Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaCurves}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Ghia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Ghia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiNi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiNi}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 00:33, 31 July 2009

< 30 July 1 August >

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCurves

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nearly impossible to decipher in a web search any reliable sources because the entity is involved on media and internet marketing, and so sources are skewed. See the review of the sources below:

Serious reference issues

  1. http://webfloss.com/hcd-research/ – Fluff.
  2. http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1190661/mediacurves_web_site_posts_top_five_media_studies_of_2007/index.html — PR web posting. Not neutral.
  3. http://www.linkedin.com/companies/hcd-research — A company's self-created profile on another website is not a reliable source, nor is it independent.
  4. http://www.lead411.com/Company_HCDResearchInc_Kessler_371771.html — Another company profile; no in-depth coverage.
  5. http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=33802692&cs=QECA8nE7k&IndustryBin=MARKETING&Product=advertising+research&page=1&companyDesc=advertising+research — See above.
  6. http://www.businessyellowpages.info/company/20734 — Again...
  7. http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/node/128861/pdf — PR web posting again. Not neutral.
  8. http://www.politicsonline.com/globalcontent/elections/elections2004/ — No mention of the subject.
  9. http://politicalresources.com/Webnotes/issue4_6bot.htm — No mention of the subject.
  10. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330661,00.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  11. http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/04/bitter_remark_does_not_seem_to_1.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  12. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/money/doritos_ad2131312 — See above.
  13. http://www.pratttribune.com/news/business/x512385650/Biz-Bits-Confused-about-the-TV-switch-Some-answers-to-your-questions — Again...
  14. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27217062 — And again...
  15. http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080320/20mar20081825.html — Another PR web posting. Not neutral.
  16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002935.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  17. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0713parkerjul13,0,3310359.column — See above.
  18. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/11/american-idol-4.html — Again...
  19. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95567799 — And again...
  20. http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-20-2009/0005062952&EDATE= — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. PR web posting. Not neutral.
  21. http://www.newfluwiki2.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3570 — A wiki regurgitation of a PR posting by the company.
  22. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/sports/dpgo_Study_A_Rod_Scandal_Erodes_Public_Trust2146033 — Again, this does not indicate why the subject is notable.
  23. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/HCD-Research-and-Muhlenberg-College-Will-Use-an-Index-to-Monitor-Physicians-and-Consumers-Perceptions-of-Health-Care-Reform-39474-1/ — Regurgitation of a PR web posting by the company.
  24. http://www.cnbc.com/id/32013911 — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  25. http://www.viewpoints.com/HCDSurveys-com-review-f2ea3 — Non-notable reviewer on a user-generated content website. Doesn't establish notability.
  26. http://www.fox43tv.com/dpp/sports/nfl/nfl_schedule/superbowl_dpg_Pick_top_Super_Bowl_commercials_fc_200901272177206 — Still doesn't establish notability.
  27. http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1717923/majority_of_americans_say_congressman_kings_comments_about_michael_jackson/index.html — See above.
  28. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/HCD-Research-and-Muhlenberg-College-Will-Use-an-Index-to-Monitor-Physicians-and-Consumers-Perceptions-of-Health-Care-Reform-39474-1/ — Regurgitation of a PR web posting by the company. Repeated reference.

None of these sources actually discuss the company or its impact. Using its appearance in the sources above to infer notability is original research, and we don't do that here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom and it is clear that this was created by someone associated with the company (Ben the Intern) for purposes of promotion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is a recurrent problem with such companies--newspapers refer to them in the context of their surveys. But looking more carefully, not only do they do major surveys that are widely quoted, they seem to be the leading or representative web survey company. . It's hard to sort out material about the company in a gsearch: but I think I can do a little better at it than that intern:
  1. http://newsblaze.com/story/2008090314530200003.pnw/topstory.html "Mediacurves Offers Real-Time View of Americans' Reactions to McCain's Acceptance Speech" discusses the actual survey, not the results
  2. http://digitalpivot.com/tag/media-curves/ "Making pundits obsolete" Uses the company as its one example of such web-survey companies.
  3. http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1190661/mediacurves_web_site_posts_top_five_media_studies_of_2007/index.html "MediaCurves Web Site Posts Top Five Media Studies of 2007" Discusses the actual company (but it's from PR-newswire)
  4. http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/28/a_square_yard_of_fabric_makes_a_boring,_foreign_sahm* "A Square Yard of Fabric Makes a Boring, Foreign SAHM" Academic who compares her prize-winning thesis with their data.
  5. http://www.viewpoints.com/HCDSurveys-com-review-f2ea3 What seems like an independent review, though not from an authority
  6. http://www.slate.com/id/2163519/ by Andy Bowers of Slate -- refers to them as "our partners"

