - To clarify about the 280 library point, the ALA estimates that there are about 123,129 libraries in the US alone. At what point does a book become notable? When it's in 500 libraries. When it's in 50% of the libraries in the world? There's no way to quantify notability by the number of libraries that a book is in. OlYeller::Talktome 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that I never stated nor implied that having an OCLC number or ISBN supports notability (they do not in the slightest). The point was to create links here, and in the article, in order to a) give information to y'all to weigh for yourselves the library holding information, and b) give readers of the article the ability to locate the book in their nearest library (not a store) should they be so interested. I regularly add that information in book info-boxes for just those reasons. Notability is an independent argument which can be bolstered by that information. The number of owning libraries, I feel, is useful information in determining notability one way or the other. I still hold that seeing that 260 libraries (the correct number) own books in this series is a pretty hefty factor in determining notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for thinking that. It was the only point in your "Definite Keep" comment so I assumed that was your reasoning for the keep nomination. OlYellerTalktome 19:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be about 1500 public library system regularly using worldcat--which accounts, btw, for many times that number of libraries--cataloging & listing there is usually centralized. Very few school libraries except some large systems use it--it costs money. The number WorldCat gives is 10,000 library systems, but they are most of them not regular users. A great many libraries don't even catalog popular fiction--very few public libraries do if they buy it in paperback.. The ALA count includes everything possible, branch or otherwise. The way to go is to compare with other popular childrens books. For a simple example at the very high end, Charlottes Web, which is certainly in every relevant library, gives about 4000. Brown Girl, Brownstones, a famous prize winning but older book gives 1200. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, for current children's fiction that have been out a year or so, I use a cutoff of around 400 or so, depending on the exact genre & whether adults consider it important. this book is by that standard borderline. But that is not the only factor--reviews are even more important.
I think you've missed my point completely. Wikipedia doesn't use numerical hits to prove notability. Please don't take offense to this but your cutoff doesn't really matter. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines matter. OlYellerTalktome 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your point. I disagree with it. Notability is not just popularity, because even unpopular things can be notable. But widespread diffusion of media is certainly one of the factors--as with recordings, as with software. Would I say sufficient popularity within a genre is justification for an article?--Yes, if there is also material to meet WP:V. We use analogous cutoffs for academic books (though of course the expected numbers are lower for most fields) The reason for not putting specific numbers in guidelines is that the value that matters will depend on exact genre, language, etc. Myself, I like numbers as a starting point, though, as I said, not the definitive factor by itself. You may prefer not to use numerical criteria, but that's your prerogative. A completely different field where numbers have proven here useful as a starting pt is shopping center , (1 million sq ft)-- but again, just a starting pt. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand OlYellerTalktome 's point, and also disagree. Citing ALL libraries doesn't make sense since the target audience would be school libraries and public libraries. The former (of which there are thousands) are non-existent in WorldCat, and the latter often have multiple copies throughout a larger system. My professional experience tells me that if as few as 30 or 40 libraries, geographically distributed, own this series then that is notable enough for me (independent of Wiki policies and guidelines which I never see as binding law in any case). Hey, this isn't a great article and it DOES need work, but I see it as an honest attempt by a new wikipedian to create a reasonable encyclopedic entry about the subject. I prefer (and counsel) to err on the side of inclusion in these cases. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have not been able to find anything other than the single SLJ review for any books in the series. I think additional reviews would make for an easier Keep, but they're just not there. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Nomination concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMCF

EMCF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disambiguation page containing nothing but redlinks. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Liability (band)

Public Liability (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I deleted this article before but it now claims national airplay on Triple J, which led me to decline A7. Although I searched everywhere I could think of, I could not find any sources that this band meets WP:MUSIC. SoWhy 10:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palladium (Australian band)

Palladium (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable band. Not to be confused either with present day English band of the same name (formerly known as The Peppernotes) or an earlier 1970s band. No allmusic.com entry. Released one compilation album, one EP and one single, none of which charted. Band has ceased to exist since 2003. Was previous speedy candidate in 2008 [43]. Fails WP:BAND JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had a notable musician as an important member, Andrew Morris [48]. Redirect is not appropriate due to their major label releases. (I remember these mob. I think that had reasonable press coverage when they were around) Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/Neutral. Not too impressed by the sourcing, and one album is never going to be enough to pass WP:MUSIC (4/5-track CD singles ain't albums). I'm inclined to give the article a chance, though.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Culosi

Salvatore Culosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of actual notability. The incident was covered by media, but the incident is what is more notable, not the man. I don't mean to sound crass, but his "notability" is solely based on having been killed accidentally. Unlike other accidental killings (Diallo for example)), there were no criminal charges, not big protests, not even a big lawsuit. There was a 3 week suspension and it was done. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:ONEEVENT.
  • Delete per above --Muhammad(talk) 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Fits well with the article. Reliable sources are sufficient and notability is average. I do agree it isn't particularly "necessary" but I don't believe it meets the qualifications for deletion. If it isn't kept, it should be merged and expanded in the SWAT article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider renaming for event. Lots of coverage, might have legs. -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's never been disputed that it was covered. The question is one of notability. The coverage was limited mostly to a 50 mile radius. By comparison, the Diallo shooting was covered nationally. I hate to make it sound like one person is more important than the other, but if there was something that notable about it, wouldn't it have garnered more national coverage, especially since it was in a suburb of DC? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE WITH KEEP OR MERGE as per above Lx 121 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua L. Dratel

Joshua L. Dratel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- and he never even actually got around to representing his ostensible Gitmo client, who pled guilty. Two primary sources, and one SMH source that doesn't even mention him by name. Article is redundant with David Hicks. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- The nomination asserts that Dratel "never got around to defending his client" -- sorry, but that is a highly inflammatory way of describing Dratel's role. The Commissions are new, untried, unprecedented, and according to the many accounts of insiders chaotically run. The Prosecution has been repeatedly split by discord, with over half a dozen lawyers resigning over ethical concerns. It is very misleading to claim he "never got around" to defending Hicks. Dratel had flown to Guantanamo, time consuming, and expensive, for Hicks big day. Before Hicks trial began the Presiding Officer introduced sudden procedural impediments to the lawyers Hicks had been working with for years participating in his trial. Dratel described how he came to be barred. "Never got around" is a very misleading description. The nomination notes that Hicks plead guilty. Yes, he pled guilty -- almost immediately after learning his Defense team had been shattered by the Presiding Officers sudden procedural impediments. I suggest the circumstances under which Dratel was barred from participation are as remarkable as his actual participation would have been if the Commission had proceeded. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#CHAT, and you just gave a very good reason to expand the Hicks article. But it doesn't make Dratel notable just because he took a plane flight and refused to sign paperwork. THF (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As is the case with most of these articles, he's not notable. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Simply representing a detainee does not provide an attorney is "notable" enough to merit an entire article. Scrap this article, and use some of the language to expand the Hicks article. I think this is the right move.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. In closing, I have seen no argument that makes the case the subject is in fact "notable" as required under Wikipedia's guidelines, notwithstanding the patently uncivil personal attack I see in the above-post. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dorsey

Jim Dorsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary source, two sources that mention him in passing in the context of his client, each with the same quote. Everything else is sketchy resume details and an attempt to WP:PUFF his one quote ("Dorsey commented on a letter") into notability. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Davis

Jeffrey J. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP1E; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary reference; four references in passing in the context of his client. Mentioned once in the article of his client Mani Al-Utaybi, whom he apparently never met, or filed a valid court document on behalf of. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never nominated a Guantanamo detainee for deletion. I've reviewed 30 or so Guantanamo attorney articles, and nominated about half of them for deletion. No one claims Darrow is notable because he represented Snopes; he's notable because he has multiple books written about him, and was the leading lawyer of his day. When Mr. Davis has a tenth of that level of notability, no one will contest him getting a Wikipedia article. You've cut and paste the same accusation of bad faith in multiple AFDs, which hardly suggests that you are performing your own good-faith evaluation. THF (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones (radio host)

AfDs for this article:
Alex Jones (radio_host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment: I reviewed a number of pages of results from your search, there were only a few results that actually dealt with the same Alex Jones, and apart from a couple of side mentions in some reasonable media, the vast bulk are from such notable news organisations as "thespoof.com" and "Bizjournals.com" BimboBaggins (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage you (and others) to look through a few pages. Unfortunately many of the articles are not free, but the title and snippet can give some idea of Jones's role in the story. It's not my fault that Jones's parents gave him a common name, or that Google News processes comments along with the stories. WillOakland (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable media personality and fringe-theory promoter. I notice that his article doesn't (yet) cite Secret Rulers of the World and its accompanying book, Them: Adventures with Extremists as sources; they played a major role in bringing Jones to public attention here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As has been said, while there may not be as many RS's as one would think, there are quite a few that tak about subject, more than enough to justify the article. Found thisand this after just a little searching. Personally, I think this deletion discussion is some sort of conspiracy... :) Vulture19 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - While the nominator is correct that some of the sources seem to be completely wrong or to web pages that don't exists (see ref #3), I did my own fact checking and found that he is syndicated nationally which proves notability. The references need cleaned up but that's all I could find with a quick look. OlYellerTalktome 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep - the nominator has a point about the internet echo chamber, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. However, Jones gets more than passing mention in, for example, Fenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories. ISBN 9780816654932., Barkun, Michael (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy. ISBN 9780520248120., and the aptly named Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. ISBN 9780470184080.. These are the kinds of sources that should be used for our articles, so we avoid the too common unmaintainable mess of self-promotion, original synthesis, and BLP violations. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article won't be written and maintained by giving due weight to the reliable secondary sources, well intended suggestions to "keep and clean up" notwithstanding. It will be written by the people who care most. "Responsible" journalists will look at our article for background even if they avoid paraphrasing it directly. They'll think Jones is a bigger fish than he is, and so write about him at greater length. Presto; there's another "reliable" source supporting Jones' notability. It is an echo chamber, just like the nominator says, and it's working. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup He's pretty well known as a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of other conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia however who don't deserve inclusion. Best to direct some AfD attention to those.--Sloane (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. If we had a policy not to include people who talk without checking their facts, the biography section would be halved, at least. But this redacted person is a notable conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His Prison Planet/Infowars site is pretty notable in the alternative media. Google News has been indexing Prison Planet as a source for years. Article is necessary to anyone studying the alternative media, whether you agree with their commentary on world events or not. The whole nom, which isn't even signed, smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion proposal is preposterous. He has been mentioned specifically in major publications such as the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's better that there is the possibility of realistic reporting on Tin Foil Hatters like Alex Jones in Wiki than in places where things are leaning towards the "lizards ate my grandmother" type of editing. Plus, putting it up for deletion will only encourage him and his listeners to suggest WIKI is "run" by evil Jews, - sorry meant "Zionists" and I am not at all, of course, suggesting that "evil Zionists" is Alex Jones and his listeners code for their alleged Antisemitism. Plus, it only provides him with more free publicity and makes his listeners even more paranoid that everyone that edits wiki works for the CIA. The7thdr (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Comment: So was Karajans wife. Your point would be?The7thdr (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though various YouTube users have attempted to convince me otherwise, I have never found a reason to believe that anything this man espouses or has achieved is notable. –Merqurial (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Alex Jones is one of the most notable alternative media news persons of all time. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large Internet-based audience. I let the popularity speak for itself, but their are many people who feel the same way. Rbpolsen♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why this is even being considered, there's a page about the "Tron Guy" for god's sake. Do people really think Jones has accomplished less than some youtube personality. Grateguy11 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Deleting this page would certainly look like censorship to me. Alex Jones has to be fairly notable. Otherwise I would most likely never had heard of him - Stian, Norway 18:51, 12 March 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.110.67 (talk)
  • Keep I can't believe this.! Really. Are running out of space here? I can recommend a hundred articles that have less significance than this one. What is going on? Someone got hurt and no we going to sensor things? Haters of GOD, Homos, UNITE..! Ridicolous. Do not delete. People need to know about Alex Jones. Like it or not he is speaking for a lot of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.12.65 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP DON'T CENSOR Why is this article up for deletion? Regardless of your views on Jone's, the fact that this is even being considered for deletion is ridiculous, especially now when major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Time magazine, and Glenn Beck have all just published stories about the New World Order. Once again, regardless of your personal views on Jones or his theories about world government/New World Order, this information, on both sides of the fence, is more and more relevant NOW than BEFORE. Please do not delete this article on these flawed merits. Also, as someone mentioned above, Jones is NATIONALLY SYNDICATED on 60 shortwave stations, has a large internet audience, has guests like Charlie Sheen, Joe Rogan, Jesse Venture, Ron Paul, etc. He's a very prominent figure in talk radio any way you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unnotable? You must be kidding! Last time I checked there were over 3 million hits for "Alex Jones" on Google plus 224 on current news according to Google News. Most of that regarding Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, author of known and popular movies on the subject. For many he is the embodiment of conspiracy theories - no matter if you believe him or are against him he is one of the most prominent figures in this movement/stream of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : this should be a non-brainer folks. You don't have to agree with him, but you should agree he is notable. If you think the article has POV issues, discuss on the talk page. Danski14(talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : this should be fast-tracked. Having the deletion banner at the top of the page is vandalism timed with the release of his latest documentary, The Obama Deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.115.63 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what they want you to think... Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dryer

