Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 18

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mysto & Pizzi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mysto & Pizzi
• Articles for deletion/Mysto & Pizzi (2nd nomination)

Mysto & Pizzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for failing the notability guideline since September 2009 and has not improved much since. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G4 (tagged), and nom. WuhWuzDat 20:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've declined the speedy tag after reviewing the old version. This version of the article is improved over the earlier one, although serious issues do remain. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. While a do see a source providing some depth of coverage of them,[1] I don't see enough to clear the hurdles of WP:GNG, nor do I see enough in their credits that they meet WP:BAND or similar specific notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as above, the coverage is minimal for these two, and I don't think they're on the high side of WP:BAND at this point. I may be wrong, and would be happy to reconsider with further information. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment — Nominator has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Mysto & Pizzi, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: User is a banned sock of Pickbothmanlol. AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— AfroUnderscoreStud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Obvious blocked sock is obvious.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  As other editors, including myself, favor deletion of the article, a speedy keep is not appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  But the nominator is banned for socking. AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Why would that invalidate the debate? Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly. The nominator's identification as a sockpuppet of a banned user doesn't mean the page shouldn't be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  And since AfD discussions are about the reasoning to delete/keep the article more than simple headcount, I trust the closing admin can discount what happened to the account of the nominator while still taking into account those editors who do, in good faith, agree with the nomination and think it should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Very clearly non-notable musical group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - for the many reason already cited. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see how the sources or their accomplishments meet the notability guidelines. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 22 December 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 keep. Reasons to keep prevail here in my opinion. Article needs some work, though. Tone 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wave Energy Drink

Wave Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete. Unremarkable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep In 5 minutes I easily found reliable sources about the drink: this is excellent, this one too, this is an okay source for the NASCAR info, very good, a GOLDEN source from a business magazine. I found these all in the first 2 pages on google. Royalbroil 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, add the sources, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• The contributor who started the article asked what needs to happen to keep the article. I didn't add the sources because he needs to learn how to do it himself and this is the best way to force him to do it. Having him learn how to do it right should save time in the long run. I see a bunch of deletion warnings on his talk page. Royalbroil 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete just another energy drink. no matter how many sources exist, it is just another plain unexceptional energy drink. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep Those that are trying to delete this page need to READ the article. It is a NASCAR Sprint Cup sponsor. This in itself is plenty of reason for it to have an article on Wikipedia. As for it being "just another energy drink", the numerous other energy drinks all have articles. Why should this one not have one?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• keep ... the article can be improved, but the reliable sources exist now, and they will continue to improve. Not that this is a great article, but the sources confirm notability per our policies and guidelines. — Ched :  ?  02:35, 22 December 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography

The Irish Filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

With nothing more than “Non-notable book”, busybody Liefting condemned the page for The Irish Filmography within 10 minutes after creation of the page had begun, and well before it was completed with inline citation and link to reviews. Obviously he has never seen the book, and almost certainly knows nothing about film reference literature. It is a comprehensive non-fiction reference book of some 2,000 titles covering the first century of Irish cinema, including every feature and short produced in Ireland, as well as virtually every film about Ireland and Irish people produced outside Ireland. Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Declaring it as a non-notable book is sufficient for an AfD. There is nothing wrong with putting an AfD up immediately after article creation. Longevity on WP will not give an article a better reason to remain on WP. Also, an AfD is not like a speedy deletion where the article can be summarily removed. AfDs take at least a week to process. As for being called a "busybody" not only is that uncivil as already pointed out but it is up to every WP editor to be such a "busybody". What you are calling being a busybody I would call peer review - something WP needs a lot of. If you are creating an article and decide to save it and work on it latter you can use the {{underconstruction}} tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the book is itself encyclopaedic, and the subject long neglected. Whilst it might be over-egging to call it scholarship, it is at least as notable as the endless procession of scifi books descibed in such detail--Brunnian (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Firstly, referring to another editor as a "busybody" is uncivil, so let's not do that again, please, Aardvarkzz? Secondly, I find that while there's enough references to the book to prove that it exists, there are very few that actually deal with discussing the book directly - most of what I've been able to find have been passing mentions of it. Unless there are some good references that are available that review the book itself, then it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion here. Delete unless someone can provide said references. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The sourcing looks somewhat better, I suppose. Weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't start having articles about every book on the market, unless it is known almost around the world (Guiness book of records, Webster dictionary, Bible, etc.). In other words, I agree with the "Non-notable". -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the page because it describes the definitive reference book about the entire body of films in a country’s first 100 years of cinema. I am an expert in the subject of movie and film literature. None of the other people who have commented for or against claim to have any knowledge or interest in the subject of cinema and its literature. I create pages only for people, books, periodicals, etc. that are unquestionably important and legitimate parts of cinema and its history. It is essential that those who render judgment for or against this or any other book have competence in the book’s subject. Aardvarkzz (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not correct. It's essential that people from both sides of this discussion show how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Do you have citations that prove the importance of the book as you state? If so, then you need to present them. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and expand and further source per WP:IMPROVE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:Notability (books), WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, et al. While sending an article to AFD within minutes of creation is within guideline, it might have been better all around to have done a quick search to see if sources were available and then tagged it for such so the author might know of concerns. WP:ATD suggests many other ways an article might be improved to serve the project rather than nominating deletion. Available sources indicate the book's notability through its being itself used as an encyclopedic and accepted research source for Irish Film by both educational institutions and film industry [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].. and many, many more. And note, educational tomes rarely get looked at by nationally known reviewers, and so guideline allows their notability to be considered in context to what they are and who they serve. With respects, IMHO even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE should have prevented this being sent to AFD. Kudos to User:Aardvarkzz for bringing this article aboard to improve Wikipedia. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt above. Early AFD nominations may be permitted, but nominators should realize the hazards of nominating articles at a very early stage. Many editors, especially newer editors and those at public computers, create articles in mainspace, saving as they go along. If the article they're working on is nominated before it's finished, the nomination usually effectively ends any further updates from that editor. A very early nomination can also feel like a slap in the face to a new editor, who may interpret the AFD as "we don't want you here" and quit the project. --NellieBly (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep MichaelQSchmidt has once again found plenty of sources. A champion of the Rescue Squadron. And I'd like to point out that nominating an article the same day it was created, is rather lame. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do so. Dream Focus 09:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned there is nothing wrong with putting an article up for deletion a short time after it was created. If it is not notable there is no reason for it to remain on WP. Leaving the article on WP does not make it any more notable. The new pages list exists for just this very reason - to vet any new articles for suitability. If articles are not checked at via the new pages patrol they will disappear into WP and will have less of a chance of being reviewed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To User:Alan_Liefting: As such is within guideline, perhaps User:Dream Focus should be less concerned with your good faith nomination 10 minutes after the article's creation. My own concern is your nomination popping in between a series of the author's active edits improving the article... your nomination being only one minute after one of the author's ongoing edits [20] and one minute before his next [21]. The author's pique above was unfortunate, but perhaps understandable. All I might advise is temperance and patience when a new article is being created, and perhaps a discussion with the author about your concerns. If a discussion had been initiated, your concerns would have been addressed and we might not be at this AFD today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Philosophical comment. Jimmy Wales wants WP to be the sum of human knowledge. This is a bold but laudable goal. Is it really able to be achieved? Should a limitation be placed on the extent of documenting the sum of human knowledge? The sum of human knowledge is an extremely large body of work. WP does limit it to that which is notable and verifiable, but even with these limitations there is huge amount of information that could be incorporated into WP. Should a level of notability be set such that all topics are included and those below are not (ie ignore the current level of establishing notability). This raises many questions of course. What is the level set at? How is notability established across topics in different fields of knowledge? Looking at one topic area, namely books, is an instructive exercise. WP already has many articles on books. All the books that fit within the WP requirements of notability and verifiability for books would probably amount to the total number of articles current on WP. Books are often reviewed so it is easy to obtain the necessary verification of the article contents. Now even if less that half of WP articles were about books would mean that the whole of WP is skewed to only one range of articles. There is already a degree of dissatisfaction with the inclusion of some articles relating to popular culture. The Pokemon character is a case in point. Do we carry on using the deletion process for article inclusion or should some sort of metric be developed so an article can be assigned a number to determine inclusion into WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps your observation might be better asked at Wikipedia:Village pump, so that Mister Wales' ideas and goals and hopes for a paperless encyclopedia might be further dicussed. While nice to pose your philosophical comment here, this discussion should remain focused on this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Actually, I agree with Alan about the great over-broadness of our criteria for books, though I am not quite sure how to make it more precise without discussing a large number of special cases. I think part of the problem is that the ones we write about tend to be somewhat random based on people's interests, rather than doing anything systematic, so the ones we do have are a mixed lot, rather than the most notable. In general, the place for routine books is the article on their author, and most encyclopedic works would normally do that as the default. In this particular case, I think the refs show that this is the standard reference book on a significant subject, and I would consider that as one of the key criteria. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The fourth Google Books snippet from The myth of an Irish cinema: approaching Irish-themed films by‎ Michael Patrick Gillespie, says "Rockett, in his monumental reference book, The Irish Filmography, chooses not to engage the question beyond announcing his wide-ranging intention to ..." This does two things; first it characterizes the work as "monumental" (which means notably large) and then analyzes it. This is substantial coverage in secondary sources, and the nominator needs to conform to Wikipedia's rules WP:BEFORE, WP:PSTS and WP:N, so that I can get truly non-notable stuff deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Not wishing to simply opine and move on, and out of respect for the article's author, I have been involved in expanding and sourcing the article since this discussion began. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It sounds useful for meeja studies types.Red Hurley (talk) 19:50, 22 December 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 Withdrawn. I'm ignoring Schmucky's comment because software can't be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BoycottAdvance