and especially

I think that last one settles it. DGG (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keepper DGG. Moreover, media companies rarely cover media research companies so we should give them a little more leeway.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 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.

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

The result was keep. One two three... 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Ghia

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

Minor character; not notable. Remurmur (talk) 00:30, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNi

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

Lacks notability Dandv (talk) 19:14, 15 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) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no notability  Chzz  ►  01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean-up (adding sources) per precedent: the article is a fork of WakkaWiki. Other forks have been kept. Delete all, or keep this. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify: This article does need more sources, but there are at least 2 out there. Sister-articles have been kept without sources, so fixing all or deleting all is our option. I think that it's worth fixing all of them, because there appear to be good sources. They just aren't cited. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Gosox. If sufficient sources are findable to support an article then it's better to wait for these to be added (and re-evaluate the article then) rather than deleting now . Cynical (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "[T]here appear to be good sources. They just aren't cited." is not a valid argument. The article's only reference([1]) is completely inadequate. — Rankiri (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the original contributor of the entry. I don't have strong views one way or the other about its retention. I do agree that it makes sense to treat the various forks consistently. Perhaps a longer description of each fork on the WakkaWiki article.Campingcar (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not about fairness and consistency. It is about systematizing and presenting the corpus of human knowledge as it actually is, and human knowledge is lumpy, spotty, unfair, and uneven. This article must stand and fall on the merits of its own subject, and if that subject is not a part of the corpus of human knowledge then it doesn't belong here, even if other similar subjects are part of the corpus of human knowledge. And vice versa, of course. So where are these "good sources" that you claim to exist? Cite them! Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

Igneanous Jones

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

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. Limited GHits and no GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:05, 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) 00:11, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

Hadlock (band)

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

Promotional.Written by SPA. Miami33139 (talk) 07:06, 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) 00:10, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Augusta Re-Imagines

Port Augusta Re-Imagines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:N, gnews search yields nothing [2], google search mainly some directory listings as an event and limited coverage like this [3]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 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) 00:10, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one-off event, nothing in the content indicates sustained ongoing notability. It will be forgotten as soon as it finishes. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a single event that doesn't seem to have garnered much attention, even locally. Anything sourceable or significant can easily be accomodated at Port Augusta, South Australia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage [4]. this article has existed for over 4 years yet hardly any improvement. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The organisation is not getting any national news coverage of late but that is no reason for deletion. Also, a Google news archive search does not necessarily give a full coverage of news. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my reason for nomination is not lack of recent coverage. in fact google news goes back to about 1850. you have not actually provided any evidence of coverage as required for WP:GNG, so that weakens your keep argument. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but a lack of notability is. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:06, 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) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
many non government organisations/lobby groups/clubs can get 6 mentions in newspapers...but these articles more refer to this organisation being present rather than discussing "Kiwis Against Seabed Mining" in any depth. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unfortunately, the Keep proponents avoid actual policy reasons in their statements. Despite Awickert's assertion, existence /= notability. In order to sustain an article, reliable sources discussing the organization in detail cannot simply be alleged to possibly exist somewhere out there; they must be produced. Without them, the article must be deleted.  RGTraynor  06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, existence can be verified WP:V which is not the same as being notable WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 8 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.

