Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:42, 30 January 2009

< January 29	January 31 >

Guide to deletion

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Lamar

Not notable, fails WP:BIO as well as WP:ENTERTAINER. No reliable sources are available to attest to notability. I tagged the article two weeks ago asking for reliable sources, and none were added. I went searching on my own (Gale and ProQuest) and found no significant interviews, only a few quotes, some photographs, and some mentions in the Village Voice about her party promoting. Although she has appeared in a few films in the last few years, she has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films". Although the article is three years old, I believe it doesn't meet today's stricter standards for notability. The article right now just seems to serve as a vanity page for Sophia Lamar, one that she might have started and/or tried to maintain herself. cswpride (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 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 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coter

This constructed language does not attempt to establish notability and was created by a small group of people on Second Life. It's not even on the conlang Wikia. Theymos (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Theymos (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Have also removed some astroturfing at Romance languages and International auxiliary languages. Maralia (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable conlang. —An gr 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something made up in ~~school~~ Second Life one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:02, 30 January 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 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Baxter Utley

Unsourced article, alludes to notability by association, but not notable in own right. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His chief claim to fame appears to be the two companies he founded, Flip It Records and Pagoda Ventures. There is a mention of him in relation to the Flip-It Records release of the Dolly Parton's single in a brief Time Magazine article: People: Move over Madonna, here's Dolly. And that's it. No other commercially released recordings and 0 press coverage of the company, [1] apart from the April 7, 1997 Time article. Likewise 0 general web coverage in reliable, independent sources, just a few digital downloads, and used promo recordings for sale. The WP article itself says the company closed after 2 years because of "licensing disputes" with Universal Music Group. As for Pagoda Ventures, if it is "one of the world's major metal trading companies" as the article asserts, there would be more coverage in Google news than this [2]. Likewise, no significant general web coverage by reliable independent sources [3]. These are the Google News results (all dates) for "Kyle Baxter Utley" [4], presumably a different "Kyle Baxter Utley"? (e.g. "U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White says Kyle Baxter Utley was engaged in a host of fraud schemes from 1992 to 1997." - UPI, 10-15-1998) See also general web results for "Kyle Baxter Utley [5] and "Kyle Utley" [6]. I also have a subscription to the Highbeam publications library. Nothing there either, apart from what's already been mentioned. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to satisfy WP:N.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:12, 30 January 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 Electronic billing. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBillMe

No refs, no notability (asserted or otherwise). flaming lawyer 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets plenty of hits on google - there's a website called ebillme.com which certainly appears to have some notability. However this is bordering on advertising. I would suggest redirecting to Electronic billing unless someone improves it. -- role^player 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to really editing Wikipedia, but I'm trying to do my honest best. This is NOT advertising any more than any page on any business. Now, I think it might be good to have some general page that describes the type of service this is, and lists eBillMe as one provider. Fact is, objective information about this type of service is valid. It is not simply Electronic Billing, because it doesn't actually work like that, but rather uses that system in order to function, but it is a different service. I don't know that ebillme should be a unique wikipedia page, but it SHOULD be listed and explained somewhere on wikipedia. Objective comparison of its functions versus Paypal or Google Checkout or others is valid. Those other services are discussed here at wikipedia. eBillMe is unique in its operation. I first found out about it when using a site that offered it and I came to wikipedia hoping to find more information. I admit the initial article was not ideal, but my hope was that it would just be a start and eventually an article up to wikipedia's standards would be developed. --Backfromquadrangle (talk) 15:54, 27 January 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 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An online business that contains no references and no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article should be improved. As of today this company has 70 hits on ProQuest Newspapers, 68 on InfoTrac OneFile (Gale), and 9,630,000 hits on Google; it is currently involved in an intellectual property case in the U.S.(Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00897-CCB) with another company we have an article for Billmelater.com (ProQuest: 42,Infotrac: 4); and we have yet another article for at least one similar service, eWise (ProQuest:32,InfoTrac:10). There certainly should be enough Wikipedia:RS to prove NP:Notability. If the original author needs assistance with improving this page, perhaps the Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron could help? cswpride (talk) 21:30, 1 February 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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's Watched, Everyone's Watching