BoycottAdvance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all product articles with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Covered at some length in this book. Also mentioned in another. The software seems to be known for a quite while in the community, 2001 interview with the main developer. Pcap ping 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • According to that book, and also to armchairarcade.com (a site with professional staff) it's one of the top two choices for GBA emulation, and rated as little better than the competitor VisualBoyAdvance. Pcap ping 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Discussion in the book seems persuasive to me that at least some external sources view this as notable. Nandesuka (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Despite the number of articles about emulators that make their way to AfD, this goes to show that it is possible for this kind of software to meet our notability guidelines. Good find; keep. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 28 December 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 Speedy Delete per A10 by Orangemike. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Road Chronicles

The Road Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, page does not establish notability either Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has plenty of third-party references to establish notability, but they are not in the usual location. Go to the reviews section, and start clicking links, and you will see reviews from reliable sources such as http://www.spin.com/reviews/tori-amos-abnormally-attracted-sin-universal-republic and http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20278652,00.html - Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I think. The article is a partial copy of Abnormally Attracted to Sin, and makes no reference to The Road Chronicles. Possibly the article's creator wanted to use the source article as a template. Tagged as csd-a10 - Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Speedy declined. The track list consists of a number of entries from Abnormally Attracted to Sin, but not all of them plus a number of items not on that album. Perhaps this is a later album by the same artist, with overlapping contents? If so it needs separate references for notability I would think, but it isn't a simple copy so it isn't an A10 speedy. DES ^(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • On second look only one track is ommitted on the copy and none are added, although the order is changed. I have restored the speedy tag. DES ^(talk) 04:11, 19 December 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 delete. Tone 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye Girl's Electric Band

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Goodbye Girl's Electric Band (Tori Amos song)

Goodbye Girl's Electric Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has absolutely no notability Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on cataloguing all of Amos' songs on Wikipedia. Many artists have both their albums and songs catalogued on Wikipedia. It should be any different for Amos. Also, if you have nothing to contribute to what I am trying to do, please don't throw any wrenches in the process either. It's quite unbecoming. MarkAlexisGabriel (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2009

• Delete - I don't know of any artist who has a WP article for every single song they recorded, not even Elvis. A song which only exists as a bootleg recording from a soundcheck and for which the title isn't even confirmed clearly isn't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I suspect that every song that The Beatles recorded - or at least released - has a Wikipedia article, and there is certainly enough published about every Beatles song to warrant an article for each. But Tori Amos is not The Beatles, and I see no evidence of notability for this song. If I missed some such evidence, please provide links or titles of the published sources and I will gladly change my !vote. Rlendog (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I love Tori Amos, but this song has no notability to it. It's not unbecoming to delete this, it's merely keeping in line with the goals of Wikipedia, and that is to include information that is encyclopedic. --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:22, 22 December 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 delete. Tone 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Food Network Humor