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

The result was delete. The socks failed to make any real argument. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Hadlock

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

This article is borderline meeting any criteria in music notability guides for personal biographies. Miami33139 (talk) 15:07, 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) 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Puff piece made up of what looks like mostly OR. Shows no independent notability for him beyond a local puff piece and a small amount of local attention for his band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kris is not just a local musician. He has toured all over America and Europe with the well-known band Chesterfield Kings. His Los Angeles producer is Grammy award winning Bob Kulick. His biographer and promoter is the legendary Lonn Friend. All of these people are world-renowned. He has more than 20,000 fans on his Myspace from all over the world. And he has produced 6 CD's. This guy has earned his Wikipedia article hands down.WikiContributor1170 (talk) 00:15, 01 August 2009 (UTC) — WikiContributor1170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notability is not inherited. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I Have seen this guy on tv in 4 countries and all over radio and the internet. He is the real deal and deserves a page!!! — Anrguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP Six CD's. Plays 3 instruments and sings. Toured the world. Worked with big time people. KEEP HIM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallydavid (talk • contribs) 23:02, August 2, 2009 — Wallydavid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep Accomplished singer & musician; plays 3 instruments, sings & writes songs; has toured the world; worked with numerous artists of note, recorded 6 CD's. And looks good doing to all. Definitely deserves a place in wikipedia — Bostonangel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • KEEP Not sure why anyone would call to delete this article...STUPID! Kris is a very talented musician and deserves to have his story told!! — Krazykty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hiatus

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

Article was originally to be prodded, an IP user declined. Thus, the band member's article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep #1 album on Oricon albums chart. Oricon Ranking ref Prior to July 29 2009, the article's validity was based on the "ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." criterion of WP:MUSIC. Further research yielded a #1 album on the Oricon chart. --[[User:Thompson781|Thompson781] 15:07, 02 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay (SafetySuit song)

Stay (SafetySuit song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Someone Like You (SafetySuit song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No charts, no covers, not enough information to bring beyond stub level. Fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect to artist have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Extreme change of heart by nominator: Something must have gone wrong with Billboard during their big site changeover, because I would swear I found nothing on these songs. Per allmusic.com, an extremely reliable source, both songs have achieved respectable chart positions. The articles are pretty bad, but they pass WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 27 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) 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both songs do meet WP:NSONGS as they charted, and a Google News search brings up some interesting articles on the songs. I'm going to go ahead and add some more content to these articles once they're off AfD. talkingbirds 14:00, 2 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a non-notable organization (lacking sufficient reliable coverage to be deemed notable). JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevail Health Solutions

Prevail Health Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This organization does not meet WP:CORP. Triplestop x3 16:13, 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) 00:06, 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, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:48, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Together World Tour 2009

Escape Together World Tour 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tour list and almost nothing more, no sources seem to be non-trivial. Tours are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:30, 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]
  • Keep The Article just needs a bit of work...it's a notable tour by a multi-platinum artist...not to mention that tour is in support of a #1 album..also, the opening act for the tour are several high profile acts and the tour had some press on sites such as People Magazine etc....--Ikkomuitnederland (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--84.25.117.15 (talk) 23:34, 13 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimmy Buffett. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf and western (music genre)

Gulf and western (music genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term is identified only with Jimmy Buffett, and even then only in two sources. A search for this term in association with musicians turned up nothing; without sources, the article's nothing but original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:06, 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]
  • Merge: to Jimmy Buffett. That's certainly a lot of reliable sources, but neither they nor the article define this term beyond "What Jimmy Buffett's music sounds like." Whether that's enough to sustain a definition is shaky, but it's certainly not enough to sustain an article beyond a "'Gulf and western' has been a term used to describe Buffett's style" tagline in Buffett's article.  RGTraynor  06:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jimmy Buffet. Widely used in reference to the artist, but not notable as a separate genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AS IS - Introductory statement is incorrect. There are now seven sources, some that attribute G&W to other artists (4 listed). For more examples, suggest listening to Radio Margaritaville during hours they play non-Jimmy Buffet music. Knowledge of this new genre is growing slowly. not like 'surfing' the internet. But it will grow! Doubt many people know that this is a 'strand of grass on Oakmont Country Club's latest U.S. Open Course' issue. Passing on to some folks in the music business. DUden (talk) 20:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

AfDs for this article:
Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Control Framework

Distributed Control Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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

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

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

Jackson Sweeney

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

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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 10:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Shoemaker

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

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_31&oldid=305182842"