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:37, 27 January 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 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heavy Heavy Low Low A mention of the album in the groups article is justifiable. A full seperate article is not. Pedro : Chat 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:39, 31 January 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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Kids Kids

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:36, 27 January 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 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heavy Heavy Low Low A mention of the album in the gropus article is justifiable. A full seperate article is not.Pedro : Chat 14:53, 30 January 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 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawodu

Maybe the article on the surname should remain, but I'm not even sure of that. The list of names appears non-notable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I deleted persons without notability potential. - 7-bubёn >t 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - could someone direct me to WP guidance on surnames as entries? J L G 4 1 0 4 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The etymology, translations, pronunciations, and so forth of a noun, proper or common, can be handled at Wiktionary. Surname articles are essentially name disambiguations. People are often commonly known, or referred to, by solely their family names. Therefore surname articles disambiguate amongst all of the people with that surname, and link to Wiktionary with {{wiktionary}}, or even explicitly in the introduction, for the dictionary entry on the proper noun. See Busch, for example. Uncle G (talk) 04:23, 30 January 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 00:53, 25 January 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 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Uncle G. It looks like this should be a disambig page, but I'm still new and not sure how to do that. I would recommend (not knowing the technical term): turn into disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlg4104 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawodu is a popular Nigerian surname that is derived from its different Arabic versions like DAWOOD, DAUD,etc, all meaning first son or David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.155.175 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 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 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRU Youth Leagues: Blues Region

Non notable youth league. Not fully professional. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V Nouse4aname (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Blues are a major club so I feel this article is notable although there is a lack of encyclopaedic information. It just needs to be expanded. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This has nothing to do with the Blues, it just refers to a league consisting of youth teams in their region. Note that notability is not inherited and that youth teams are not fully professional and thus do not generally satisfy notability criteria. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:23, 20 January 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 00:42, 25 January 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 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - youth leagues are not generally notable, this one seems no exception -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 30 January 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 Thug Ride. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dozia Slim

Not only is this a very short article with little context, it also fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Moreover, the only Google hits I could find lead to YouTube, message boards, and unsourced wikis. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if anything, maybe this article should instead be merged to White Dawg. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:25, 21 January 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 00:48, 25 January 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 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term to Thug Ride. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:37, 31 January 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 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hooper

Malcolm Hooper does not have the notability by WP:PROF, he is retired professor without notable accomplishment in biochemistry. There is a few Malcolm Hoopers in Google News like a cricket player and a member of fascist party from 1930s. This Malcolm Hooper is most known as lay activist for chronic fatigue syndrome but there is not reliable sources and he is not a recognized expert. I do not find sources about him, but some do mention him but I do not think it is significant. RetroS1mone talk 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a typical minor academic with emeritus syndrome, but he got significant mention in the press for his campaigning. Apart from the Guardian piece currently cited in the article, there's also another Guardian article on his feud with Wessely and a briefer mention here in a Guardian article on Gulf War Syndrome. That's just the first two mentions in a minute's searching. N p holmes (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note, Hoooper does not have notability in WP:PROF, he can have notability in general bio guidelines. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" The guardian piece in the article is primary, by Hoooper it is not about Hooper so not independent. The articles N p holmes says about are primary sources. Do you get notability by your name mentioned in a few primary sources, i do not know but i do not think so, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". RetroS1mone talk 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here: the articles I am citing here are what most people would call secondary sources. The first at least is not just a mention – it discusses Hooper at length. N p holmes (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Just looking at the career as a medicinal chemist, based on Web of Science I find 31 peer-reviewed papers on chemistry,in good journals, highest citations 20, 18, 17. This is a minor career, mostly from the days when it was Sunderland Polytechnic, and probably would not have gotten him a professorship today at Sutherland. He may be more prominent with respect to autism. DGG (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor career, but seems important in the political debate around CFS. Sam Weller (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough independent news coverage to justify inclusion under WP:BIO, even after skipping false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:38, 4 February 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) — neuro^(talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Government: NationStates