Matthew Dryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was originally called Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order and under that title I prodded it, as it was an article about a single paper that Matthew Dryer published, and I don't think individual papers are usually notable enough for encyclopedia articles. Even if a few are, this one isn't. The "solution" was to move the article to Matthew Dryer, under the claim that he is "a notable author". However, if he is, the article certainly doesn't show it, as the content of the article hasn't been significantly changed. The article is therefore now a mere coatrack, apparently being about a person but in fact still just being about one paper. —Angr 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, nothing here showing that Mr. Dryer is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep, thanks to Eric for his work on the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: page under discussion has been speedy deleted. FlyingToaster 09:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europartners

Europartners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed. No indication of notability is given for this company. Two links are provided to a news source, but neither seems to mention this company. The talk page, username, and edits by article creator suggest a conflict of interest. FlyingToaster 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fool Me Twice

Fool Me Twice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Genuine but non-notable privately made film—fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "released for free online via Google Video". References are all either links to the original or mirrors of the Google video, or links to unrelated news stories. With exception of this not a single mention of the film by an outside source. Much is made of Google viewing data, but other than a single week in Australia in Nov 2008[50], it seems to have slipped back into relative obscurity. Was created by a single-purpose account User:Policies in December 2008 and linked to the 2002 Bali bombings article by a new user [51] at about the same time. Article has had no substantive edits by anyone else. Djanga 06:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Indonesian Australian relations article - with a proviso with the text or a footnote the conspiracy theory element to identify as such. The Indonesian and Australia projects have been fortunate not to have too many limited range articles regarding their relations - the essence of the material covered in the film needs to be inserted into another article - as I agree with the WP:N issue for such a film SatuSuro 09:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. further discussion seems unnecessary, the consensus is clear enough. DGG (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiros Medicine

Spiros Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed. This article is about "Spiros Medicine," a theory made up by one person, the only evidence of which I could find on his website [52]. The website doesn't really describe what this is but presents some sort of theory of everything/force of the universe prose. FlyingToaster 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, without prejudice to re-creation. I have no idea whether this is a notable fringe theory or not; but the text on this page, vague musings about cosmic oneness -- "Spiros" was "first knowledge", one of the most important concepts in life. This ancient word/concept has been removed from all modern dictionaries! Hippocrates said to look at the "wisdom from the ancients". He died, the same year Socrates was executed for teaching about this word, in 400 BCE. This concept comes from thousands of years before Hippocrates. The oldest science writings are the "Rig Veda". [Genesis of the Bhagavad Gita.] The Greeks interpreted these concepts and put them in a form of a science theory, giving us the word "Spiros". Written in Sanskrit, is the description of a force that connects all things. -- strikes me as completely and irredeemably confused. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider speedy deletion as promotional article. User name matches article, was created repeatedly at different locations, and name has now been blocked. Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While the author was clearly trying to promote this, I don't think it's written in a style that's promotional enough for G11. FlyingToaster 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = A Google search turns up this Wikipedia page and the pages of the spirosmedicine dot-org site. This fails verifiability and notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GreenZap

GreenZap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This service was never really started up. It was a simple scam that died out before it ever started. I think it really has no value as its own article. At most it could be mentioned as past scam on some other page. As of right now its also orphaned and has been abandoned by Wiki editors for over 6 months. JeremyWJ (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand orphaned and abandoned are not really reasons to delete. They do however help my point that this article is useless. It has no point on wikipedia. There are literally thousands of scams like this every year. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who were behind Greenzap would like this article to disappear. It did actually start up, per a long running thread on scam.com, and spamming all over the Internet. At the present time, people who gave their checking account information to Greenzap years ago are having fraudulent withdrawals made from their checking account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.18.54 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not start up. People were allowed to enter their information before hand to get that $25 promotion thing. Those people were scammed. After that you got a 404 for the sign up page. The people who ran greenzap could care less if this page stays or not. At no point was anyone actually able to use greenzap for anything. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some unconfirmed reports over the past few days that the people behind Greenzap (allegedly Damon Westmoreland) may be involved in another financial processing company that has come under scrutiny. So, the topic relates to a current issue and may be of value to researchers. Shritwod (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Rousso

Armand Rousso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is on a barely-notable person with minimal press coverage, all the content is negative, and seems to meet the definition of an article that should be deleted per our BLP policy. As a matter of disclosure, this nomination is in relation to WP:OTRS #2009021810056021. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, I heard about this off-wiki. Delete it dead, it is just a scandal article without any significance in the overall scheme of an encyclopedia. Keegantalk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since a Google News search does turn up a number of significant articles over the course of a few years, about the subject as a conman, a chess impresario, etc. Bill Clinton helped introduce the guy's search engine, there was an $80 million offering...in all, I think there's enough here for a brief article--but the nominator is quite correct in saying that the article as it stands cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If someone comes back with an exceptionally sourced, perfectly neutral biography before this AfD closes, then I'll happily withdraw. If they don't, the article must be deleted, because "keep and cleanup" is a reckless position to take (not that you took it, Drmies (you didn't given the last line of your comment), just more suggesting that some might). Even if it's deleted, if someone writes a perfectly sourced article and plomps it on my/the closer's talk page or at DRV, it will naturally be evaluated on its merits and if it meets BLP the article can be recreated. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The material is sourced, and it is not out fault that the NYT coverage appears negative. Some (numerous) attempts to give him a fully WP:PUFF biography have been made in the past, and the current article is far more neutral that those attempts have been. Mr. Rousso has been very well known in stamp dealing circles, and in chess circles, thus he is notable for two separate endeavors. He has been in the NYT, has been photographed with and paid Bill Clinton (the stock deal was definitely reported) so is notable for political dealings as well. Deleting everything which has been in the NYT would seem a remarkably odd way of handling a biography, no? WP is in the business of giving the pertinent information, and the wording as is is about as NPOV as possible. Collect (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also [54] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There is more stuff out there, but it sems hardly worth the effort at this point. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whispers Radio

Whispers Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio program. No reliable sources are present that prove any notability. Subject seems to have received no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is required per WP:NOTE. Also, article was started and has been mainly edited by the hosts of the radio program.Sloane (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Maya

Edward Maya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer. Google provides nothing save a few myspace, and n/n blogs. Tagged for clean up for over two days. It's me...Sallicio! 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not a place to discuss mergers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching record of John Beilein

AfDs for this article:
Coaching record of John Beilein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This has been split from John Beilein by Levineps (talk · contribs), who is a highly productive article cleaner with an abnormally high propensity to split articles. Many of his splits have been reversed and some others are at AFD now. With respect to this article, I have asked on his talk page [55] [56] about why this article was split. I continue to await an explanation of whether he is familiar with a category for coaching records and examples of other coaches with their records split from their articles. I feel this split was unnecessary. I propose merging the information back into the main article. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Please note that eight of these editors who !voted for this AfD: EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns, TheClashFan, HelenWatt, Marvin Ceee, Iam are socks of the same person, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes

AfDs for this article:
"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essentially just a tracklist with few incoming links. No assertion to notability. Album did not chart, no singles released off it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannover Sevens

Hannover Sevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been completly copied from the Hannover Sevens website(see here).

Also, a similar article already exists under 2008 Hannover Sevens. EA210269 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarium Football Star

Planetarium Football Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable webgame. No reliable sources proving notability . Fails to meet inclusion criteria per WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of Interaction

Elements of Interaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A piece of chaotic original research, probably from the single real refernce, a dr. Wendy Guess. The rest of refs listed have no relation to the article text. - 7-bubёn >t 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brontosaurus: thin at both ends, much thicker in the middle.
  • Speedy delete. Not only original research, but also:

    Elements of Interaction Model was developed to describe the essential and critical elements that should be present in all successful, healthy interaction.

    The Elements of Interaction Model, developed by Dr. Wendy Guess, is based upon the construct that there are universal aspects in common with all forms of interaction. These elements, when utilized correctly will promote healthy and successful communication between parties.

    a vague and uninformative Elk Theory that is totally and irredeemably confused. "References" to general textbooks on sociology are not helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a hoax. As far as I can tell, none of the "references" mentions either the theory or Dr. Wendy Guest. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. How did we manage to link dancing with police interrogation? I'd say this article reeks of original research, not to mention that the context is too vague to even tell me anything useful about it past a dictionary definition. Delete. Matt (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty far out there. Reapply when reliable sources actually mention the theory model. – 74  00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL New York/Hartford

AfDs for this article:
UFL New York/Hartford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

UFL Orlando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UFL San Francisco/Sacramento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Until firm details are announced, pages for individual teams of a proposed league do not seem to be viable. The only information already appears in the United Football League (2008) page and all seems to be sourced from the league website. This raises notability concerns in addition to those of speculation. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are sources from the teams from ESPN, the league has a tv deal with Versus, there other articles for the teams [57]. There seems to be enough coverage out there to show that these are the four teams that will take to the field, if the league does play. If the league never plays a down, the articles can be merged into the main league article. Patken4 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patken4 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with the guys above. If you see a problem with the article just improve them, don't delete them. And you only marked 3 of the 4 UFL team article why's this. What's the point of having 1 of them if you're not going to have all of them. Standleylake40 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus here to Keep, can we get this confirmed by an admin?J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Gleiberman

Owen Gleiberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good (at least that's what the discussion forums used as refs say). Non-notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CRYSTAL is a strong argument. MBisanz talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL Premiere Season

UFL Premiere Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. It is also unclear if this will be notable enough to warrant individual pages for any season (if one is even played). Since there is no information that is not already in the article United Football League (2008), there is nothing to merge. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crystal only applies if the season is only rumors. With the league securing a TV deal and hiring head coaches, it's apparent that preparations are underway. If, in the future, it is shown that the season never comes to fruition, it can be merged into the main UFL article. -- MeHolla! 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here that can't be mentioned in the main article. This seems to be the equivalent of camping out at the ticket window in order to be first in line when the sales begin. When a schedule is released for the 2009 UFL season, there will still be room on Wikipedia for that information. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The UFL is going to start up. Face it. The season isn't a rumor, CRYSTAL doesn't apply. This article has merit. Standleylake40 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm still trying to face the All American Football League. Maybe someone can reserve space for an article about the Official UFL football, since I have it on good authority that the league plans to use a football when they play their first games. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It isn't relevant whether the the prospect of a season occurring is a rumor or not, there isn't any confirmed information to put in the article. The article hardly has merit when all it basically has is the dates of the start and end of the season, without any third party confirmation. Why not wait until there is some meaningful information before creating all these UFL stubs. A good start would surely be improving the United Football League (2008) page. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the NFL can have articles for specific seasons why can't the UFL? They're both professional football leagues. Just because the UFL is a startup league doesn't mean that it shouldn't have separate articles for seasons and such. It would be sort of...discrimination to not let the UFL have separate pages for seasons. Mazaradi F (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Mandsford, unneeded fork for a league that just started, also note the keeps has extremely faulty reasoning, many of possible sources out there are rumors being made into news stories, which isn't a reliable source. Secret account 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this page is deleted someone will eventually make a new one anyway closer to the season so why delete this one when it's already here. You're just delaying the inevitable. You don't think that the inaugural season of a professional football league deserves it's own article? I just think it's silly to delete it. The page will grow more and more as the season approaches and it would just be a good way for people to keep track of the league. Mazaradi F (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's hardly a good reason to keep the article. If it's appropriate to create the article in future because the league is well-established that's fine. Now is not that time. There seems to a rush to create a whole bunch of UFL articles, mistaking quantity for quality. There isn't enough content from reliable third-party sources in the main article yet. Hippopotamus (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be less on this page than on its parent page (United Football League (2009)), and I can't find anything reliable that could be added to make it worthwhile at this stage. I agree with the guy that says it makes no sense to compare with the NFL. If it weren't for Michael Vick, I wouldn't even have heard of this league. Aubergine (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A comment from someone who can't see what American Football is all about anyway: How can you have an article about a season that hasn't yet occurred? This is an encyclopaedia not a directory or a What's-On. Peridon (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpiritWorld

SpiritWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be an attempt at a novel synthesis of various strains of New Age beliefs, borrowing from indigenous belief systems from all over the world. In my opinion the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy pertaining to no original research WP:OR and that both its style and tone are unencyclopedic. The article also contains a number of images that are claimed to be "free for use" by the editor that submitted them, but in checking the website that is purportedly their source, the National Library of New Zealand digital collection[58] I discovered that in fact *none* of the images are to be used without adhering to certain terms and conditions prior to using them.[59] Deconstructhis (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The non-free images should be discussed at IfD rather than here, and criticism of the article's style and tone is not grounds for deletion. (If you don't like the style and tone of an article, improve it.) However, I believe the WP:OR argument will be fatal to the article in its current form.
"SpiritWorld" is a very plausible search term, and therefore it should not be a redlink. Therefore this article should be a redirect or disambiguation page.
On balance I feel any relevant content should be merged to the various cultural and religious articles involved, and this should become a disambiguation page leading to those articles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip on the complaints regarding the images, I'll keep that in mind for next time, although if you examine the talk page of the article you'll discover why I think that issue should be dealt with ASAP. As far as I can tell, "SpiritWorld", the title of the article, is a self coined neologism and thus shouldn't appear in an article in the encyclopedia at all. In terms of your assessment of "style and tone" not being eligible criteria for deletion, I'd have to disagree, at least in this case. Take the very first paragraph of the article for example, I'd suggest that both its style and tone, make it almost incomprehensible. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I do suggest that you list any images or other non-text content you're concerned about here: WP:IFD. I find the language in the article a little hard to parse, but I don't agree that it's incomprehensible. I do agree the article fails WP:NOR.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


kia ora, Deconstruct, S Marshall,
The observation was made, on Talk:SpiritWorld by User:Nortonew, that a Spirit_World_(Native-American) article needs to be written ... and I would observe also a Spirit_World_(World Indigenous Oral Tradition) page. And I agree, and hope to lend a hand there in the future.
As to the origin of the universal cultural icon of "Spirit World", well I never coined it ... witness 1,480,000 Google entries for that phrase. Clearly this article SpiritWorld can be refined and expanded dramatically, and I and others I am sure will do so ... yet this particular article is not oriented towards a specific regional or cultural focus, but clearly towards the global. {Now that this article is complete enough to attract interest and clear intent, I will reach out to others that have expertise in the subject and suggest they lend a hand at the growth and polishing of the SpiritWorld article. (Should this article name be changed to Spirit_World??)}.
I suppose Wikipedia itself would be labeled as "New Age" by many, as would this or any of the native, spiritual, or cultural articles or traditions worldwide. I suppose it depends on who is defining the term New_Age. Here at Wikipedia it is described as largely "Western", in contrast to this SpiritWorld article which is equally Eastern and Oriental, because it is global. As I resided in Aotearoa, New Zealand, for four years ... and my wife is Japanese ... it is not possible or interesting for me to attempt to be 'Western'.
arohanui, enfolding love ... Millennium Twain (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no 'world indigenous oral tradition' as such, and to suggest otherwise is an obvious violation of the rule against original synthesis. (For a start, who isn't indigenous to the world?) The various spirit worlds (note two words, no caps) of mythologies from around the world are diverse and distinct, and deserve separate, intellectually rigorous treatment and proper research. If a 'worldwide' article is needed, it should be primarily a disambiguation page to point people to the various specific pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incoherent and unencyclopedic. The topic, whatever it is supposed to be, is completely unclear and amorphous. There is no way to make any judgment on what sources and concepts are appropriate to include or exclude. This kind of essay-like synthesis could easily consist of a hodgepodge of material from areas of religion, mythology, metaphysics, paranormal, superstition, mental illness, quantum physics, meditation, prayer, folklore, et cetera, et cetera. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obvious redirect, if worth keeping, to Spirit world, itself a disambig page. Sticky Parkin 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Royal Confraternity" of a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. Appears to have little or no reliable third-party coverage. Disputed WP:PROD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment: the following are the relevant policy and guidelines:
  1. WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
  2. WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
  3. WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
Does anybody see a pattern here? Does anybody think that a 'Keep' !vote that does not address the quantity and quality of coverage has much relevance? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep that is not a reason for deletion; if they want to use the word "Royal," it's their lookout. It seems to have an actual existence & notable members. . I would be very much more satisfied with some neutral reliable source on them , though. DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (i) lack of third party coverage is a reason for deletion: WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (ii) Even a kids' tree-hut secret-club has "actual existence" (and, it would appear, the same level of both official recognition & third-party coverage as this topic) -- that doesn't make for notability. (iii) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and a few notable members (many of whom are themselves notable for nothing more than being dis-established royals) does not make this confraternity notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the part of the nom: " a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. " was not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not directly a reason for deletion, and wasn't intended as one. However a "royal confraternity" implicitly draws its claim to stature from its relationship to royalty -- and when that royalty had been disestablished 90 years before the confraternity is established, this clearly draws its notability into question -- a question that its lack of third party coverage answers in the emphatic negative. Or to put it another way, given the shear volume of hand-waving about (generally bogus) 'inherent notability' that one sees in AfDs, I got my rebuttal in first on whether this topic was inherently notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I tried to find some reliable, third party sources, but without success. --Yopie 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it needs a major cleanup, I can see no compelling reason for its deletion. The fact the Portuguese monarchy no longer officially exists is not a justification for deletion of an article on what appears to be a genuine order with notable members which is apparently open to all Roman Catholics, not just members of the Portuguese monarchy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V, as quoted above, is not a mere guideline, and likewise requires third-party sourcing -- which is a "compelling reason for its deletion". Your "opinion" does not appear to have any policy basis -- and therefore may be discounted as mere WP:ILIKEIT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't particularly like it. I have no particular views either way. I am merely voicing an opinion, as I stated. This is the whole point of AfDs. An essay (not even a guideline) such as the one you cited provides no basis for discounting the views of a contributor to a discussion. As to verifiability, there are enough third-party sources out there to verify that the order exists, so the policy's requirements are satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bare mention of existence ≠ "significant coverage", so no "the policy's requirements" are not satisfied. The "whole point of AfDs" is to give arguments that are substantiated (by policy and reliable sources). Please read WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. Opinions lacking any substantiation may be discounted. ("Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.") HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, this is an AfD. Its purpose is to determine whether an article should exist or not. That is completely different from WP:V, which is to determine whether information within an article should be on Wikipedia or not. As I said, there are enough third-party references out there to substantiate its existence. Therefore it meets the requirements for WP:V, the only applicable policy. Notability guidelines are fluid and are guidelines. If they were set in stone then AfD discussions would be rendered obsolete. Notability and Verifiability are different issues. Whether all the information within the article can be verified or not is a separate issue and one we are not discussing here - all that matters is whether the order exists (it clearly does) and whether or not it is notable (which is what we are discussing and is effectively based on opinion).
So, to recap, there are two separate issues here:
a) Is the existence of the organisation verifiable? Yes, it is.
b) Is the organisation notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? What we are here to discuss. I believe it is for the reasons I have given. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, but please do not start quoting non-applicable policies to back up an argument and claim that other editors' opinions are invalid. That is bordering on a lack of civility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong! WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is not "significant coverage" in "reliable, third-party sources" on the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio, so "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So, NO it is NOT "completely different from WP:V". And as it is POLICY not a mere guideline it is NOT "fluid". To recap:
  1. Is mere existence sufficient to meet WP:V? No it is not. (See quote above.)
  2. WP:V, WP:GNG & WP:ORG all require significant third party coverage. Has any of your "reasons" discussed this? No they have not. (Nor for that matter have they discussed any relevant policy or guideline supporting your opinion.) Are they therefore in any way relevant? No they are not.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we are uncivil aren't we! Well, we'll let the closer decide, shall we? I'm rather tired of debating with a ranter. Frankly, I'm not really bothered about this article, but I'm a little surprised at your reaction to someone who dares to disagree with you. You obviously don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also looked for reliable 3rd party sources without success. dougweller (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without comment on this article, the above discussion based on the content of WP:V appears to have missed some key facts. The quote from WP:V given by the nominator was from a short-lived version that was reverted fairly quickly because the change (introducing the word 'significant') did not have consensus. Also, the inclusion of 'third-party' in the sentence has been disputed by a number of commenters on WT:V (myself included), and I am uncomfortable with the claim that that has consensus either. WP:N, of course, continues to require significant coverage in third-party sources as it always has, but as Necrothesp points out, we can choose to ignore such guidelines if they tell us to delete an article that common sense indicates we should keep. JulesH (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise if I was quoting an obsolete/non-consensus version of policy. However, I would question whether we have been presented with any "common sense [reason] indicat[ing] we should keep" -- the best that Necrothesp has come up with to date appears to be the very lowball 'it exists'. Strong, valid reasons for ignoring guidelines need to be clearly articulated for the call to ignore them to be given any weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I used my own name which is even mentioned in the Confraternity entry, but I was the one tagged with WP:COI for editing this article. I feel compelled to mention for all those who say they can't find reliable sources that there are quite a few listed when they aren't being wrongly tagged or reverted. All are independent and verifiable. Those are the primary Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One challenger seems particularly biased against formally regnant royal houses (PLEASE refer to his own text on the discussion page of the article; this is not my opinion) and apparently assigns negative reliability based on that status. The same challenger questioned the citation of a Spanish publication which was already found in an online bookseller site and for which I offered an electronic version as well. I have asked what facts support the individual's claims that the two royal house websites and the publication are unreliable and the only answer I get is a challenge to produce proof that the Spanish Academy which produces an annual publication listing the Confraternity is "recognized". Since there is no authority in place to do such a recognition this is impossible. How can the source be called unreliable when the challenger has not even reviewed the source itself and doesn't even know the authors? One of the primary authors is Jose Maria de Montells y Galan, who you can find as a direct source in a number of Wikipedia entries which are not challenged. Of course no one bothered to follow this up on the discussion page where I defended this publication and offered to share the information. I would have thought that someone truly concerned with Wikipedia policy and not personal opinion would have wanted to know things like that. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is admittedly weak and needs major revision but we can not do so while the entry is under challenge for deletion. There are many activities which could be referenced with sources such as the websites for the royal houses of Georgia and Rwanda, but as long as they are challenged for being "former royals" and therefore "unreliable" there is no point in adding further target material. I hope to see the notability of this article proved here or in further arbitration and then help to build this article into a more informative one. I thought the purpose of this process was to avoid deletion but one challenger in particular has been completely negative and provided no helpful information to improve the article. My alleged WP:COI edits were to add sources and improve format of sources as they were challenged. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would note that:
    1. DaleLeppard has not presented any evidence that any of these sources are reliable.
    2. The royal houses in question have overlapping membership with the Confraterntiy, so they are not independent.
    3. None of the disputed sources are actually WP:CITEd for any specific information in the article, so it is not clear what, if any, information they contribute on the topic. In fact, as of now, the only citationed information in the entire article is that "Saint Theotonius [was] a 12th Century Portuguese canon and royal advisor".
    4. This lack of citations means that it has not been established that this organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".
    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are independent and verifiable. What possible reason could you have to challenge the reliability of two royal houses and a Spanish publication that you have never even read? Do you hold all Wikipedia articles to this standard because nowhere else do I see such scrutiny applied. It seems you can not be satisfied. You argue that the Confraternity is not notable enough for the Wikipedia yet according to you it influences several royal houses and publications. How is that possible? Your words might even carry weight if you so much as looked at the sources but I had to walk you through all of them myself. The sources were added, as you well know, because you challenged the notability of the organization. That is their purpose. When the arbitration process is completed the article can be revised and appropriate citations can be added based on the sources given as well as new sources applicable to the material that will be added. Yes there are members in these royal houses and many MANY other organizations. Independent means simply that the Confraternity exercises no control over these organizations and entities and that they are not a component of the Confraternity. That is established. Whether there are mutual members is a standard beyond reason. If it was uninteresting to the people in a position to give it credibility it would not be worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place. Again you ask the impossible. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify why you apparently disregard the cited sources. If you are simply assuming the constant erroneous "unreliable source" labels are correct or failing to find something on a search engine then please actually look at the sources cited. If you have questions perhaps they can be answered. I would like to improve this article but only constructive input will help. Third party or independent sources means that the subject organization is not a parent or sibling component of the source and exercises no control over the source. That is the case in all the sources cited. Thanks. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the references are used to establish the notability of the organisation. They are simply listed as "general references". No attempt is made to connect them with the content of the article, no attempt is made to show how the support the notability of the group.