Food Network Humor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website for which notability is not sufficiently established. References are primary or a blog (supposedly a celebrity blog, but there's no article for the individual concerned). (Also needs a considerable cleanup because it's promotional and presented as a guide - those in themselves are not reason to delete, but suggest a possible COI by the writer.) Speedy tag (placed some time ago) removed without explanation by an anon IP. I42 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Anon IP was the article's author, who was paid to write the article (and is now blocked by myself for abusive sock puppetry to hide his paid editing). Brandon (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Never the less the article's issues state good reason for deletion regardless of abusive sock puppetry. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — URBAN-ANDY has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Food Network Humor, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of any coverage by reliable sources, pretty much just obvious WP:SPAM. --RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion declined but delete anyway per above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, amazing amount of sockpuppets! (although without them it would still be a delete) DRosin (talk) 22:10, 20 December 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Competition 10

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Competition 10
• Articles for deletion/Competition 10 (2nd nomination)

Competition 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A first debate on this closed without consensus. Let's aim to get consensus this time. There are no multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the contest that would demonstrate notability. External link 1 is a press release republished in a newspaper. Link 2 is the competition's own site. Link 3 is another press release. Link 4 is, well, yet another press release on a site that apparently does not have an editorial policy. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• if kept rename since alot of competitions have a 10th edition, and its more likely to refer to another competition. Rename to Competitia ZECE per article description. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• I concur, keep but re-name to Competitia ZECE!Petebutt (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure it is worthy of a Keep, but if kept it should be at the precise Romanian name which is Competiţia Zece. There is no corresponding article on ro:WP which says something for the notability of the private organization offering this prize. Sussexonian (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 25 December 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 Delete There are no effective 3rd party sources to establish notability. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Livigent

Livigent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footnotes 1 and 4-6 are from the company's own site. Footnote 2 is a press release from one of their business partners. Footnote 3 appears to be from one of their clients. Footnote 7 is a Google search (!). And footnote 8 is a blog posting. So are the first two external links. The third does make passing mention of the product, but the point is that there are no multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of Livigent. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM. With no real assertion made for regarding notability, no coverage from independent, reliable, third parties and the tone of the article this is obviously a self promotion. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, you're right: this is promotion. Otherwise, how can we call an article that talks about a product, describing its features? As such, I didn't fight the speedy deletion sentence and I won't fight your AfD one.

Please do whatever it takes to keep Wikipedia free of bias - like those unreliable informations from the manufacturer and non-independent third-party sources. Don't even bother to test them anymore, just count the references, see that they come from the manufacturer, from a Google search and some magazine/blogs, assert they are all biased, manipulative, self-promotional and whatnot. Assert and delete. Don't consider placing [citation needed] or asking for trimming of some paragraphs, just jump to the conclusion that this is WP:SPAM and delete it. No point wasting more time since you already know the truth about this product all too well. while (true) { history(); } (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sulk in a corner if you want to. I'd advise rather that you find the reliable independent sources. Sure, you are promoting the product. But if you can get within Wikipedia's framework for how an article should be, you could get away with it. Others have... This is just a brief mention, but it puts RnD in a position of importance (as I read it): http://www.wall-street.ro/articol/English-Version/65666/Big-Brother-Are-you-monitored-at-your-workplace.html Go on, see what you can find. Make the article just a bit less like a brochure. These discussions usually go on for seven days. I'm sure you can find something in that time. No blogs, no myspace, no linkedin, no forums, in fact, nothing editable (including Wikipedia...). Newspapers (with a translation here if in Romanian, for those of us who can only read it a bit), magazines (but not the PC World one where the author is PC World but the source is RnD), independent reviews, that sort of thing. Otherwise, come back when you've got a bit more exposure. Peridon (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I've looked for secondary sources about this software (and I grok Romanian), but even in the Romanian IT press there's nothing beyond press releases published as news (thankfully attributed as such) [22], and another article in which they announce that they give free licenses to some schools. The wall-street.ro article is not about this product, it's about this kind of software, with only one sentence (a technical opinion) from a developer of this software. That's about all I could find as WP:SECONDARY sources, so it fails WP:N. The company might be more notable, but I won't look for that now. The creator of the article can request userification and transform it in an article about the company, which may have more changes to survive an AfD, based on the other wall-street.ro article, but even that is doubtful as it is a rather disorganized interview with the CEO and not a good source of facts about the company. The same goes for the 8th source of this article, which is another interview with the CEO. Pcap ping 22:10, 22 December 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 keep, as the nominator withdrew. Airplaneman ^talk 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Atlantykron

Atlantykron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not really established through multiple independent sources. We have a couple of press releases and a self-published review, but that's about it. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, but I believe I can address your concerns. I can provide better references to established independent radio and television, in Romania and international, showing significant coverage Atlantykron at one of the oldest and most successful summer youth academies run by the United Nations in Eastern Europe.