This game has no assertion of notability, and, as the article stands right now, it doesn't appear to meet the notability standards. If you look at the references, they're all simply from the website, therefore, they don't meet the standards of WP:ReliableSources. EDIT: I see that it was kept last time, but there are still no reliable sources or claims to notability. If it's kept, the article needs verifiable references. hmwith τ 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty popular site. Here are some third party references: [7], [8], [9]. TJ Spyke 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty discouraged with Wikipedians' ~~inconsistent~~ completely random decisions on browser games at AfD, but surely we should have an article on Nation States, at least.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some google news search sources: [10], [11]. Definately notable. Fribbler (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJ Spyke. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable as one of very few occasions a novelist has created a game to promote his novel. JulesH (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Here's another 3rd-party news source[12] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:44, 30 January 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 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009

Subtle, yet blatant attempt by a Weiss staffer to get his name out there to voters ahead of the rest of the pack. In that sense, especially since it was obviously created by someone affiliated with Weiss, this violates WP:ADS. Actually, this article should be speedy deleted under CSD G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly written, fails WP:ADS. Willydick (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator of this article added Jack Weiss' campaign web site as an external link to Los Angeles City Attorney, even though he is not the current City Attorney. IMHO, this is clear evidence that the creator is working on behalf of Weiss' campaign to promote his candidacy. FYI: I reverted that edit on the article. Also, I have no axe to grind against Weiss, nor am I a resident of the City of Los Angeles, so I can't even vote in the election, so this is not based on anything other than Wikipedia's policies. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain i am not sure whether this special election to a local office is notable--it is a significant office in a major city, as municipal offices go. As for the spam, I dealt with it by editing. Fortunately, there's a reliable NPOV reference. DGG (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that no one is talking about that election here in the LA area yet (media, buzz around the street), I'd say it's not notable yet. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This an election taking place this year - as opposed to other elections for which we have articles that are years away (e.g. United States presidential election, 2012; United States presidential election, 2016). The election is going to happen and the article cites only candidates who have already declared, so there's no problem with WP:CRYSTAL. NPOV problems can be dealt with by editing. The only issue that's left is whether this election is itself notable, and given that it's an election (as just mentioned) this year, I lean slightly towards retention. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep LA is bigger than some countries, so though this would not be a significant level election in almost any other city, it is probably significant enough to be included in a not-paper encyclopedia. Spammy content removed. Sourcing available. Not a matter of "not notable yet." The import of the office makes it notable. Query, I thought Gmatsuda was not in LA? Anyway, anyone concerned with this being used as an election campaign tool should keep an I on it. Or give me a ding, and I'll have a look at it. Dloh cierekim 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am in the LA area, but do not live in the City of Los Angeles, so I am not eligible to vote in this election. Don't even know anything about any of the candidates, nor do I care. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's an election occuring this year for a key politcal office in a major city. There may not be much to say about it yet, but at some point this election will warrant an article, the only question seems to be when, and since there is already information, albeit scanty, from a reliable source, it seems like now is appropriate.Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 3 February 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 Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Millander

Non-notable character in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Was a corrupt judge who only made three appearances on the show--not enough to make him a minor or recurring character in my opinion. No third party sources, no reason to believe he's any more notable than any other murderer from any other episode. Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree were this a minor character but three appearances total on a show, two of which were simply minor appearances as a judge, that has been on the air for nine years hardly constitutes including on such a list. As you can see from my edit history, I've been redirecting and tagging such articles tonight and I simply do not feel that this character even warrants being included in a minor characters list in the grand scheme of things. He's not one of the notable arc-long murderers so there is nothing to distinguish him from any other murderer in any other episode of CSI. Redfarmer (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Not enough for an article. Lacks real world significance, but might help flesh out a minor character list. Dloh cierekim 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Let that article discuss the level of detail. Probably won't be more than a sentence or two but that's all the in-world information that's necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. This particular character was one of the few criminals to appear in multiple episodes and his appearance in the first one was significant to the development of the show. Calling him a minor character really isn't accurate. Also, the idea that a character needs real world significance to be included at all (whether separate article or in a list) would leave significant holes in coverage on fiction. It is verifiability that should be key. If there's a lack of sources describing the character, then he can be merged in the list (actor information and number of appearances with a shortened plot summary). That solution would be in line with policy and not require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 3 February 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 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire's Unnatural Twin