    There is nothing to suggest that the "Registro De Ordenes De Caballeria Del Reino De Espana" is a reliable source. I found 7 google hits for that publication. Two of them appear to be bibliographic databases; neither could find any library which held the volume. A reliable source would, presumably be available somewhere.

    The reference to The Sentinel is insufficient; Sentinel is a disambiguation page which lists 16 local papers by that name. The article title, "Ode to a Portuguese king in a Carlisle church" sounds like a local-interest story. It doesn't sound like the sort of in-depth reporting that would be needed to establish the notability of an organisation.

    The third "general reference" does not establish the notability of the organisation. As is to be expected in a "Community Scrapbook", it lists happenings of local interest - an "Academic Bowl" victory by a local middle school; a local church presents "Gold Medal Marriage Awards" to three couples who were married 51, 54 and 62 years respectively. And the "Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio" donates $1000 to the local Habitat for Humanity. There's no investigation in "Community Scrapbook" articles. The reporter almost certainly did not ask the couples for proof they had been married 62 years. This isn't investigative reporting. This isn't subject to intense fact-checking. But most importantly, the three-sentence paragraph in the "community scrapbook" does nothing to establish the notability of the group. That paragraph wouldn't establish notability in Wikipedia. Simply referencing it outside of Wikipedia does not magically make it sifficient to establish notability here. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: during this AfD DaleLeppard has:
    1. Flagrantly disregarded the advice of {{Uw-coi}} that "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original)
    2. Made edits to the article that go well beyond WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and has included removal of templates, introduction of unreliable wiki references (in a manner that also violates WP:MOS#Link titles incidentally), reintroduction of an unpublished and thus unverifiable reference.
    3. Has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the independence and reliability of sources. I would note that despite his pretense that I am the sole skeptic on this that (i) that the reliability of the Spanish source was challenged by Yopie first, and (ii) that nobody except DL is defending these sources. I would further note that the membership of the Rwandan 'King' and a "claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia" in this organisation clearly impeaches the independence of these 'Royal Houses' as sources.
I would conclude by requesting that DaleLeppard exercise restraint on this AfD (in keeping with WP:COI) and that in particular he take lengthy discussions of the reliability of sources either to talk (to which I've removed his latest, lengthy missive) or to WP:RS/N, which are the more appropriate fora for these discussions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like an improper policy interpretation is being used as pointed out by JulesH Since WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", not whether the coverage meets individualized "significance" tests. As far as WP:V, Necrothesp makes a valid point that there are verifiable third party sources. Msnpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnpilot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park Underground V2.0

Linkin Park Underground V2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost entirely unsourced, unlikely to ever be sourced beyond a stub, notability not established, the general "Underground" article was previously nominated for a selective merge to Linkin Park discography at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linkin Park Underground. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Linkin Park Underground 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Linkin Park Underground 4.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Linkin Park Underground 5.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Linkin Park Underground 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LP Underground 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MMM...COOKIES - Sweet Hamster Like Jewels from America! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Songs from the Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rehevkor ✉ 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from the Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarkZero

AfDs for this article:
DarkZero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable website. Google searches turn up only the original domain. Page was deleted once previously. In addition, this may fall under WP:CONFLICT as the article's creator and primary writer seems to only have contributions that advertise the site. Teancum (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip P. Gaonkar

Dilip P. Gaonkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Keep the updates since my nomination show that he is notable A new name 2008 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Fails to meet inclusion guidelines for academics. No references to show he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to keep based on the results of the modified search by Madcoverboy. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I’ve also re-done my WorldCat search with a few variations, and found two scholarly books with more than 200 holdings worldwide; one published by Routledge (247 holdings) and the other by Duke University Press (201 holdings). Given the publishers and the fact that the books are in very specific topics, these holdings reinforce my belief that he meets criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use a correct query: [61] At least 3 books, 76 articles, and several hundred citations. Obvious notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability demonstrated by snowball, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet who twice earlier nominated the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin

AfDs for this article:
J Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is fails the notability guidelines particularly having multiple non-trivial coverage in published sources, although mentioned in passing in several places and that is has many sources, all but two of them only mention J Stalin about one time if at all, most sources establish facts irrespective of the subject of the article and do not establish notability, the subject also fails WP:BAND, previous nominations for deletion were never allowed to finish due to interference and bickering. This is a rapper of local interest, with no significant coverage and the article makes several dubious statements, such as using the artist's album notes as a source.Fails: WP:NM, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, Troyster87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That's a lot of references, and I disagree as many are more than in-passing. The local part is hard to argue with (all SF/Bay area) but that's a big area and I think these papers have significant circulation. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a lot of references, there are only two that offer more than passing coverage.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot and I'm not finding them to be "in passing" for the most part. Which two do you think are okay? Hobit (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep - suggest early close. Pointless nomination of an article that has survived two AfDs and obviously meets formal notability criteria, suggests weak understanding of notability in the nomination. Local interest is fine. There are many more sources out there if anyone would care to look.Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you clarify how it obviously meets the criteria? Isn't it premature to suggest a snowball keep? If sources exist point them out.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- While not all of the sources linked as references in the article cover him in depth, there's enough there that, to me, he comes off as notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough references to support the article and be notable. MathCool10 Sign here! 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to clarify the first reference is an article/interview in free newspaper[62], the next is a claimed mention in "murder dog magazine", next are the artist's "album notes" that are not independent of the subject and cannot establish notability, second is "sideshow" article, where J-Stalin is mentioned in passing, at the very end, as a resident not the subject of the article[63], not a reliable source for establishing notability, the next is a very brief six sentence "article" in another free newspaper, not a reliable reference for establishing notability[64], the next is a link to comments on stash.com, not a source of anything, the next is a San Francisco Bay Guardian listing of various concerts[65], listings are not reliable sources for establishing notability, another is a dead link to another free newspaper (bayview)[66], the next is an article about stem cell research and rap music, where J Stalin is again mentioned once in the end, where he is not the subject of the article, this does not establish notability, furthermore Yo! Youth Outlook does not appear to be a reliable source for anything[67], this article mentions J Stalin four times, but is not about him it does not assert that he is of any note and only states that he has collaborated on music with other rap artists, that are also not notable[68], only mentioned in passing, I don;t feel that mention in one or two (free newspapers) sources counts as non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources, please make sure not to be prejudiced by the clean look of the article, the references are well inserted however the references themselves are lacking.Troyster87 (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, J Stalin is not signed by a major or any label, does not have significant if any verifiable album sales, nor does he have any press in the mass media, he doesn't even have his own website (ixnay myspace).Troyster87 (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major mentions (full lengthy articles, profiles) in significant reliable source newspapers. These free papers are major operations - one is owned by Village Voice, etc. Both have large staffs, full editorial process, circulation in the 150,000 range, and are leading mainstream papers covering local music. Leading representative of a style and a local music scene. Important to the development of a genre of music. Has collaborated and performed with many notable musicians. Called influential, groundbreaking, etc., by the various sources. Tracks on notable albums. Signed to label that is considered a leading center of a sub-genre of music. Covered every year in the round-up of music, #1 local rap sales, some mention of a billboard chart, "regional stardom"[69], etc, etc. As someone said in the last deletion nomination, what's the point having notability criteria if people won't follow them? If you think the criteria should be changed then please lobby there but not by nominating articles for deletion. Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does he have major mentions multiple newspapers? That's really the only question. What are "full lenghty" articles? 2 is not multiple. Which notable musicians has he collaborated with, do they have wikipedia articles, do you have links proving this?, Please provide a source stating that he is a "leader", "groundbreaking", Tracks on what notable albums? A notable label? In what roundup of music? Regional stardom is "local", local isn't notable, what do you mean some mention of a billboard chart?Troyster87 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're pretty much wrong on all counts. Why don't you figure it out for yourself, preferably before nominating articles for deletion. Don't you have anything more useful to be doing on Wikipedia? Wikidemon (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get all ad hominem on me please and assume good faith. Please answer the questions.Troyster87 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're making up notability criteria and you're asking me to answer questions for you that you can figure out for yourself. If you want to know his discography, for example, some of it is mentioned in the article and you can find the rest on google. The deletion discussion is for several editors to say what they think, not a challenge match. Wikidemon (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the general notability guideline and criterion 1 of WP:BAND which is essentially a restatement of the GNG. Setting aside the deadlink and sources not accessible online, we have a SF Guardian profile on the subject, a Guardian article giving an award to the subject (not a concert listing), two additional Guardian articles that qualify as "non-trivial" but probably not "substantial" coverage, a non-trivial YO! article mention (see no reason to declare it non-reliable), and two newspaper blogs, one a profile and one a non-trivial mention, which may or may not be reliable sources depending on the amount of editorial control the newspapers exercise over their blogs (see Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources). Two or three clearly significant source mentions plus three or four more non-trivial mentions is easily enough, even without considering any other sources in or outside the article. There's no non-local coverage requirement for people as there is for organizations, so it doesn't matter if all the article's citations are local, nor does it matter if the subject has a website or record label (so long as source coverage is available). BTW the first AfD was closed early due to procedural issues, but the second closed just over a week ago after a full run with a consensus that the subject's notability had been established. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings, and on another note, not a real award. Not an article. Not a reliable sources for establishing notability.Troyster87 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure :). Agree the award is not notable, but I'd say an award from a newspaper counts as significant coverage by that paper, even when the award itself is not notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jones (Georgia politician)

Bill Jones (Georgia politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a failed candidate for the US House of Representatives in 2008, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Was de-proded for arguably meeting WP:GNG, but the cited AJC article is a human interest story that doesn't do anything for notability, and I was under the impression that any campaign coverage isn't enough either (this wasn't a close race or anything). BryanG (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I see no agreement about whether the sources are sufficiently specific, which is I think the main issue.. DGG (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wicca

