Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 28

< 27 March	29 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was already deleted. Deleted by User:Rjd0060 as an expired PROD — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Inspiration (Tropfest Short Film)

From Delete Proposal on Page: Unremarkable short film, could find no mention of this on Google news as well. Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. WWGB (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bontade Mafia family

The Bontade Mafia family does not exist. A Google search only returns five hits related to the Wikipedia article or mirrors of that article. Mafiosi like Stefano Bontade or Francesco Paolo Bontade headed the Santa Maria di Gesù Mafia family. Typical case of WP:NOR. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have insufficient knowledge to suggest a delete, but Stefano_Bontate was the boss of the Santa Maria di Gesù family, and cannot find a mention of his own family. I cannot find a mention of his "replacement" Spadaro outside of the Santa Maria family, either. TNplinko (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spadaro, although related to Bontade, was a member of a different Mafia family, the Porta Nuova family once headed by Giuseppe Calò. Mafia families in Sicily, unlike the US, are generally not named after Mafiosi, but rather after the neighbourhood or town they come from. The blood family is seen as a clan and are named as such when they are particularly important and have a long history, such as the Greco Mafia clan. That is probably the confusion. - Mafia Expert (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable blp family. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:36, 2 April 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. Valley2city^‽ 20:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alientology

The article describes itself as about a "neologism". Whether we're talking about the term for the proto-religion or the movement itself, neither of them demonstrate their significance through multiple, independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Protologism seeking credibility. "Alientology is not a religion yet, but that is our goal." Maybe later once there's more RS. Gigs (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with C.Fred here, article fails at WP:NOTE, is short (mostly a collection of links), and hard to understand. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was wondering myself what to do with this -- as Gigs says, it may be notable at some time, but not yet. And as it calls itself an article about a 'neologism'.... Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything that calls itself a neologism is likely problematic, and the lack of sources dooms this to destruction. And "not a religion yet"? There's no minimum size for a religion; the very idea that they hope to have a religion spring from these beliefs makes it sound notoriously non-serious. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because an article refers to itself as a neologism doesn't mean that it warrants deletion as a neologism. The guidelines on WP:Neologism establish this. Some neologisms (in the sense of the common usage of the word) are notable enough to have articles. In this case, I do find a New York Times article that references the term Alientology: [1]. But I do not think this particular article is notable because I barely find any sources--and the coverage in that source I gave is rather trivial. I say Delete but I want to caution users that I do not agree with all the reasoning/arguments presented above. I agree with the reasoning that there aren't good sources--as many people have pointed out. Cazort (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that there are zero Google Books hits suggests that whatever this concept is, it has not been established under this particular name yet. The New York Times article cited above is just a review of a television special about science fiction aliens during which Robin Williams used the word "Alientology" as part of a comedy bit. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-styled religion, no indication of wider acceptance, no independent referencing. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no independent, reliable sources that cover the subject significantly enough, which means that it also fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (Thought control)

Does not seem to meet the notability requirements under WP:Fringe. Wperdue (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability of this particular fringe theory. Anaxial (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have an article on the author of this theory, so I see no convincing reason that the theory itself should be notable either. The fact that the article's largely cut and pasted from the external link doesn't help, either. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, not really even sufficient sourcing for a merge to Mind control or New World Order (conspiracy theory). - Eldereft (cont.) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in the Hitman series. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitman Clones

Not notable. Three similar articles by the same author are also being considered for deletion, with discussion taking place at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Purayah II Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the characters described here are already described more skilfully at List of characters in the Hitman series. This user could simply add a section there about how many of them are clones. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy redirect to the character list per the other articles, zero need for duplication. Someone another 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Hitman series. Seems like a fairly straightforward response to this duplication. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sephiroth Skier Dude (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Colombini

Non-notable magician with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. While his name appears in some Google News results, they're mostly trivial in that they are simply mentions of appearances; they don't provide in-depth coverage of the person to demonstrate notability as per WP:BIO. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read you loud and clear. Trust me, as a significant contributor to Wikipedia, I believe in establishing notability.....please give me a chance....I've got some reliable sources....I need a little time, please. Buddpaul (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 2 April 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 00:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All the given sources are either trivial mentions or are what seem to be primary sources. It doesn't look like notability is sufficiently established. MuZemike 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Gets Me Hot!