A band that fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. 2 albums on a small, non-notable label (possibly self released). Searching pulls up nothing of of substance. Of the references in the article, one is a dead link and searching shows the band isn't mentioned in the other. While the previous AfD was no consensus back in Nov 2005, the criteria for notability has come a long way since then. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and unsourced. Jofakēt (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I did not see an assertion of significance in the article. I did not find any non trivial RS Online. The online source I found was from Wikipedia. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:36, 3 February 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 via CSD A7. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punching mercury

Willydick (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've gotta be kidding!!! half the stuff on here is crap that no one even cares about, so why not let me add to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colortunumba (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-No Notability established. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not covered under the criteria for speedy deletion. You must quote a criteria for it to be considered for speedy. Redfarmer (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted that, as of this comment, no rationale has yet been posted for deletion. I will leave a note on the user's talk page. Redfarmer (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD A7, article admits that band is not significant. Already tagged. Redfarmer (talk) 03:03, 30 January 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. Userfied before deletion. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

911 Missing Links

Absolutely do NOT delete this entry. Whether you agree or disagree, this entry relates to a valid topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.26.165 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable conspiracy google video. Blatant spam but admin refused speedy delete. Peephole (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Phaser901, the original author of the Wikipedia article in question. It most certainly is not "blatant spam". The article is intended as information and summary on a significant 911 conspiracy-related documentary. Please detail to me how I should move this article from "spam-grade" to acceptable? What sentences in particular are problematic? I have outlined the subjects discussed in the film. They can easily be confirmed by watching the content of the film. Also note that it is not a Google Video release, the primary dissemination is through the official website. This is similar to other popular Internet releases such as Zeitgeist; GV just happens to be popular for viewing. Also it is not "non-notable" as it discusses topics both inside and outside the scope of current 9/11 conspiracy research. There is little "retreading on old ground" as is found on many Loose-Change like releases. Phaser501 (talk)

Withholding keep or delete opinion, as the author has asked a very cogent question and shows a desire to improve the article to meet wiki standards. At the very least, the closing admin should seriously consider WP:USERFYing the article back to its author in the event of a delete being upheld. To the author, I strongly suggest finding and showing sources that show notability... that is, reviews or commmentary about the film from sources not related to the subject... and not from blogs. Bring in reviews from major sites, either positive or negative to show real-world interest in the film itself. Feel free to ask for my input, as I am not familiar with the film, but am so on what Wiki expects for an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and reads like a news release. Jofakēt (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided for this article are worthless; two are simply links to the video itself, and two are links to blogs. None of them provide any form of noteability and they all fail the sourcing guidelines. Jtrainor (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please WP:USERFY this back to User:Phaser501/sandbox/911 Missing Links. It may yet gain sourcing that meets wiki's standards and he might bring it back then. No need to chase of a contributor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : non-notable. Locewtus (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Speedy Delete This has no place on an encyclopaedia. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:29, 3 February 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 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDK carbine