AfDs for this article:
Christian Wicca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This OR-magnet fails the general notability guideline in that the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article survived a previous AfD, but has only deteriorated since then, and in its present form is pure OR: a sort of meandering essay on some perceived affinities between Wicca and Christianity, salted with a few Bible and other quotes; the references for the article relating directly to its subject derive principally from quasi-essays on personal websites or blogs. The OR and substandard sourcing would not by themselves form a rationale for deletion if they were correctable, but they're not: once you subtract the OR, even from the earliest versions of the article, there's really no article left, and no reliable sources you could use to create one. The sole text apparently dedicated to the topic doesn't appear to describe a set of beliefs or practices that any actual group of people ever held or engaged in, and one of the most extensive online sources I found on the topic turned out to be an adaptation of the Wikipedia article. While there appear to be some number of people active on the internet who evidently would like to combine some aspects of Wicca and Christianity -- hence the Google hits on the phrase "Christian Wicca" -- there's little evidence that they form any identifiable group who hold in common any halfway-coherent set of beliefs or practices such that you could say with confidence that something called "Christian Wicca" even exists, let alone meets WP:N. --Rrburke(talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke(talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI am not convinced that this is so much a branch of wicca as it is a descriptive term for an existing school of thought, such as Unitarian Universalism, I believe it is not an independent topic. However since there is so much info out there it should be kept, since it appears notable, the article is in horrendous condition, but articles on notable topics written poorly in an overly-convoluted essay format shouldn't necessarily be deleted but cleaned up, or in this case douched.Troyster87 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - preceding comment was made by a now-blocked sockpuppet of a notorious AfD troll. - 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete No clearly independent, reliable sources are currently listed in the references. While the blogs and other SPSs clearly indicate that more than a few people are interested in this, I don't see anything that would meet WP:V or WP:N. If kept, the article should be thoroughly trimmed of OR. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article is in strong need of a rewrite -- probably half of the text can go, if not more. But at the end of the day, I think there is something of value regarding the Wiccan faith that can be salvaged. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It had a snowball keep last time. It is easy confirmable that this exists, and is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Google gives it 28,700 hits. Looking through some of the results, it appear to be a well established belief system. Dream Focus 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number of hits is so misleading as to be meaningless. For instance, 16,000 of those hits disappear once you exclude "meetup.com" pages. The overwhelming majority of what's left are doorway pages or landing pages, whose sole purpose is spamdexing. I tried sifting through as many of the remainder as was feasible, but was not able to come up with even a single one that might qualify as a reliable source. The articles at experiencefestival.com turned out to be adapted from the very Wikipedia article which is the subject of this AfD. Nor could I find a book or article on the topic -- save this, which doesn't appear to describe an actually-existing faith, but rather seems to attempt to point out affinities, and does not appear especially reliable. If someone else has had better luck, I'm all ears. There appear to any number of people on the internet who would like to think of themselves as both Wiccans and Christians, but very little evidence that any identifiable group of people exists who hold in common a discernible set or beliefs or practices that would qualify as "Christian Wicca". If anybody could offer sources -- or a single source -- that would suggest this topic could satisfy the general notability guideline, I'd be grateful if they would. --Rrburke(talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22christian+wicca%22 I found a link to the books in the original nomination. Also, the original afd discussion mentioned to historical facts, of how when converting to Christianity, some also kept their Wicca beliefs, mixing them together. Many missionaries were told not to cut down a sacred tree someone worshiped, but instead to Christianize it, give it a new meaning. History Channel had a bit about that years ago. Dream Focus 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Amazon review of that book is enlightening, particularly that this was a self-published book sharing the author's personal beliefs, and that it's a poor source for historical facts. I don't have the book in my hands to comment on it from personal observation, though.
Looking through the references is weird. There's a lot of criticism of "Christian Wicca" as a concept, and precious little description of it. An awful lot of people are awfully angry about something they simply assume the reader is already familiar with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the book is self-published it's unsuitable and won't meet WP:RS. As for people retaining their Wicca beliefs after the spread of Christianity, this is something of an anachronism. No practitioner would have referred to such beliefs or practices as "Wicca" prior to the 1950s. --Rrburke(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking through the history, and reading the article when it was at its longests, and I see plenty of quotes from the Christian Bible. Witches and whatnot were listed there in places, but the word Wicca was not used. Might be why finding notable sources is proving somewhat difficult. Is there a single physical church that is dedicated to this religion, or does the IRS or other government agency in any nation recognize the existence of any Christian Wicca religions? I know Wicca is recognized in the United States by the IRS, the military, and universities. But is there officially recognized merger of the two anywhere? Dream Focus 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles needs reliable sources, not bible quotes.--Sloane (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be exactly one reliable source in the references section: it's Joanne Pearson's Wicca and the Christian Heritage, published by Routledge in 2007. The phrase "Christian Wicca" does not appear in the text even once -- which, considering the topic of the book, is extremely telling. Nor does it appear in her 2002 Popular Dictionary of Paganism. How could it be possible that a recently-published monograph on Wicca and Christianity would not mention the topic even a single time if it were sufficiently noteworthy to merit an encyclopedia article?
The remainder of the books in the references section are unlikely to meet WP:RS: For example: two are by Sylvia Browne; another editor points out above that Nancy Chandler Pittman's Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published; and Carmina Gadelica is unrelated to "Christian Wicca".
I found a passing reference to "Christian Wicca" in the The New Encyclopedia of the Occult which, if anything, tends to confirm that the subject is sub-notable and does not appear to exist in any sufficiently-organized fashion such as would make it possible to write an encyclopedia article about it. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is simply no such "significant coverage" to be found. --Rrburke(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because, despite brusque and blithe assurances to the contrary, there is no evidence that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which is the principal measure of whether a topic merits an article. For those who are convinced that it has, please point the sources out so they might be added to the article. To date, none have been offered. --Rrburke(talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STARFLEET International Conference

STARFLEET International Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event; reads like an advertisement. No references to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lucille

Francis Lucille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Questionable notability, cited published books appear to be "self-published" with cited publication list being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. The article is poorly sourced and feels like pure advertisement. Plastikspork (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments
This is not an advertisement.

I will gather the required details and update the website. Please do not delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not promotional: I have removed the link to the publications link --I have only provided the link as convenience to the readers.

I have tried to provide to the audience at large genuine information that I have encountered.

I will remove the ,sections that are marked with citation needed currently. Once I get the citations I will add the section accordingly.

1) http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Sobottka.pdf A course in consciousness, by, Stanley Sobottka ,Emeritus Professor of Physics,University of Virginia ] http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness] Has given the reference to his website www.francislucille.com This is not promotional. Please see the references to his work from other two sites.

2) Dennis Waite. The Book of One: The Spiritual Path of Advaita, ISBN 1903816416 http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/thoughts_lucille.htm

I will remove the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reserving judgement, for now: My gut feeling is not favourable but I will wait to see if referencing and tone can be improved. The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name. This makes searching harder. I am not impressed by the Stanley Sobottka endorsement (it is just a personal endorsement in a self-published essay) but there is a book with an fairly long interview with him here [70]. The introductory bio can be used to verify parts of the bio here. I don't have access to the other book to check that although an Amazon search confirms that it does cover Lucille. It seems to me that the subject is borderline for notability. I don't think that everybody who gets a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality should automatically be considered notable. Maybe we need a bit more. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
Thanks So much every one for taking time to give the references.I appreciate all your effort and references.

I will try to gather more information as possible. Please give me some more time. --Some of the most precious diamonds are very rare ....I understand the constaint and spirit of wikipedia too,to verify the information available.

1) The Tao of Now: Daily Wisdom from Mystics, Sages, Poets, and Saints,Page 102 Josh Baran Publisher "Hamptom roads publisher company inc." ISBN 978-157174-8842 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum [71]

2) Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite (Paperback - Feb 25, 2007) [72]

3) Awake in the Heartland: The Ecstasy of What Is (Paperback) by Joan Tollifson (Author) page 96. [73] Quote --Everything is grace .When we say yes to what is ,we say yes to grace.

4) Everyday Enlightenment: Seven Stories of Awakening Sally Bongers page 21. [74]

5) The Art of Letting Go: A Pathway to Inner Freedom (Paperback) by Vidya Frazier (Author) [75]

6) Vision Walk: Asking Questions, Getting Answers, Shifting Consciousness by Brandt Morgan,page 100. ISBN-10 0976763141 ISBN-13 978-0-976763-4-7 [76]

7) I am trying my best to get more information as possible. I have found one more reference [serach for francis]--[77] "The line of advaita thinking that I have followed seems best represented by Francis Lucille. He studied advaita with Jean Klein who, in turn, had it from Krishnamenon [Sri Atmananda] and others in the 1950s. Francis Lucille may be the foremost exponent of the advaita tradition currently teaching. "

8) Here are tons of audio cds of francis lucille 2)http://openlibrary.org/a/OL3829177A Though many of them seem to be out of print. I found one --http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1882874811/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all

8)The Bhagavad Gita (The divine conversations) Alan Jacobs ;page 3. [78]

9) Being Home: Returning to the Place We've Never Left by Thomas H Beyer (Paperback - Mar 1, 2007) ISBN-10-595-42465-1  ; [79]


Amarhindustani (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, I have re-written the entire section. based on the book you have suggested. I will slowly add each section.it is difficult to do it in one go. let me know if the tone and content is fine.[reply]

Just my observations on your comments. >The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name.

I agree ;but the topic that I am editing is related to spirituality.where the greatest are silent about their own works. and their works and contributions are realized much later. Few points: Just a search on amazon shows --that there are at least 30 books which quote the present author. In spite of it ...I am finding hard time finding self-published book by Francis ,which confirms ---In matters related to spirituality --The most powerful are very silent and this precisely why I why I am trying my best to save this article.

Please feel free to modify the article ...I have quoted tons of books in the external links sections.

Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Here is another reason to keep the article. Please refer to :http://www.ramana-maharshi.org.uk/ in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004, has now ceased publication. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal.[reply]

Sprituality is very differnt from "commercial and celebrity" related articles.where more notable --are famous. Here the greatest are very silent.

so please dont delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is one more reason: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Klein References "Francis Lucille" "He left an important legacy which sometimes refer teachers contemporaries who were his disciples, including Éric Baret, Francis Lucille, Jean-Marc Mantel" Amarhindustani (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more reference: Reference: Greg Goode, Ph.D., is editor of the Nondualism and Western Philosophers page of Nonduality Salon. Selections from his writings appear on his webpage, No Presence, No Absence. he quotes ..... Francis Lucille, a beloved teacher.... http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0013.htm

Another reason why the article should not be deleted. Amarhindustani (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason: Jean Klein [[80]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. That is another reason ...that I have to keep this floating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified on this website and everything seems authentic. Chebard (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)— Chebard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go with delete here. From what I see, the whole argument in favor of keeping the article relies on that, within his circles, people really like the guy, which for Wikipedia, doesn't really fit into the guidelines, unfortunately. As to the pointer that the greatest of spiritualists remain silent, I wholeheartedly agree to this assessment, but the corrolary to this is that the greatest will be made well known by the populace. I see blog entries, I see an interview, and I see some books mentioning him by name - but as I understand WP:N, that doesn't really fall within the guides. I opine, then, that we need to find more on Mr. Lucille, most certainly, and suggest that the article would be deleted - but as usual, I have no prejudice to a recreation if we have material on him found after the deletion. In the event of deletion, I suggest userfying the article for User:Amarhindustani. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, delete. This is annoying because I think it's a good faith article about a subject a new editor genuinely feels should be covered here, and I'm conscious of how bitey the AfD process can be. — The article's falling foul of various rules designed to prevent Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool (see notability in particular). Those rules oblige us to look for significant coverage in reliable sources, and they force us to delete if the coverage isn't there. I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold. I'm sorry, Amarhindustani, because I can see you've put a lot into this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
* Retain :

The above recommendation have not taken all the points menioned before arriving at conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) This article has : Published interview with francis lucille in a book along with spiritual luminaries [1] This is very notable book![reply]

1)Lynn Marie Lumiere, John Lumiere-Wins.The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders,ISBN 9781592330102 [2]

2)in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal.

3)Jean Klein [[81]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. Amarhindustani (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I have strong points to support the above statement. could you let me know when you are planning to delete the article?. I just need some more time. in the mean time ,I am hoping some one else might pitch in to support me too. Thank you for the time and feedback. I appreciate it. Thanks 75.80.152.211 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Amarhindustani (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debates usually stay open for five days and the closing admin decides on the basis of the arguments put forward in the debate. However, this one has been relisted because few people took part. So you have another five days to make improvements. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there is non-trivial coverage in multiple published books (many added since nomination) so I think this meets notability. However, the prose of the article is truly awful for a Wikipedia article. If this was written in a more detached, factual style it would probably never have been nominated here in the first place. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I vote Weak keep as well. We need to get more editors on it. It is clear that the current editor is trying to do the right thing but he needs help. He missed out on the standard Welcome message, so I have given him that, which should help a bit. Even so, we need somebody who understands this stuff (which I don't) and who is experienced with editing to work through the article issues and sort them out. Ideally, we want a shorter, more neutral and easier to understand article. I have put it in Wikiprojects Biography and Spirituality. With luck that will attract interest. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There seem to be third party sources, but no reliable sources. They all look like writings from other new age gurus, not from neutral sources.--Sloane (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. It is problematic dealing with subjects like spirituality and astrology because they are essentially just made up stuff with no canonical sources defining what is notable and what is fringe. The trouble is that some of it is clearly notable, despite being made up, due to its long history of being seriously believed in by so many people. I got as far as verifying that the book with the interview was not self-published and that the publisher is not exclusively a publisher of spiritualist books. That is what made it a weak keep for me. In my heart, I would love to see the back of all this stuff but I know that it isn't for me to impose my POV on Wikipedia. Maybe I am overcompensating here? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've taken a quick pass at cleaning it a bit. To the main author I'm unclear if wp:notability has been met. Unlikely a credible source will state Lucille is the leading teacher of _____ in California but something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly and in the WP:lede. Barring that we may be able to sweep a bunch of less notable bits together if they are widely quoted or something. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to the closer to say that I've gone through the article again after these edits were made, and I still feel we're short on reliable sources for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
Response to the comment made above:

>"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold"

Additional Interview from a "Third party source" Neutral publisher: 1.The Below book has interviews from worlds most influential spiritual teachers. 2.Please refer to the interview -->copernican shift: Francis Lucille

Title The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality / Paula Marvelly. Other Title Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Author Marvelly, Paula. Publisher London : Watkins Pub., 2002. Description xiii, 281 p. : ports. ; 24 cm. Notes Includes bibliographical references (p. 279-281). Summary A collection of interviews with the world's most influential spiritual teachers as well as less well-known teachers on the nature of non-duality. Contents All my troubles seem so far away: Satyananda -- The dharma bum: Wayne Liquorman -- The smell of burnt almonds Pratima -- The secret garden: Tony Parsons -- Copernican shift: Francis Lucille -- The house of God: Vijai Shankar -- A course in miracles: Mira -- Magical mystery tour: Bharat -- All you need is love: Catherine Ingram -- Love me tender: John de Ruiter -- Amazing grace: Pamela Wilson -- No guru, no method, no teacher: Isaac Shapiro -- The beat generation: Vartman -- San Francisco renaissance: Gangaji -- The godfather of soul: Ramesh Balsekar -- Rendezvous with Ramana -- Who am I?: Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi Amarhindustani (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments
*Comment

There are three very extensive interviews with Francis Lucille in books published by publications of repute [These are not just references, but full length articles]. In response to the above observation ---The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails

Please consider the following facts. Jan Kersschot. THIS IS IT. Watkins ISBN: 1-84293-093-1 “Perfume of Peace” [Full length interview with Fracis Lucille].

