Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 31: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:05, 31 July 2009

< 30 July	1 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection

No indication of notability. Mixtape failed to chart and did not receive substantial coverage from secondary reliable sources, thus not meeting the criteria for inclusion (WP:NALBUMS). Prod was contested. — Σxplicit 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of reliable sources to verify the article, resulting in the absence of notability. The only source cited is for a cite that does nothing but CD covers. While the text of the article now states it's an import rather than a mixtape, there's still no catalog number or anything to help verify it. Also, a search of a major music retailer - who does sell imports and used title - returned no record for the album. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 24 July 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, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:34, 31 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Control Framework

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Control Framework

Non-notable software. While googling Distributed Control Framework provides plenty of links, it is because the name of the product is also the generic name for this type of system. No independent, third party sources cover the subject, no sources provided in the article except links to the developers' websites. – Toon 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. The article also contains an alarming number of redlinks. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 24 July 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, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; lacks notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:14, 31 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Sweeney

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

The result was delete as non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guidelines. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 00:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Sweeney

Article was PRODed as "Fails WP:MUSICBIO; only claim to notability is having won a non-notable award." An IP changed the rationale to read "SUCCEEDS WP:MUSICBIO; 'Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city'" which I am counting as a contestation of the PROD.

My own search found very little info about the subject, and I agree that the award is not sufficient to establish notability. As such, I am recommending deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The youth orchestra and the subjects involvement may lead to notability in the future. To date, the body of work does not appear to have sufficient importance. Stormbay (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @925 · 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:43, 25 July 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, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. I was unable to find relevant sources for this individual through a Google News Archive search. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 6 August 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Shoemaker

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Shoemaker

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Choppers of South Carolina appears to be defunct. Can't find independent news, only press releases, about either Chris Shoemaker or Wicked Choppers (Not to be confused with Wicked Woman Choppers of Illinois). Dbratland (talk) 21:28, 24 July 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, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no apparent notability, nor anything on Wicked Choppers. AP1787 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything after an honest effort. Awickert (talk) 03:01, 31 July 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/Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Control Framework}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Sweeney}}<!--Relisted-->