I am not convinced this gun actually existed, or if it did, as any more than a one-off or prototype. I have been unable to find any reliable reference to it either on the internet or in any of my reference books and the article itself provides dubious references at best. This article appears to have been written using third hand information and hearsay, and I do not believe it can be improved as there just doesn't appear to be any information on the subject available to either verify or improve the article with. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Had a look myself, could be a hoax. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have an inkling that I've got some information on this tucked away and it rings a bell. I'll hit the books and see what I dig up. Justin talk 18:11, 30 January 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 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Seems to be De Lisle carbine. I say merge the blurb and delete the article. §FreeRangeFrog 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, and probably keep the redirect. I can take care of it if AfD reaches consensus, but I don't want to tag it right now. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The DeLisle Commando Carbine is a completely separate gun for which a number of reputable print, web, and photographic references exist. The SDK Carbine is, as far as I can tell, fictional, or, at very best, a prototype. Given the intense interest in WWII German firearms in the US (and elsewhere), I would expect there to be at least as much information on the SDK Carbine as there is on the DeLisle. The fact that a Google search turns up nothing of note, and that none of my reference books mention the SDK Carbine, I can confidently say that it's got nothing to do with the DeLisle Commando Carbine and it probably didn't exist in the first place. In short, there's nothing to merge, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nukes4Tots posted this on the SDK Carbine article's talk page: "Delete this article. This is a pure user:Jetwave Dave fabrication. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)" (Posted here by Commander Zulu (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Does in fact exist, pictures here [13]. Justin talk 12:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the only non-wiki reference to the gun (besides a paintball gun website) I was able to find and it's not in any way reliable. There's nothing in Small Arms of the World, nothing in any of Ian V. Hogg's books, nothing in A.E. Hartink's various books on guns, nothing in any of the myriad other gun books (ranging from Serious And Respected Academic Reference Works to Glossy Colour Coffee Table Books) that I have access to. In short, there are no reliable references to this gun existing, and even if it did exist, there's still no reliable references to back anything in the article up at all. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response There were a lot of odd little weapons produced by the Germans for their Special Forces. Its such a fringe subject that there are few references for them. Justin talk 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThat's very true, but the ~~Hitler~~ History Channel has been running various shows on pretty much every aspect of WWII for years, and I don't recall ever seeing them mention it (and they seem to make shows on even less notable WWII topics, IMHO). The SDK Carbine is just such an odd and unusual German WWII gun that I'm staggered no-one has mentioned it in print or TV documentary for over 30 years. I'm willing to concede the gun may not be a hoax, but I still don't think there's enough reliable information available to justify a dedicated Wiki article on the gun.Commander Zulu (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is still bugging me, I've heard of this before but can't find where at the moment. Justin talk 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an old gun book possibly? You are a man of *cough* advanced age, so you might remember it from the first time around? --Narson ~ Talk • 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting your memory, but I do think we need more than "I vaguely recall seeing it in a gun magazine in the 1960s" as a reference. Like I said, I'm prepared to acknowledge this gun might have existed, but the current article is completely lacking in reliable and verifiable sources, which is also grounds for Deletion, AIUI. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct here was for delete, all Icould find was the same person posting it to various forums. However, on one of the forums one of the gun nuts recognises it and identifies it as being from Waffen Revue Nr. 20, 1976 publication. He also suggests it was in some US magazines of the 60s and 70s. Might be worth checking out the paper sources. Also apparantly in Saga magazine April 1970 (Both sources are listed in the article). The gun itself may be a hoax, the article is not. Pending confirmation of the paper soures, Keep. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Narson's thoughts check out, delete if they do not. Someone may want to go through the rest of DaBallScractha's contribs if this is proven to be a hoax... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an image of it on the front page of the Waffen Revue n.20. I think we may be up against our bias for online resources at the moment. Do we have anyone with access to any of the two journals listed as sources? --Narson ~ Talk • 09:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "gun nut" posting it in various forums is none other than your friend and mine, Jetwave Dave. I would take a pretty large grain of salt with anything posted by him. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the lack of sources means that this doesn't pass WP:N, even if the gun did exist and WP:V can be met (which it isn't at present). Forum posts are in no way reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real or not, we still have no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Jetwave Dave championing it on forums only makes it more suspect. Maralia (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information The article is in error, its not SDK Carbine but GSDK (Gestapo SchallDämpfer Karabiner). It was made by J.P Sauer & Sohn, Suhl, it used 9mm parabellum but was tailored for nahpatrone, which was a reduced power round intended for target practise at reduced ranges. Found nothing on cyanide tipped ammunition, that seems fanciful. Seems that less than 10 were made. Justin talk 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you get that from? Thanks for the help :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was from a gun nut I know on another forum, he doubts that you'll find the information in a reference book as its so obscure. Justin talk 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which brings us back to our original point that the article is unverifiable and should be deleted.... Commander Zulu (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It lists two gun magazines, one of which definatly featured it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:37, 9 February 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 Web directory. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blog directory

Article appears to be pure OR. Tagged as needing references for over six months with no real improvement. Jonobennett (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, OR, doesn't add anything that can't be said just as well with "Blog Directory". -- Vary Talk 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web directory. The Blog directory article has no references and appears to be original research, and it can be mentioned in Web directory without needing a separate article. —Snigbrook 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vary. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no sources.—Sandahl (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Web directory. This is a likely search term, but a blog directory is nothing more than a web directory that specifically targets blogs for inclusion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 07:13, 31 January 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAB Fight Song