Marvelly, Paula (2002). The teachers of Living one. London: Watkins[3]. pp. 61-71. ISBN 1842930281.

Watkins Publishing[4] (est.1894) ….continues in its long tradition of unillustrated publishing, specialising in the spiritual traditions of the world, ancient wisdom, divination and philosophy. [5] “There are many engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, hence it is reliable .”

This is a publishing house of repute established in 1894.

• The Interview is published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses. • The Article is signed. • There is an extensive interview in this book with Francis Lucille. • The books have interviews with teachers :Gangaji[82] , Ramesh Balsekar[83] , Eckhart tolle [84] etc Who are already on wikipedia. So it puts him in equal footing.

His books are published in France ,German ,Spanish etc. Books published in other languages: One of the book is published by ,publisher of repute -- http://www.originel-accarias.com You can find that this publisher has published books on other authors of repute as well ,like Dalai lama etc 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see interviews and articles in Editorial reviewed Journal.[6] --- Francis Lucille. The relevance of what he speaks in other disciplines. Lucille, Francis, A Conversation with Jack Labanauskas, Part 1, Jan. ’02, Issue #79, pg. 1 [7]

Lucille, Francis (interview) – Labanauskas & McKean Jan. ‘02, Feb. ’02, Nov. ‘02 Amarhindustani (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The article, as is, is poorly written in tone and presentation. I will assume good faith though that the subject is notable as a teacher and/or author. All the sourcing and good faith efforts need to continue however to 1. Rewrite the article neutrally and 2. Convert all sources to become inline citations so others can see clearly what is stated about this person and that it is verifiable. To Amarhindustani, you might try a little exercise where you write the article as if this person had recently died. Neutrally you would overview their life and accomplishments. Once you have that start migrating the current material together with it and add sourcing. Even if the article survives for now it will likely come back here if exponential improvements aren't made. -- Banjeboi 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories: Spiritual teachers and Advaitin philosophers. Could some one move this to the to the categories of Spritiual Teachers.

This is not much about the person but about the teaching. Please see other teachers who are already there in WIKI. Adyashanti,Ramana Maharshi,Ramesh Balsekar etc. The request is because --The yardstick used to evalutate the notablity etc will be very different in each category. For example --the publishers in each category and number and type of people accesing this information will vary. We cannot expect the same viewership and publishers reach ,and commercial value of article written for a baseball game and fencing. Please don't compare apples to oranges.Some of the comments above by you are very valuable . sprituality is not very commercial. so finding sources and adding them takes time. in addition to that --some one is this category. may add some very valuable points and can be of great help. Thank you for all the help and suggestions. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments
*Comment

Conference given at Non profit orginization in 2003 . [8] Other speakers in the conference are all very respected in their respective fields. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment

Every time ,I edit and discover something new . I was starting off with the word --Keep. Please count my vote as only one. where ever you find my login. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jwray a lot of the sources seem self published none of the links seem to establish notability definitely not enough to have a article. Kyle1278 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of multiple, independant articles per WP:BIO.TheRingess (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. The cited sources are non-RS websites or books published by minor presses. The subject's own books are themselves non-notable; a worldcat search shows that Eternity Now is carried by only 1 library (in Singapore), while his other English books are not carried by any library! Typically even obscure books can be found in 10-100s of libraries; consider for example Rod Dreher, whose bio was up for a recent contentious AFD; his book Crunchy Cons is found in 3077 libraries listed on Worldcat. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
*Comment : you are comparing the number of books and viewership of two different categories.

Please compare the same among the same category --advaita or nodualily.

Amarhindustani's comments
*Comment Could you please be more generic ..which of the sources are questionable and what is your criteria for your conclusion.


  • Comment

Thank you for the feedback. Some of the comments above have been very helpful.but some just are too generic and indicate lack of knowledge of the subject matter ,in that case my humble request to you --is to add comment but not vote . I would appreciate ,if you can be more specific.

1.About Notability and Sources: Please don't compare Apples to oranges.

Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers.

This Author’s books/references are published by Major publishers world wide ,i.e. Watkins [established 1894] Publishing; Publisher: Kamphausen[German] who also has published books of Eckhart Tolle etc, The books have been published in 4 languages --German ,French ,Spanish and English.

For example --please find the references of Adyashanti or any other speaker on similar subject. you will not find big publishers as you expect for Fictional Books. Note as per Wiki --"Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary".

  1. He has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable and intellectually independent.
  2. Some of the sources cited involve evaluation of the original information.
  3. People independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published .
  4. non-trivial works focus upon this subject.
  5. It is non trivial --- you have the subject in detail.
  6. A credible independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial.
  7. The person is regarded as an important figure and is widely cited by their peers or successors.

If you could extend the dead line for deleting the article ..I hope some more will be able to give ,constructive comments. Please give me few more days.

Amarhindustani (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. i am not an expert, but to my view the article is kind of new. i am not aware of how things work here, but i've seen much-flawed articles lasting for years before they were improved. either delete the article now and wait for the editors to publish it back when it is more suitable for wikipedia, or let them more time. however, deleting it now might prevent the editors working together in its "unflawing." this is just my philosophy, and it may well not be endorsed by wikipedia, but at least you've got my two cents about it. Twipley (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial boards. As noted above, Francis' work has been published in many languages and is cited in many books and articles. It is an important component of the contemporary literature on advaita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep . Dear Pundits, The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial

Francis Lucille speaks about "The Truth", "The Reality", "Our True Nature" . His teaching is associated with Non-duality, the common ground of Advaita Vedanta, Ch'an Buddhism, Zen,Taoism and Sufism, the same common ground which is at the core of the message from Sages, Saints, Jagadgurus and other prominent Advaita Teachers.The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial.

Please don't delete it, but humbly request The Pundits to point out the 'Blips' and the 'Gaps', so the Truth Seekers can come together to fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyogi (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Patyogi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me, to warrant a hold, and allow the article to grow! --Ekabhishek (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I had requested help through the talk pages from users who are familiar with the subject and might help me improve the material.Many are helping me with valuable suggestions.I have pointed them to the article.To give their feedback.Some one familiar with the subject will be more helpful to guide and suggest.The objective is to improve the article.

You are most welcome too. And by the way ,those I have requested help ...many of them have tagged it as delete. what they vote is not important.I found an interesting subject and need help to improve it. PERIOD.Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm seeing a few arguments here that basically state that this biographical article should be treated differently than all other biographical articles. Personally, those arguments are not compelling enough to actually treat it differently. It's my understanding that we have notability guidelines for several reasons but primarily to guarantee that all information in the article is backed up by reliable sources. If several reliable sources are added that talk about the subject (in the body of the article, not in the EL section) then I would change my mind. This debate is scheduled to last several more days, that should be plenty of time to add those secondary sources. I've gone ahead and removed most of the material that to my eyes, constituted original research and unverifiable claims so it reads less like an advert (reading like an advertisement is not grounds for deletion but improvement). I know the author of the article has put some hard work into the article, but it also takes a lot of hard work to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and processes and the reasons why those guidelines and processes exist.TheRingess (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks so much ...I appreciate all your help.Yes,As per your suggestions I will add some more sourcing.

I was of the impression that the article will be deleted in 5 days. That was the hurry. if we have few more days .. I will read about the rules in detail. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Th

    • Comment Regardless of how much time is left, perhaps more attention to the article and less canvassing of fellow editors. It should be a matter of hours or minutes, not days, to include the references from 3rd party reliable sources. Adding articles to Wikipedia is not always easy, but always rewarding.TheRingess (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you.There were too many rules and terminologies and it was going in circles..after some time ,I gave up.

As I was under the impression that the article would be deleted. But I did find some articles to illustrate what you have suggested. but ,still there are too may words.it seems as though ,I am fighting a case in court.Too overwhelming,and drowned in words :-) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Respectfully, from just my viewpoint, you are probably feeling overwhelmed, because instead of reading the guidelines that fellow human beings were pointing you towards, and thus putting forth the effort to address their concerns, you expended too much effort canvassing other editors, perhaps calling friends to ask them to contribute to this discussion, and arguing that essentially this article should be treated differently. That's a lot of effort to go to, and would probably exhaust anybody. As I mentioned, your efforts would have (and still can) be better spent addressing the concerns raised during this discussion (just a fellow human beings opinion which in no way reflects Wikipedia policy). The article will be deleted at the end of the discussion period, when an impartial admin reviews the discussion and makes a decision as whether or not consensus is to keep or delete. In other words, it's not over until it's over. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Point Taken.BTW,Only today ,I have requested others to help me out as I thought today was the last day to save the article,otherwise it might be deleted:-).I will take a closer look at all the information.Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
By the way someone put a rather biased plea to vote to keep the article on my user talk, with implications that whoever wanted it deleated "didn't understand spirituality". I expect that they have canvased many others in a similar fassion. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article's changed a lot since I last read it, and I notice that more than half the article now consists of citations and sources. I'm going to change my recommendation to userfy (which means that the article no longer appears in the main Wikipedia space, but it's still on Wikipedia in an unindexed space that's set aside for Amarhindustani, so that he can continue to work on it without pressure of deadlines and bring it back to a deletion review when he's made it ready in his own time.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete here - I like the suggestion above of move somewhere else, perhaps his own sandbox where he can work on it with help from those inputting here. I have my doubts that he will be able to establish notability. Francis may be a great guy and notable but he has not done much to get notability it appears. One must sometimes toot one's own horn to be heard or have someone else doing it but not via Wikipedia. Will help on sandbox effortJlrobertson (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment

I am trying to consolidate all the points suggested and planning to address them,one by one,just few more days will of great help.The material has sources,and I hope that some one stumbling on the article may pitch in too.There are tons of references in print media and comparatively not as much on-line-That adds to the delay.if you delete the article immediately then the chances to bring it back will be remote.Just my 2 cents. Your call.Amarhindustani (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them might have stumbled on this site. Those I have asked for help was only with the intention of asking them to cite any sources that they know in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned. As clearly mentioned at the page ,it is not about popular vote. so if any one just votes it can be neglected.Please see my comments above on 19 March 2009 to be precise --04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) on ,I have clearly mentioned this.I am consolidating all the points and suggestions given above and will modify accordingly.Thank youAmarhindustani (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ok since I find that there are few visits to this site ,I would like to consolidate the points mentioned above.so that some one might be able to address one or all of these. I need viewpoints and suggestions [backed up by very logical reason and supporting evidence) .
    • a) Link Spam ?
    • b) Self Published Sources  ?
    • c) The use of "cult" websites. ?
    • d) Promotional Nature of Article ?
    • e) "Significant coverage' in 'reliable sources" ?
    • f) "Not the most famous person with Francis Lucille in their name  ?
    • g) Notability not met by "a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality. ?
    • h) "Something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly."  ?
    • i) "Publication List being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. ?
    • (j) Most all of these issues relate to tone, notability and verifiability. ?
    • (k)Is the current tone acceptable?
    • (l) Publications are minor?