Porn movie who's only notability is from the fact that it was Traci Lords's first film. Basically, a trivia point. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs cleanup. That it was her first film is not so special. That she was underage at the time and the fact that this movie is (I assume) illegal in the states makes it more than a trivia point. Garion96 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding some reliable sources on this, which is rather unusual for porn-related articles: [2], [3]. I agree about the circumstances of her being underage making this an interesting topic. Cazort (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there actually any reliable source to support the claim that this was her first film and that it was, in fact, illegal in the states? Right now the article is completely unreferenced (and the porn IMDB equivalent doesn't count). If these claims to notability can not be verified, then should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources I gave do establish this. Cazort (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at both, neither says it was her first film, and from what I'm reading, it appears a lot of porn films were caught in a "crack down" not just this one. Neither source also clearly indicates if this happened before or after the film's released, but they read like this happened after the fact, which wouldn't really confer any notability here, but be a statement on the porn industry in general. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way I saw it. Is every movie she did while underaged and subsequently illegal now notable? That seems silly. If there was an article about what happened when they found out (or just a list of what movies had to be pulled), that would make sense, but at this point, the entire notability is based on that one fact which makes it seem like the equivalent of WP:BLP1E. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Unfortunately neither of the two sources Cazort provides does meet my expectations of a notable discussion of the movie; rather they are incidental mentions that this was one of several pornos she appeared in as a minor. However, since I would expect the first porno she appeared in was a significant event in Traci Lords's life (okay, if I appeared in even just one porn movie it would not only be memorable, but have a distinct effect on my later life -- & no, I won't explain), & Traci Lords is a notable person, something should be written about it. (I'm thinking along the lines of its production, how Lords was brought into it, how it affected her, etc.) But if the information is not available in a form that can be added to WP, then it's going to get deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the first porno she appeared in was a significant even in her life, notability isn't inherited and it looks like it was just a generic porno, except for the fact that its lead star was underage at the time and so it's now illegal. It's the same issue with Those Young Girls, Talk Dirty To Me Part III, Sister Dearest and Kinky Business among others (that last one's really a stretch since just one scene had her and they just removed it to release the film). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that "notability isn't inherited" only works so far. My point is that it derives notability from her only if it can be related to her life. (In the same way how PT-109 is notable due to president John F. Kennedy: there wouldn't be an article about it because the average WWII patrol boat is, arguably, not notable.) At the moment the article does not explain how the porno flick relates to her life, & I'm not confident that the material exists that would allow someone to do exactly that -- which is why I'm voting "Weak delete". Now stop arguing with me because I largely agree with you or I'll change my vote to "weak keep", so we can have something to argue about. ;) -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to point out that because of the clandestine nature of porn in our society, a notable porn film, actor, or any topic related to porn, is not going to attract the same sort of attention from mainstream media outlets as an equally notable actor, movie, or topic relating to other film. I know not every editor agrees with me, but I am of the belief that, when it comes to porn, anything that meets WP:Verifiability is above and beyond the standards of WP:Notability. It sounds like the discussion above, however, has raised some doubts about verifiability of some of the text on this page--I would say that if we can't verify that this was her first film, we should edit the page to remove these assertions. But...my belief that this film is notable still stands. Cazort (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the exact point I am wrestling with: what makes a porn movie notable? I took a look at the relevant WikiProject pages, & failed to find any discussion of the matter. (Maybe it exists, but I couldn't find it.) Pornography is, generally speaking, an ephemeral medium, quickly & cheaply produced, released with scant attention beyond its target audience -- & forgotten. I'll freely admit some of it is worth an encyclopedia entry (Deep Throat immediately comes to mind), but the largest portion of it is of less interest to anyone than 30-year-old utility bills. If someone can put a given porno movie into some context -- how this one fit into Lord's life, for example -- then notability is proven. (But after having a peak at her autobiography over at Amazon, I'm not convinced that the reliable material is there for a Wikipedia editor to do this.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say porn should still be held to the same standards as all other topics: if it has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, its notable. If not, its just like most straight to DVD releases or every Harlequin novel ever released - not notable enough for a article beyond the general topic of porn, romance novel, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry verifies that she "lost her 'screen cherry'" with Tom Byron in this movie. And the Encyclopedia of Television Subjects, Themes and Settings says, "Fifteen-and-a-half-year old Traci Lords (born on May 7, 1968) made her first adult film (What Gets Me Hot) in early 1984. In total she made 100 Triple X films, 99 of which are illegal...her only legal film is 1987's Traci, I Love You..." DHowell (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a major performer's first film is notability, even though the film may be trivial otherwise.DGG (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? No guideline states that anywhere. And it isn't her first major film, just her first film, and this is not applied to any other film that I've ever seen. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Right now something less than 20% of the article is about it being her first porno; 80% is about what happens, viz. who does what to whom. If there's little hope of writing more than a list of "who does what to whom", then this -- & the rest of her films -- should be rolled into a list article. It's not a question of notability, but of appropriate emphasis. -- llywrch (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Tone ‎ (CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Garage

"The term Zombie garage is rarely used in the music press" - I don't think it is ever used and has no verifiability. Habanero-tan (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie garage -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders August