Articles consist only of the lyrics of songs apparently hollered at sporting events, though they don't even say which sport. I'm assuming basketball. I'm sure lyrics of songs don't belong on Wikipedia? role^player 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: lyric sheets, no assertion of notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is potentially encyclopedic (that is, for all I know there are lots of interesting things to say about these songs), but these aren't encyclopedia articles, they're song sheets. No prejudice against real articles if anyone should write them. -- Vary Talk 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 30 January 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 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Art Studio

No refs, no relevant G-hits. Fails WP:CORP too. flaming lawyer 01:15, 25 January 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 00:33, 30 January 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 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepImportant should be expanded.Links should be search for.User talk:Yousaf465

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Links have been searched for, and they aren't there. Just 19 non-wiki ghits for "Free Art Studio" + Kuwait, all of which are directory type listings. No hits in gnews, gbooks, or gscholar.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 8 February 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtside Seats

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:35, 27 January 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 00:32, 30 January 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 Heavy Heavy Low Low. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Heavy Low Low EP

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:37, 27 January 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 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Heavy Heavy Low Low. Schuym1 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Nipple and the Toxic Shock

This album, along with the rest of the artists' albums, did not chart and so fail WP:MUSIC. I suppose an argument can be made for merging, but this article by itself should not exist. ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-charting indie. No significant 3rd party notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:38, 27 January 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 00:29, 30 January 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 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lingolook

In my vision, it appears to be a non-notable product. The article was previously deleted as spam; Google brings up over 800 results of "Lingolook Flashcards". I didn't see any news articles about this product, or any source that makes this article pass inclusion. I wasn't sure if this was actually notable enough, so I'm taking this to AfD. SF3 ^(talk!) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable to me. The idea of producing a phrase book as flashcards seems to have attracted some attention, and the translation of this to an iPhone app some more still. Useful sources: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Yes, a couple of those sources call themselves blogs, but they are professionally edited blogs (i.e., magazine sites posing as blogs because blogs are more trendy these days), and so can be considered reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 13:49, 25 January 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 00:28, 30 January 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 Jak and Daxter (series)#Future of the Jak and Daxter series. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 11:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jak and Daxter IV: The Lost Frontier

We know of this game solely through a nearly three year old patent of a title. Nothing more. Naughty Dog has not released any posters of the game, and certainly not through Jak 3 concept art. What this article refers to is known as fan art. Fake trailers aren't proof either. They're, unfortunately for the cause, fake, and certainly have no business being on Wikipedia. This game has no proposed release date. 12/31/09 is simply a placeholder date used by gaming websites. HQ (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jak & Daxter (series). JJL (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that such a game exists (companies file trademarks all the time, like Square Enix did with "Chrono Break"). No sources either. TJ Spyke 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jak and Daxter (series)#Future of the Jak and Daxter series. WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies to the article, but it's a reasonable enough search term and the trademark bit is mentioned in that section. BryanG (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jak and Daxter main article. There is no evidence this exists right now. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JessiKa Violet

I can't find any secondary source coverage for this model - nothing in gnews (except for a mention that may not be her, and has zero to do with modeling), or anything that shows up in ghits that indicates she is in any way notable according to WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 January 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 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. -- Vary Talk 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines for people. Matt (Talk) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: FAILS notability guidelines for people. She is an amateur model, and should not be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.248.150 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails, as per nomination. -- 209.135.77.138 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Chapman (actor)

Having an uncredited role in Star Wars and producing a music video for Christopher Lee (the horror! the horror!) does not satisfy notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A couple of obscure producing credits, only one of which makes it to his imdb filmography; some acting in a semi-pro theater; and a bit part in a movie. Without the latter, he'd never have a wikipedia bio. I had to remove the prose in the article because it was all copyvio from the sources listed; the rest is fine, but someone should write a non-infringing replacement if this is kept. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 January 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 00:25, 30 January 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nieto (martial artist)