Most of thes were addressed,but I would like to know how may of the above are still open and need to be addressed.

Just as a brief note: Notability and verifiability have clear criteria:

    • 1)Significant coverage is deemed to be more than trivial but less than exclusive."
    • 2)From "reliable sources" :
      • a) Third Party published material
      • b) Secondary Sources
      • c) Peer Reviewed Journals
      • d) University Textbooks
      • e) Magazines, Journals and Books "published by respected publishing houses"
      • f) Mainstream Newspapers
      • g) Independent from subject.

Please give me your comments and supporting evidence. Amarhindustani (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will be adding these to the main section shortly.but wanted to bring these to your attention.
  • I have additional factual material for inclusion [Need some more time to include it in main section]:
  • 1) Book: Jan Kersschot, This Is It: Dialogues on The Nature of Oneness, London, Watkins Publishing. pp180-189, "Perfume of Peace", Interview with Francis Lucille; pp219-223, "Revelation of The Divine Hand", Second Interview with Francis Lucille. Complete chapters dedicated to Francis Lucille

I won't presume as to which section these should be listed in but, it is critical to point to the other authors interviewed in this third party published book include Eckhart Tolle,U.G. Krishnamurti, and Douglas Harding, contemporary teachers with current listings in Wikipedia. This addresses Item b ( Self Published), Item C ( Cult Websites, as other interviewees are in Wikipedia), Item g ( notability/namecheck). Table of contents available at [9]

  • 2)It should be noted that Paula Marvelley's book, The Teachers of One:Living Advaita has a complete chapter on Francis Lucille, entitled "Copernican Shift." This cite addresses Item b (self published), Item c ("cult websites"), and Item g (notability/namecheck) above.

Of note: Gangaji and Ramesh Balsekar, both non dual teachers listed in Wikipedia are other interviewees in this book.

  • 3)Also, the complete list of "namecheck" references for The Book of One, by Dennis Waite, . They are pp 31, 110, 165, 169, 188, 201, 206, 240, 248. This addresses the "namecheck" comment, Item G above.

The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders by Lynne Marie Lumiere.

  • 4.It is important to notice Wikipedia regarding the "third party

book publishers" who have published Francis Lucille in France and Germany. Both are independent publishers. The Publisher for Germany is J.Kamphausen/ Mediengruppe, which has an entire book line covering Advaita, including the German translations of "Silence of The Heart" by Robert Adams, "I am That" by Maharaj Nisargadatta, and many more. The website is here:[10] Similarly, the French publisher is Originel-accarias, the pre-eminent publisher of non duality books in that country. A list of authors is here:[11] including Wikipedia authors Douglas Harding and Osho and P.D. Ouspensky,Papaji (Poonja H.W.L) and Ramana Maharshi.

Website listing of authors:[12] Further, nondualite.free.fr is another peer reviewed website with work included by Francis Lucille, Ramesh Balsakar, and Jiddu Krishnamurti, all listed in Wikipedia.

  • Comment Can some one point me to any one article currently on WIKI which you think meets all the above criterion.

Under the same category, of course -Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. So that I can use that as reference to shape my article.Amarhindustani (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources at all about this spiritualist. Works self-published, and no other indications of wide fame, acclaim or infamy. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1995)

Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1995) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete These are just listings of songs based on listener voter tallies/requests [according to the article European Hit Radio Top 40, which I redirected to European Hit Radio (which itself has neutrality issues)] --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comment that these are unofficial charts no different than a radio station's most requested songs of the week. Non-encylopedic and probably WP:IINFO. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Hit Radio Top 100 (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Yates

Chip Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable autobiography, few Google hits and no Google news hits. Prod was removed by swigzracing, a group affiliated with the subject. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The links are pretty much just single appearances of his name, and the article talks just as much about his personal life (not really notable for a racer) as his racing one. The article doesn't really include much linking and I'm not even sure the competitions he's been in are notable. Vincent Valentine 16:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory James MacLaren-Jackson

Rory James MacLaren-Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

have added details of rory's youth enterprise training in schools. --Trialfinder (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added references and citations for different area of rory's activities. Note, as stated in article he writes under his middle names 'Rory James', so I have added the link to his book 'Dude, Where's My Career?' on Amazon.co.uk and some additional articles and interviews. --Trialfinder (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC) — Trialfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Still doesn't indicate notability. No significant coverage. See WP:N LetsdrinkTea 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears not to be notable, I was unable to find any relevant hits on google and no reliable sources either. LetsdrinkTea 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead up to the Iraq War

Lead up to the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Article is a copy of the intro to the Iraq War main article. It would require a complete rewrite to make it a new article. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glabermania

Glabermania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a neologism. Other than the Wikipedia article, Google gets only one hit, from a doctor who purports to treat the condition, and Google Scholar gets no hits, indicating that the term is not used in the medical literature. A request to the author for sources that use the term has gone unanswered. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This is a neologism and hasn't caught on yet. I found only one reliable source: [85] (through google news). If this later catches on, it will be used in more sources and we can recreate the page. Cazort (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT, WP:NEO LetsdrinkTea 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm inclined to make a weak call of hoax. One of the first links - Glaber - is a redirect to author Rodulfus Glaber, indicating nothing on having a desire to be physically hairless. On a Google search, the only other note I have is for the Naked Mole Rat (heterocephalus glaber), but dictionary definitions either point (in [answers.com]) to as a species in reference to H. glaber, and dictionary.com points back to the aformentioned Mr. Glaber. In fact, links in general seem to point to Glaber as a surname. Of the web links, the first is 404 compliant, and the second goes to a page that's been around possibly a year. References below are all over the chart - for example, reference 2 indicates a desire to shave twice daily, but the article in question is about "Massive foreign object ingestion". I see one on hirsuitism. The article even goes in, hinting upon it as somewhat of a sexual fetish. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Dennisthe2. MathCool10 Sign here! 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 16 hits on Google, and most of them aren't even in English. I think I'd have to agree that it's a neologism. Matt (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Touring Theatre Company

Y Touring Theatre Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for small theatre company. No suggestion of notability, and the creation of COI account Ytouring (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


How is this article an advert when they are not a commercial company?

It seems like a theatre company that invented a model of theatre practice i.e 'theatre of debate' might have some notibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomface (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enchirito

Enchirito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think they're pretty tasty, but do they really need an article? I can't find a single source pertaining to the food item proper, and I see virtually nothing worth merging to Taco Bell if we can hardly even verify what goes into it. Also, the article has been orphaned since November 06 and tagged for OR since September 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy . MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science Association of Mid America

Creation Science Association of Mid America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, marginal organization in pseudoscience community. Tagged as an orphan for a year and for notablity in September. Brief mentions in three books don't assert importance. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article has been deleted as 'created by serial hoaxer' who has, as Nick-D notes, been blocked for this behaviour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Turner Staubenzie

Major Turner Staubenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(PROD removed without explanation by creator) Unreferenced, Non-notable soldier. A google search turns up 1 site which isn't a Wikipedia mirror. No news/scholar hits, but one books hit. Seems to have done nothing extraordinary in his career as a soldier. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ircloop

Ircloop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unable to find anything that states that this site is notable. Unless I'm missing something, this site appears to fail WP:WEB. — neuro(talk) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMBr57

HMBr57 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge as a non-notable fork of a piece of software which we don't have an article on (r57shell). This isn't a shell script (the article is incorrect in this regard); it's a dynamically generated web page (like most other PHP applications) that can be used to execute commands on a web server. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have an article which describes r57shell, c99shell, or their ilk. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. This is essentially a web script written in PHP. Not notable and not appropriate for a merge to PHP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First off, there's no reliable sources that talk about it. Second, about half of the Google hits I found have been taken down and give me a 404 error when I try to look at them. Third, most of the OTHER sources I found weren't even in English (I know, I shouldn't be using that as an argument, but when there's no sources in English, that kinda says something against its notability). Fourth, the websites that were in English that hadn't been taken down made it look like this was a security hack to be used on a compromised web server -- in fact, the article on linux.com that's linked to in the article has comments posted on it to the effect of "this is the worst idea ever! Why would you install something like this on your web server??". Fifth, the sources that the article lists don't even use the term "HMBr57" in them -- they talk about "PHP Shell" instead, which is written by Martin Geisler, NOT Hosam Badreldin. So, in conclusion, I'd say that my best argument in favor of deleting this is that both it and its author both fail the notability test. Anything else and I'd just be rambling on. Matt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the current search results for "hmbr57" are, in fact, Middle Eastern web boards which got hacked and had this script installed on them. A few of them even haven't been fixed yet. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Goodbuzz

Slim Goodbuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable anonymous author. Only links are primary sources. Topic seems to be just a advert hook to a blog page. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMBr57

HMBr57 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge as a non-notable fork of a piece of software which we don't have an article on (r57shell). This isn't a shell script (the article is incorrect in this regard); it's a dynamically generated web page (like most other PHP applications) that can be used to execute commands on a web server. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have an article which describes r57shell, c99shell, or their ilk. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. This is essentially a web script written in PHP. Not notable and not appropriate for a merge to PHP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First off, there's no reliable sources that talk about it. Second, about half of the Google hits I found have been taken down and give me a 404 error when I try to look at them. Third, most of the OTHER sources I found weren't even in English (I know, I shouldn't be using that as an argument, but when there's no sources in English, that kinda says something against its notability). Fourth, the websites that were in English that hadn't been taken down made it look like this was a security hack to be used on a compromised web server -- in fact, the article on linux.com that's linked to in the article has comments posted on it to the effect of "this is the worst idea ever! Why would you install something like this on your web server??". Fifth, the sources that the article lists don't even use the term "HMBr57" in them -- they talk about "PHP Shell" instead, which is written by Martin Geisler, NOT Hosam Badreldin. So, in conclusion, I'd say that my best argument in favor of deleting this is that both it and its author both fail the notability test. Anything else and I'd just be rambling on. Matt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the current search results for "hmbr57" are, in fact, Middle Eastern web boards which got hacked and had this script installed on them. A few of them even haven't been fixed yet. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyInfo

MyInfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. On google I can see download sites that carry it and a couple reviews in personal websites [93]. Best source I could find is a 2002 review from the owner of Sitepoint, who calls it "yet another variation of the NoteCenter concept"[94]. The only source in the article is a single review in wikipedia which is signed by the software maker[95] (doh). Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Dweck

Stephan Dweck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reason per Phil to establish notability-almost anything featured in the New York Times can be automatically considered to be notable enough for its own article; as for references, that can be easily fixed. In fact, I might do that now. Even though it hasn't even reached Start class yet, it can be easily changed into a B or even GA article if enough effort is poured into it. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources found are substantial coverage, subject does not appear to meet any of the additional criteria in WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caricom Airways

Caricom Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are zero sources available which gives this "airline" any notability. Am thinking it is quite possibly a hoax. Russavia Dialogue 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not a hoax -- I found some lists of airlines including "Caribbean Commuter Airways" (Caricom), but is existence as a commuter airline sufficiently notable? Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide those lists? Because the alleged ICAO code and callsign does not exist in ICAO 8585-146, and has been removed by myself from the article. But even then, mere existence in a directory doesn't confer notability. --Russavia Dialogue 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documentation

Via where can I provide you with documentation? my e-mail: s.chin@caricomairways.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.190.58 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renegade Five. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrounded Universe

Undergrounded Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no information given aside from one sentence (which is a general summary) Ejg930 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Harris

Andres Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I placed a PROD on this article that was quickly removed, article concerns non notable architect that is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound & The Story

AfDs for this article:
The Sound & The Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Instructional DVD. The author/instructor is notable, the DVD itself is not. Delete, or at the very least merge to Blackbird (album).  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Vakili

Hamed Vakili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ferreira

Graham Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardmen RFC

Hardmen RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. This isn't the Otago University Rugby Club, whiich would be notable - it's simply one of the social teams which plays in the University's competition. Hardly of any particular note even locally, let alone beyond Dunedin. NOTE: Looks like it has had a CSD notice attached to it at some point which was removed by the article's creator. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate nationalism