I'd kindly ask for just a few days to pull and add these references for your review and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added third party recognition and coverage of the event from the United Nations, The Romanian Journal, and the Romanian Telegraph.

The number of the cited distinguished international guests is significant. The participation of these guests, many recognized as notable by wikipedia, is documented in more than 30,000 photos and nearly 100 videos in the cited Academy archives available via the program's official website.

Can these archives be used in a better way to help meet the Wikipedia notability requirements? Or should we continue to add more 3rd party media coverage of the academy? thanks for you consiteration. Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't claim any proficiency in Romanian, but from my knowledge of other Romance languages it looks to me as if these sources added to the article since nomination are independent and reliable and provide significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fine, withdrawn - those sources are indeed independent and in-depth. I do hope the article will draw more heavily on them and sound less promotional, but that's a matter for the editing process. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Looks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 19 December 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 delete. Tone 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox parishes in Arkansas

Orthodox parishes in Arkansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At a previous AfD, I made the tactical mistake of bundling 5 lists together. Now, let's go one by one. Would anyone like to argue that a list of seven non-notable parishes constitutes a notable topic for a list? Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with parent pages for their respective jurisdictions. This is not an article but a collection of external links. This idea could be revisited if and when there is an actual article to write on the Orthodox presence in Arkansas. Until then this is list cruft. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete How bizarre that there's no List of Orthodox parishes in the United States, but we've got someone making individual articles for Alaska, California, D.C., etc. I have a feeling that someone did it that way because they didn't want to make an incomplete article. The solution isn't fifty-one separate articles. This is something one would work on in user space. Maybe one of the five articles is "really, really good" and it can be renamed and the other state articles can be merged to it. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete there are other articles like this, such as Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C. and List of Orthodox parishes in Alaska, but they too have the same troubles that this one does. The collection itself isn't notable, and there's no valuable content worth merging elsewhere, as it all consists of improper external links. I suppose an encyclopedic article can be written about this subject, examining the history of the churches and of the religion in Arkansas, but the directory information that is here wouldn't be a part of that article. ThemFromSpace 11:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- I do not see why a list article of this kind is objectionable, but it should be List of Orthodox parishes in Arkansas. We also have Category:Lists of Orthodox parishes in the United States, which is also appropriate. I list article for whole US would probably not be. The possible problem with this article is that it is a mere link farm, but I am not sure that that is objectionable: the article covers various denominations, and is thus somethign that would not be readily available elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, a List of Orthodox parishes in the United States would be quite appropriate, since the number of these that are notable is quite small. If we thus meaningfully restricted the list (à la List of churches that are National Historic Landmarks in the United States, as opposed to pure directory material like List of churches in Sweden), then I don't see a problem with that. But a list of external links to seven parishes, none of which is remotely notable on its own? That seems a stretch in notability terms.
  • As to the "not readily available elsewhere" argument: well, perhaps. But since when is aggregating information not readily available elsewhere our function? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:35, 19 December 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Timothy S. Wilkinson

Timothy S. Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the author appears unmentioned from any scholarship, also Lulu.com is a self publishing place, therefore not notable. SADADS (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm seeing a lot of text and a lot of claims; however, none of them are meaningful. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, thie site appears only for self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.235.232 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- All of this seems to be original research devoted to publicizing self-published materials Vartanza (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 26 December 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Somerset Spectator

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator
• Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination)