Six trivial mentions in Google News. Claim to fame is creation of Zen-Do, a non-notable form of karate that appears to be taught solely by Nieto. (When searching, do not confuse with Zen Do Kai.) Unreferenced stub tagged since 9/2007 w/o improvement. THF (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, lacks sources, and borders on a vanity page. KaySL (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines for martial artists. jmcw (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't judge the level of his championships or coaching on the basis of the limited info. there but that is a definite claim of notability; has garnered some attention [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. JJL (talk) 18:05, 25 January 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 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

week delete - The sources need adding for the championships which would swing it but it needs a cleanup . The newspapers seem to be using him as a goto reference but none of them is about him. --Nate 14 81 11:49, 30 January 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liana White

Nothing to distuinguish this from many other murders; while tragic and shocking Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:MEMORIAL. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability, and as the nom says, Wikipedia is not a memorial. KaySL (talk) 16:43, 25 January 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 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her untimely end does not make the subject notable. PK T(alk) 18:49, 2 February 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliceas

Unnotable Neoglism coined by a couple of students. DFS454 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not a neologism - it's a real word ("Tá gliceas i gceist anseo agus na polaiteoirí ag iarraidh dallamullóg a chur ar phobal na 26 chonta") but totally non-notable as a player name or internet name. Such would only achieve notability if found to be used by someone notable in their own right. In that case, they might merit a single line. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to appropriate Wiktionary project. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note author has removed substantial material of neoglismic nature diff --DFS454 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 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 00:21, 30 January 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEST HYDRAULIC SECTION

Appears to be either an instructional guide/manual or textbook-type material (sole purpose is to teach a method for doing something). Falls under Wikipedia is NOT a textbook/guide/manual. Declined prod, reasoning was "this is a mathematical procedure for solving a legitimate engineering problem," which is exactly what guides/manuals/textbooks do and not what you should have in an encyclopedia. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from the title, to everything, this is an all around bad article. Tavix (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I deprodded the article, with the rationale which is given above. I fail to see how is this article different from N-body problem, Dijkstra's algorithm or Moment distribution method, which are all about "methods for doing something". Granted, one thing that is different is quality - no dispute about that. The article needs major cleanup work in all areas starting from the title itself, but these are not sufficient grounds for deletion. GregorB (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT a how-to guide. Merge any relevant material into the general discussion of such problems, wherever that is. (Also, is this article a copyvio?) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also thought that it looked like a copyvio but there are too many spelling errors. :-) GregorB (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's hand-copied from the cited source. Even one of the technical names (Chezy) is mis-spelled. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a how-to. Alexius08 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:48, 31 January 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, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NORC (service)

Unsourced and looks like it hasn't been properly released yet as its still in beta. Looks like it would not meet WP:WEB. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 25 January 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 00:18, 30 January 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 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, let's delete the google article too! Viva deletionistas!

I vote No.--Klimov (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:41, 8 February 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 Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Hussain Parwana

COI (author is subject), vanity fluff piece for self-author of dubious notability, attack piece against other parties Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement. There are sources indicating the person's involvement in the said notable movement. The person does not have any stand-alone notability. ^LeaveSleaves 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:02, 25 January 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 00:17, 30 January 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 West Baltimore (MARC station). MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Seeley