Corporate nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not cite any relevant sources, and no effort has been made to find them since the page was tagged 5 months ago. Article should be deleted under WP:NOR Jonovision (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has cited two sources:
The very first edit claimed the text was "Taken from the Christian Falangist Party of America website." (Christian Falangist Party of America "is dedicated to fighting the "Forces of Darkness" which seek to destroy our Western Judeo-Christian Civilization", in case you haven't heard of it. I hadn't). I couldn't actually find the relevant text on their website.
The current version cites a collection of essays called "Sport and Corporate Nationalisms". From page 7: "Simply put, and prefigured on the operations and machinations of multi-, trans-, and supra-national entities, the politico-cultural nation of the nineteenth century has been replaced by the corporate-cultural nation of the twenty-first century. We have termed this process, corporate nationalisms, processes that are qualitatively distinct from those that helped to constitute the symbolic boundaries of maturing nation-states during the nineteenth century." The authors seem to have coined the term specifically for this book, and it conflicts with what's in the article. It smells of someone googling for "corporate nationalism" to find references, and not actually reading them.
How do you guys even know that "corporate nationalism" means what the article says it does? --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
  • The article has lacked valid citations for 5 years
  • I looked for references, and couldn't find any, which led me to believe that the article contained original research
  • The one citation that is currently in the article is clearly worthless, and anyone who bothered to read it would realize that in a minute.
  • I assumed that nobody else even checked that invalid source, because it wasn't removed, and I also assumed that nobody else made any effort to find valid sources, as none have been uncovered.
  • If anyone who has tried and failed to find sources for this article before I nominated for deletion, I apologize for suggesting that you didn't make an effort.
  • I applaud the efforts of anyone who has looked for references since I nominated the article for deletion. However, suggesting that I haven't is a personal attack. I'm deeply offended by the previous comment, and would appreciate an apology. I care about the quality of Wikipedia's content, and I nominated the article for deletion because I sincerely believe that its content is dubious.
To summarize:
  • This article does not have any valid references, and several users have commented that they believe the content is dubious
  • The single reference which is on the page provides a conflicting definition
  • The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. Nobody has stepped up to provide sources, despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --Jonovision (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Corporatism does necessarily mean commercial corporation. The corporatist political culture extends to cultures that regard the family or extended family as the corporate group which the corporatists hold to be the primary unit of society. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the people who want to delete it could use the most elucidation on the topic.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Gregbard. MathCool10 Sign here! 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure how more discussion is going to help us reach consensus, because so far everyone in favor of keeping the article has simply said "The article can get better, give it a chance", or "There are references all over the news". Nobody has seriously responded to my concerns, so I'm going to ask a few basic questions. I hope the people who want to keep this article would be kind enough to answer them, and that this might kickstart a discussion.
  • Where did you first hear the term "Corporate Nationalism"? (In school? From a book? From the wikipedia article?)
  • Have you ever seen a work that provided a definition of the term, or did you infer its meaning from the context?
  • What indications have you encountered that the concept is notable, and not just a term that's used in a small handful of academic papers?
--Jonovision (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Think the term is mentioned in a couple of texts about the "learning company", an Australian version of learning organisations. Ottre 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Jono, you are obviously feel very strongly about this article which I do not. However, I always find the deletionist/immediateist view fascinating. You are crying out for references and that's fine. However, no references really only justifies deleting particular statements not entire articles. I don't see what the urgency is with you? I think I have resolved any controversy arising in the article through a substantial cut and reword. Jono, aside from the crdibility issues, do you have ANY objection to the statement on the topic currently? I.e. do you deny that Corp. nationalism is what is claimed in the article? If you do, there is a direction for people like me to go, by way of responding. If you are just demanding that people head to the library to satisfy your urgency, I don't know what to tell you other than "no deadline". We actually can go a long way on consensus, if we have consensus builders. If you have no content objections, you probably should just let it go. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg, I do have content objections. When I tried to find references that support the content of the article, I found the term being used in ways that conflict with the article's definition. [96] and [97] use the term in the context of national identities being influenced by corporate activities. [98] uses the term in the context of government intervention against foreign control of companies. In [99], it refers to trade protectionism. I think Aymathh2 said it better than I could: this is a term which "means whatever the use wants it to mean". --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I didn't really feel that strongly about the article when I nominated it for deletion. When I first came across it last week, I assumed it was a valid article, and went out to look for sources so that I could remove the citation tag. I was surprised that I couldn't find any, and even more surprised when I looked at the article's history, and saw that it never had any sources for 5 years, and that nobody was maintaining it. What I do feel strongly about is that the people defending the article seem to have a strong bias against fact checking. I feel like I'm the only person here who has actually tried to verify the validity of the content. If anyone else has looked, they haven't admitted that they have come up empty-handed. --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the current article is merely a dicdef. There does need to be some evidence of its general use. DGG (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the article history, different editors have held different views of what the phrase means: corporations should advance national goals; nations should favor the interests of corporations; nations should delegate some roles to corporations etc. Seems like a dictionary definition of a term that is not widely used, and then means whatever the user wants it to mean. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update. This phrase has been bugging me. It is like "Progressive Conservative": what does it mean? Took a break, took the dog for a walk, had some food, still bugging me. So I dug around a bit and found five meanings, which I have added the article. I suspect there are more. This would be no problem with a Wiktionary entry, which welcomes definitions of all the meanings of a term in one article, but it clearly violates the WP:DICTIONARY policy, which says that each meaning should have its own article. Any volunteers to turn this one into a disambiguation page pointing to five (or more) dicdef-type articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work Aymatth2, I think this is quite a bit better than what we had before. I'm not sure about how we could split this up into five articles, though, since we don't have enough high-quality sources to establish notability for each individual definition. --Jonovision (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not trying to save the article. As it stands, it is in clear violation of WP:DICTIONARY policy: "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data).". I don't think any of the meanings warrant a new Wikipedia article. Existing articles on Nationalism, Nationalization, Corporatism etc. cover the concepts. I have added a Wiktionary entry (see link in this article's page) which I think is sufficient. I suppose, maybe, the page could be turned into a sort of disambiguation page giving the different meanings and pointing to the articles that discuss these meanings. I would prefer to just delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox-Rays rivalry

Red Sox-Rays rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD. The Article highlights a baseball rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays. Should we keep this? –BuickCenturyDriver 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know. You're the one nominating it. Please provide a reason on why you think it should be deleted, or why you believe a discussion is warranted. We're not here to mindread. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you weren't sure, why did you remove the PROD? And if you're not sure, then it's probably not notable enough. Anyway, I initially PRODed this article, since it's about a rivalry of dubious notability, based on a single season when these two teams were the two best teams in the American League East. It narrates a few episodes but otherwise there's no information about the rivalry itself. --Mosmof (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any time two teams compete in the same division for the same title and playoff spots, there is significant rivalry. The only issue in this case is the fact that the 2008 season was the first time the Rays were ever in significant playoff contention. The article needs cleanup and referencing, but numerous sources [100] [101] [102] [103] exist. Rklear (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By that logic, we should have articles on every divisional and localized interleague "rivalry" that exists. Not every rivalry is as notable as Red Sox-Yankees, or Dodgers-Yankees, or Cubs-White Sox to warrant its own article. By virtue of the fact that the Rays interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox dance that dominated the AL East for most of this decade, of course any match with the Rays and either the Red Sox or Yankees will become an intense showdown. Merge useful content into Tampa Bay Rays, Boston Red Sox, 2008 Tampa Bay Rays season, 2008 Boston Red Sox season. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this,[104] there were a few interesting incidents between the teams before 2008, but you'd never know that by reading the article in question. It basically serves as a recap of what happened last year, which can be summarized in the teams' season articles. For now, I'm going to say delete. I just don't see how this can be viewed as a real rivalry after just one season, and the article doesn't make a case as it stands. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess it would help if there was some sort of guideline for determining what is and isn't a notable rivalry. It's obvious there are rivalries, and then rivalries. For example, Rays and Red Sox were undeniably rivals in 2008, and you wouldn't have much trouble finding articles discussing the two teams as rivals. But any reference to rivalry is limited to the 2008 season. If the Rays plummet back to earth, I imagine they will cease to be rivals, whereas the Yankees and Red Sox will most likely remain rivals even if one team is in last place and the other is headed to the World Series. Also, "rivalry" is sort of indiscriminate/undefined - two teams in the same division are, by definition, rivals. But that doesn't mean they're rivals. I have similar concerns about Battle of Ohio (MLB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mets-Braves rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Mets–Phillies rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I'm curious to see what arguments are raised for keep or delete. --Mosmof (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. They may be in the same the division, but they're over 1000 miles apart and have only really played one notable series. It's not exactly Duke-North Carolina... Hippopotamus (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hippopotamus. The Red Sox and Yankees are one of the most significant rivalries in professional sporting and have a history going back to the beginning of modern baseball, the first time the Red Sox and Rays played each other in the postseason was last year. There might be some ill-will on the part of Red Sox Nation, but common sense says that a single postseason defeat isn't enough for a true rivalry to form. I'm not saying that it isn't brewing, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles are written on already notable subjects, not ones that might become so someday. -Senseless!... says you, says me 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, it's pretty clear the two teams are going to be rivals this year, too, and it makes little sense to delete an article that is on the borderline of notability when that notability is fairly certain in the near future. The article can be improved by discussing the previous ten years, the Rays signing Wade Boggs, etc. But I can also see an argument for consolidating this and similar articles into American League East Division rivalries, where notability is less of a close question. Incidentally, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry in the sense Mr. Senseless is talking about only dates back about 30 years: the Red Sox and Yankees were almost never good at the same time until the mid-70s. THF (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- While I understand the need for sports fans to compare every rivalry to Yankees-Red Sox or UNC-Duke, that isn't the standard by which articles are determined to be notable or not at Wikipedia. A topic only need be covered by independent, third party sources. If the rivalry only existed in 2008, perhaps it would make sense to rename/move the article to 2008 Red Sox-Rays Rivalry or something of the sort. There is no reason or precedent that shows that these articles should be treated any differently than any other article in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the strong feelings against this and articles like it are driven more by personally-held sports opinions/emotions than Wikipedia's standards and community-accepted practices. SMSpivey (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be covered by Wikinews, not Wikipedia.--Sloane (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. As of now the only thing that makes this a rivalry is that they ran very close last season for the AL East and the then in the ALCS. One season doesn't make it a rivalry. BUC (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't seen much in the way of policy discussion here, mostly point of view on what constitutes a rivalry. If someone (the nominator himself as a good faith gesture, or Rklear who seems to have taken the time to research this) would take the time to actually add references, this article would fit even the most strict definitions for inclusion (WP:N, WP:V). I think this AfD is premature and the issues would have been best worked out on the article itself and it's talk page. By the way, a good copy edit and redesign of the article wouldn't hurt either. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll be making some general improvements to the article as part of WP:ARS. Magnetic Rag (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brasstronaut

Brasstronaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Speedy tag was removed with "(decline speedy - may be notable (check Google News))", so I did check Google News, and got only three articles, none of them proof of notability. In addition, all three of the hits are to www.pressdisplay.com, which is a compendium of back articles from a variety of newspapers, but every one of them is apparently removed from pressdisplay's database, so even if you wanted to pay to read them, they're no longer available. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Myst (series). MBisanz talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterium

Mysterium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, notability not established, I can't picture it ever being established, nor can I picture it being developed into an sourced article that isn't just a list of locations. I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons, if not more:

Mystralia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rehevkor ✉ 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A simple google search on Mysterium + Convention turns out plenty of RS which can be used to establish notability. Instead of pulling the AfD trigger, there are many ways to flag an article for sourcing... or even improve it directly. MLauba (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for notability issues and it was not addressed. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Redirect and apologies. My previous vote and the google check were made in a hurry without proper verification on my part. I do however not retract my gut reaction to the tone of the Nom, which to me reads like "I don't know about it so it can't be notable" the way it was phrased. MLauba (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle
  2. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jBLUI0oS794C&pg=PA29&dq=%22Francis+Lucille%22#PPA5,M1
  3. ^ http://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=70
  4. ^ http://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=70
  5. ^ http://www.dbponline.co.uk/WebFiles/watkins_catalogue.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.ennea.org/what.html
  7. ^ http://www.ennea.org/articles/EM_author_index.pdf
  8. ^ "Inner Directions [Non Profit Organization] Conference,2003" (PDF). p. 44.
  9. ^ www.thirdmg.com
  10. ^ http://weltinnenraum.de/oxid.php/cl/alist/cnid/spirituelle-tradition-advaita/pgNr/3
  11. ^ http://www.originel-accarias.com/Edition/auteurs.html
  12. ^ http://www.revue3emillenaire.com/contacts/contacts.php?menu=contacts&page=liens_auteurs
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_10&oldid=276346409"