Somerset Spectator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Official website is down; can't find any articles made by newspaper in Google news archive Mattg82 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
• Keep. See this article in The New York Times: Small-Town Weeklies of All Kinds Thriving; Revolution in Weeklies The Google News archive search provides the following excerpt from the article: "5 I}itk tabloid Somerset Spectator, which serves Franklin Town . ship in Somerset CQunty. The two former housewives, who now devote full time to the ..." (The transcription errors are a function of imperfect OCR, not my typing.) The Google News archive search has other references to the newspaper, as well as to one with a similar name in Rhode Island. - Eastmain (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. In 2001, this was one of the newspapers of record for the county[23]. Pburka (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability does not disappear if the newspaper does. That the website is no longer active, or if the newspaper is defunct, doesn't affect notability. Lots of things don't exist anymore and still are notable. --Jayron32 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Somerset County, New Jersey. This was my assessment at the prior AfD, and it hasn't changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, as per my reasoning from the last AFD, which hasn't changed. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is, or was, a prominent local newspaper. As Jayron32 noted, notability is not temporary. The official website being down, therefore, is not a good reason for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Eastmain DRosin (talk) 22:13, 20 December 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 delete. Tone 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Only Seven Left

Only Seven Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. . Joe Chill (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:Band. South Bay (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:51, 19 December 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Netty Leek

Netty Leek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts of substance (majority of hits for a book she authored) and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Books appear to be self published, although I did find one article about the subject from a local newspaper[24]. Pburka (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 25 December 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 delete. Tone 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mother nation

Mother nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a manifesto term made by a non-notable UK political party unrelated to currently linked party (Conservatives). Mattg82 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the term may have been coined here. However, I can't see any uses of this term outside this blog. If someone does find where it's being used, this term should really go in the article of the person/group who is using it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think its use is not widespread enough to justify notability. Almost something of a WP:NEO violation, but it's not quite a neologism. Or maybe it is, I can't make up my mind, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a phrase used once only in 2006 by an grouping as listed by User:Chris Neville-Smith with a Web site at progcon.org which is now dead. No notability at all and quite possibly never intended to be a new political idea. Sussexonian (talk) 00:35, 24 December 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry Cochran

Larry Cochran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. GS h index around 15. Probably meets WP:Prof #1. Does not seem to meet other categories. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Author of half a dozen books, now emeritus faculty at UBC; evidence that he has been influential over some extended period of time in a particular area. The article needs help in copy editing it to wiki standards, but I'd prefer to see it WP:BETTER than deleted. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. PsycINFO finds 36 publications by this author and 7 reviews of his books (representing a wide range of attitudes). His book The Sense of Vocation is cited 19 times in Web of Science and 46 times in Google Scholar. Library holdings of his books are respectable given their relatively specialised topics. All this probably qualifies as "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). EALacey (talk) 08:22, 25 December 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 speedy delete.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Postwar reconstruction

Postwar reconstruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails on WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mattg82 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To which war is this term most commonly associated? Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A3. I have tagged the article. — æk^Talk 00:13, 19 December 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 redirect to Demi Lovato. Feel free to merge appropriately Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember December

Remember December (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No cover versions, has not charted, has won no awards: fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect the article have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge if there's anything that is useful and redirect to the album article. It shouldn't be a standalone article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep the song as it is a released single and is part of her singles chronolgy. It seems silly to delete it as it is a valid single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.92.182 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per Kww and Tony Fox. Decodet (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as above. Songs are rarely notable enough to merit a separate article. Sussexonian (talk) 00:38, 24 December 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 speedy delete. G4, almost identical to the last version deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Kaiser

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Project Kaiser
• Articles for deletion/Project Kaiser (2nd nomination)

Project Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product by single-issue user. Sources given are little more than testimonials and not significant. Unable to find coverage that would make the subject pass the general notability guideline. Haakon (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Would an admin please check if this qualifies for speedy deletion under G4? KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:26, 18 December 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 keep. Could be renamed, could be merged but a deletion is not the case here. Tone 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Election results in 2009

Election_results_in_2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:Election results in 2009}}|View AfD]])