Man with gun arrested; news articles don't even mention assassination. Minor news item for the day, no lasting coverage, fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Only an incidental relation to West Baltimore (MARC station), so merge is not appropriate. Contested prod. Jfire (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: I know nom says merge is inappropriate. But the West Baltimore (MARC station) article already contains the info, thereby making a change to a redirect as the right thing to do. I had created this title only as a redirect on that day, but someone later changed this into an article of its own. Though over time importance seems little, on the day of the incident, this was the main news, and was described on the televised news as a "presidential assassination attempt," giving it the perceived importance as a major event. Sebwite (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But with the passage of time, it became clear that this was simply a man with a gun who got arrested. There was no assassination plot, there was no "proclamation" as West Baltimore (MARC station) currently claims without source (a WP:BLP violation). It was just an arrest which happened to occur at the station. Arrests happen every day in thousands of locations; we don't mention every one in the articles on their locations. Jfire (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you watched the televised local news that day (which I did), they portrayed it as an assassination attempt. They also described that trains on the line were stopped as a result of this incident, and interviewed the cab driver involved and other witnesses who stood on the platform and called 911. Sebwite (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See policy WP:NOT#NEWS and essay WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails to establish notability per WP:BIO and [[WP:N}]. We do not create an encyclopedia article everytime someone is arrested in possession of a gun. Edison (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as you notice, I support reverting to the redirect I originally created this as for that reason. Sebwite (talk) 02:19, 26 January 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 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to West Baltimore (MARC station). This is where the event involving him occurred, and really the only suitable article. While this is a single event involving the subject, it received widespread televised news coverage on the day it occurred, as it was considered to be a possible assassination plot, and trains were stopped as a result. Also note that this title was originally created only as a redirect to West Baltimore (MARC station). My original intent was to keep it that way unless a fair amount of more information came in the media, and that never occurred. Sebwite (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user already !voted merge/redirect with a similar rationale above. Jfire (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All possible assassination attempts of heads of state are notable. NOT NEWS does not mean that no current news item can be included; this will be part of the historical record, which is part of the general reasons for inclusion.DGG (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an assassination attempt. Please review the sources. None of the news reports cited claim it was an assassination attempt, and if there were any that did on the day of the event (I can't actually find any online), they were quite simply mistaken. This was just a random arrest of a guy with a gun; it will never be a meaningful part of the historical record. Jfire (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it was, said "possible" . Actually reading the main source, it reports that he said he intended to kill the president. Yes, it also says that " the incident was not perceived as a serious threat to the president's security" [26] DGG (talk) 15:22, 31 January 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 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson Black Sox

Delete semi-pro teams are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence of notability Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 25 January 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 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 31 January 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 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheDetroiter.com

Fails WP:WEB; no substantial coverage in independent sources referenced or found. Jfire (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is some coverage in news sources, but I'm not sure that it's enough to meet WP:WEB. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:51, 26 January 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 00:14, 30 January 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 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references (one of which is rather shaky)—I'll go out on a limb and say Keep. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't do it for me. The second is just a quote from and link to an article on the site itself, and the first, while providing some minimal coverage, is oriented more as a biography of Nick Sousanis. It notes that the site "gets a couple of hundred visits a day". Overall, short of WP:WEBs guideline: "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Jfire (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. But unlike promotional website articles that get added daily, I think this one documents a worthy site in a non-spammy way. Too bad there aren't better sources available. Also, the "couple hundred visits a day" was from a few years ago-- presumably it has increased. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - this article ([27]) looks promising. Does anyone have a newsbank account? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 8 February 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. WP:CSD#G7 - author blanked page; no keep votes cast J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd baqar

fails notability Waterjuice (talk) 00:13, 30 January 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 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class Editori

Deleted once as copyvio, this version is a directory entry with no formal assertion of notability and no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have time to go through the 743 Google News hits at the moment (particularly as Italian is about my eighth language), but there's a good chance that there's enough there to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 26 January 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 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of lengthy article in BusinessWeek and extensive coverage in Italian press (e.g. [28], [29], [30]). Gr1st (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That article just mentioned is enough by itself, and certainly is supplemented by the other material found. given the ease at finding material at Google news, it was careless to nominate this without looking. We really ought to require such searches for all afds where notability is in question,.DGG (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gr1st (talk) 22:27, 1 February 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 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sopa de agnollini

Delete non notable soup recipe, both for lack of notability, and because wikipedia is not a recipe book Mayalld (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Brazilian Cuisine which has relevant sections. While it doesn't seem wildly notable, a handful of Google hits verify its existence [31]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete - I was thinking "no harm done", but re-Googling in the light of ArchonMagnus's comment, considering the possibility of misspelling, it looks majorly non-notable in its lack of mention even in Brazilian sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable soup. Possible redirect per Gordonofcartoon. Matt (Talk) 23:58, 25 January 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 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this is notable enough and (at present) shouldn't be included in WP. I may reconsider should there be a significant increase in the article content relaying any sense of notability. Per Gordon's comment: while Google hits relay a bit of information, they alone cannot be used to establish notability. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 19:57, 30 January 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia_Lamar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coter}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Baxter Utley}}