Support the deletion. There is no article Election results in 2008, or in earlier years, as far as I can determine, so why this list? Whoever is in favor of this list should think about the effort required to create this list for earlier years. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that no previous article exists isn't a good ground to delete this article. Armbrust (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep So what if there is no article called Election results in 2008? People make the effort to create year-by-year articles for other items, for example Category:1973 in sports. You gotta start somewhere. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, what a brilliant list. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless concatenation of events that are in no way related (other than temporally). Interested readers may click through the Electoral calendar 2009 to see individual results. Also, as pointed out by the nominator, this sets up needless work by someone who evidently didn't think through the implications of creating the list. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearian. I would advocate setting up similar lists for other years as well. --Soman (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Is a reasonable topic for a list as per above comments. I would also point out that although there is no list for 2008, there are already ones for Elections in 2007, Elections in 2006, Elections in 2005 and Elections in 2004, although under a slightly different name to this one (the names should be standardised one way or the other). Davewild (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Electoral calendar 2009, and decide somewhere (is there a relevant project?) what the naming convention should be for such articles. Maybe "National elections in yyyy"? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant wikiproject is the refounded Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. (Anyone welcome to join!!) Davewild (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep good list, I see no good reason for deletion DRosin (talk) 22:15, 20 December 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 speedy close . This belongs at RfD. Debate has been copied there. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport

Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article for Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport already exists; there is no airport by the name of the article nominated for deletion (it was simply created by a user who has created other variants of the same Jasepl (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It seems this is a redirect issue. From what to what, I'm not positive. Probably from this to Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport. --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its more than that.

There is already an article called "Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan Airport" - this is valid.

One user, in an attempt to make the airport looker more important (in his mind anyway) created two additional articles:

• Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport
• Patna Airport(International)

And then filled said pages with either the same exact content as in the valid article, or added random bits of unneeded (or incorrect) information.

Someone else then removed the content and added a redirect.

Basically, neither of the new articles should exist, because there's not even a need for a redirect. The airport is not an international one, so the user's adding that word in a new article's title was false.

Jasepl (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 18 December 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 speedy close . This belongs at RfD. Debate has been copied there. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Patna Airport(International)

Patna Airport(International) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article for Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport already exists; there is no airport by the name of the article nominated for deletion (it was simply created by a user who has created other variants of the same) Jasepl (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport. Salih (talk) 18:14, 18 December 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 merge to LinkedIn. Seems to be adequate consensus that the topic on its own is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Voldemort

Project Voldemort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to LinkedIn as the project's developer. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is just a stub, but could quickly become much more with a little research. Putting this up for deletion is completely irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.106.220 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Prove that the sofware is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep: this software enjoys mild popularity at high scalability conferences, there are a couple of presentations / speeches / reports on it done by Voldemort spokesman Jay Kreps: [25] [26]. As this product is not of wide public interest, it would probably never accumulate enough public attention outside of these semi-academic / semi-commercial circles. --GreyCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Linkedin; verifiable, but not notable at the moment, unlike BigTable and Dynamo (storage system). Pcap ping 23:04, 22 December 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 delete. Tone 15:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Examinations Officer

Examinations Officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails on WP:NOTDICTIONARY Mattg82 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As the nominator suggests fails on WP:NOT. Wikipedia is also not a guide or manual to the various career 'positions of responsibility' in UK schools. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — æk^Talk 00:14, 19 December 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 merge.

The Google books and scholar links do not point to books exclusively dedicated to this topic, but to such works as "Class, Politics, and Ideology in the Iranian Revolution and "Oil and Law in Iran". Editors who feel that an article about such a topic provides a better place for the 1933 agreement are encouraged to expand or write such an article, including a substantial coverage of content that is independent of the APOC/AIOC article. In doing so, text portions that are not germane to APOC, such as section "§ Coup", should be moved to the new article, if applicable. — Sebastian 04:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1933 Agreement of Iran

The 1933 Agreement of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork of Anglo-Persian Oil Company#The D.27Arcy Oil Concession written by an SPA, apparently as a term paper. I've tried redirecting it and prodding it but the author just reverts and I want to avoid an edit war. andy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) andy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect: per WP:CFORK and WP:UNDUE. I see attempts have been made to get the creator to talk ...  RGTraynor  16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

*Keep. While there are issues with the article as it is currently, the 1933 agreement is a very notable subject, worthy of its own entry (and it has its own entry already in some printed encyclopedias). A quick search on google books will find that it features prominently in several books, and that there are works written entirely about the 1933 agreement and its repercussions- lots of research material available if someone wants to improve the current article. The AFD nominator thinks that the 1933 agreement should be solely covered within the article on APOC (one of the parties involved in the agreement). I strongly disagree. --Brunk500 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It has its own entry in encyclopedias? Which ones?  RGTraynor  17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Another comment: moveover, the material in the nominated article is properly set in context in Anglo-Persian Oil Company and forms the bulk of that article. The 1933 Agreement of Iran is pretty much a rewrite of Anglo-Persian Oil Company with the emphasis switched from APOC to the 1933 agreement. andy (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. These 545 books and these 83 scholarly papers cover the subject. This is an international treaty with widespread effects that go far beyond one particular company, and are still being felt today in the mutual distrust between Iran and the West. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - nobody said otherwise. The point is that this article duplicates the content of another, better one! andy (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Andy people are aware of your reasons for nominating, we just happen to disagree. to provide a ludicrious example - what if WW2 was covered really well within the germany article, and the WW2 article itself was more problematic. would we delete ww2? --Brunk500 (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• The answer is obviously yes if it was a content fork as defined at WP:CFORK. Particularly if it was also POV and OR. I can't for the life of me see what this article adds to WP. If we do need a separate article then the relevant material should be taken out of the APOC article and used as a basis - at least it is well written and neutral. andy (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• this is from WP:CPFORK "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. " COntent forking is more relevant to people gaming the system to create duplicate articles with different names- however APOC and the 1933 agreement are NOT the same subject --Brunk500 (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's a misleading extract. The very next sentence in the same paragraph says: "As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." This is obviously irrelevant - in this case we're not talking about Napoleon and Josephine, who were two different people, but simply two perspectives on the same issue - as if, for example, we had articles on "Napoleon and Josephine" and "Josephine and Napoleon"! The more relevant paragraph is Wikipedia:CFORK#Accidental_duplicate_articles which deals with cases where a duplicate article is created in good faith (but ignorance), as in this case where a student has been tasked with creating an article about the 1933 Agreement. The paragraph says clearly that "Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article". andy (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• BTW I notice that the author of the article, who clearly states in the very first edit summary that it is OR, worked for a period of two hours more than a week ago and has not been heard from since, in particular not playing any part in this debate. What are we getting bothered about? It was written as a classroom exercise because Professor P. Valenti said so and nobody really cares any more. Merge or delete the darned thing. andy (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per nominator Editors need to see wikipedia pages 2 or 3 dimensionally rather than one dimensionally, and realize that merging is much more preferably than deletion, because the edit history is still intact. Ikip 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per nom Its apparently a homework of some random student, clear and simple... Thus it could be presumed that the author simply opened Wikipedia and created the article, without checking if similar content already exist, and won't accept others' edits whatsoever because he need to do it himself to complete his work... Nevertheless, this could reasonably be considered a good faith contribution, and deletion might be inappropriate. Better merge instead. Blodance (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My name is Andrei Nedelea, the manager of Warehouse Republic, and I would like this page and anything else referencing the band removed. This has no relation to Warehouse Republic and a fair amount of what is written here is both libellous and defamatory towards the band. Both the band and myself have no connection to anything that has been written and dont think that having this page is constructive towards anything resembling public interest and will also submit an offical request to have it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.231.203 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But The Suburbs (web series) was up for deletion because their were no reliable source (not even one) and the decision was a keep, so why would we delete this article if this one is more reliable than the other article? ATC ^{. Talk} 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Interesting arguments put forth by the nominator, but I'm endorsing deletion for a different reason: WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

--Loudes13 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)google Allen Skillicorn and you will find hundreds of racing results. Clearly relevant.

Wheelie was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to move and keep the article.

Character from Transformers:The Movie. Wyllium 06:20, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

• Hm. Merge with something? — David Remahl 06:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't really see a merge and redirect, at least at this article location. Since "wheelie" is a common term for pulling the front wheel of a motorcycle or bicycle off the ground, and since that is so common as to cause confusion by a redirect, I don't see it. So, we'd have to have an article move before then merging and redirecting. Geogre 15:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Move to Wheelie (Transformers). — Gwalla | Talk 01:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There's enough information there that it shouldn't all be merged into a Transformers article. If it's moved to Wheelie (Transformers), then until we get an actual article on the biking sense of "wheelie", this could be left as a redirect to the new location. Factitious 06:06, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep —siroχo 18:39, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Why not just MERGE into a Transformers G1 characters or something? 132.205.15.5 02:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wheelie (Transformers) at best. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 01:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.