Fails WP:CREATIVE. While the Oscar-nominated short he co-wrote is probably notable, its notability is not high enough to extend to its screenwriter. Plus, I can't resist pointing out the awfully cute disguise Mr August used to upload his autobiography (which is, of course, his only contribution): username Afa1506, where Afa = Anders Frithiof August and 1506 = June 15, his birthday. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the subject's notability is not fully certain yet, the fact that he also has writing credits on two feature films set for release later this year tend to support the idea that he may be notable as a screenwriter. I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even setting aside WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns, how do the future credits bring him closer to satisfying WP:CREATIVE? I'm not even sure the films have Wikipedia articles; the links (to Camping and Applause) August put in there, of course, lead nowhere near where they should. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is borderline at best. Anders August may grow notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to apply for now. It would be more convincing if, in the process, he should generate enough interest and not have to write his own entry. Dahn (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Oscar-nominated short is notable and if we were to delete this article that information would be lost, since there's not yet enough information for a separate article. If someone were to create it, I'd suggest a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That August wrote The Pig can easily be found out here; surely someone interested in writing an article on the film would know to consult the IMDb. The real question is whether August himself, not his film, is notable, and no convincing evidence for that has emerged. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 3 April 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. Mfield (Oi!) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Smart Memories Project

This article appears to be extremely self-acknowledging and self-promoting, but the project this page describes is not well-known within the computer science community and therefore fails to meet the notability guideline. The nature of the page suggests that members of the project described by the page are using the page both as a project homepage and as a means to promote the project, neither of which are within the guidelines of Wikipedia. The article also does not meet the criteria for reliability, as a very large portion of the links lead back to pages created by members of the project on other websites. @modi (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we need expert opinion here. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a computer scientist and this is close to my area of research. It is unlikely I would have found this page otherwise. @modi (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might or might not be a notable project, but this isn't an appropriate way to write about it: this article is being used by the Stanford team as a substitute for a project web site. Most of the text here is ripped directly from pages within the project's web site. Copyright is not an issue here, as the primary author (User:Su-steveri) suggests that he is Stephen Richardson, who probably wrote the project web site as well. What is an issue, however, is that the material copied from there has a completely inappropriate tone for Wikipedia, making heavy use of the first person and failing to cite most of its statements to independent sources. There might be an article in here somewhere, but this isn't it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NOTWEBHOST. WillOakland (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I do not think the way an article is written is grounds for deleting it. If an article is written in a way that is inappropriate, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. The question in my mind is whether the subject is notable. "not well-known" is not the way I define notability. There are notable yet obscure subjects in all scientific fields. i.e. rare plants or insects. I note with interest (although I admit it is probably not significant), that "Stanford Smart Memories Project" placed in speech marks in a google search has 536 hits [4]. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are offering to rewrite the article now, there is no point in keeping it. What's written here is not an encyclopedia article and doesn't belong here. WillOakland (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a little to technical for me. But no doubt somebody familiar with some of the terms (multiple processors, single integrated circuit chip, chip multiprocessor, an IC, Reconfigurable computing....etc) may be able to strip the article and turn it into a stub. This in my mind is preferable to deletion. Any offers? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been here for nearly two and a half years now, and (literally!) nobody from outside Stanford has made any substantial edits to it. Eventualism has its place, but at a certain point it starts becoming clear that there's simply no one who's willing to write a suitable article. Moreover, a blank slate might well be a better starting point than the current article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big-boned cats

This appears to be an exercise in humor, and not a commonly used scientific classification. sources do not well support the notability of this term. In fact, it's possible that the whole article is simply a promotion for a specific humor web site. Prod removed by anonymous ip without comment or change. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The few uses of this term that I find online don't mesh at all with what is represented on the article...i.e. this source: [5]. I don't see any evidence that this is a notable term. Cazort (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this is probably spam; regardless there are no references and it fails WP:V. I42 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense or spam. Take your pick. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a book of this title http://www.amazon.com/Big-Boned-Cats-Thomas-Handschiegel/dp/098201810X so spam is possible, assuming the editing hadn't been finished before prod and AfD. There again, the bigbonedcats.com site is about the book, so spam is quite likely, given the username of the creator of the article. Peridon (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon - appears to be leaning toward spam Skier Dude (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good laugh though. This sounds like one for WP:DAFT. ←Spidern → 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lolcats. LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasybaseballarbitration.com

Clearly written by someone with a COI. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Is it an advertisement? "The FBA is your supreme court Justice for any Fantasy Baseball-related disputes"; for a very reasonable fee, of course. Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know that fantasy sports are going too far when you have fantasy arbitration involved. Right now it's unnotable and does not have current popularity (despite having a big baseball journal behind it). I just hope it stays a minor site (anyone seeing a Fantasy Sports Court court show?). Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am finding no reliable sources on this. Cazort (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An advertisment for a non-notable website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Could have sworn I'd tagged this one. Must be carrying on editing in dreams...) Not notable, probably unnecessary (not a criterion for deletion - or is it?), and a bit spammy. Peridon (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by creator to article so far don't change my opinion. Peridon (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article redone to include news quote on subject and input of other similar websites as well as removed any semmingly advertisement vervage. Spdevry4 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this subject is a major storyline in fantasy sports. articles have been done on ESPN, Sporting News, Chicago Tribute among the few... some sports lawyers are starting to provide the service. I've search the web and I chose this one because it is the best looking and most professional of the lot. Spdevry4 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The chicago tribune article listed as a "source" does not even mention this site by name. Rather, it is written about Fantasy sports arbitration in general. The fact that it is written about that subject and yet does not even mention this site is consistent with deleting, not keeping. The other sources are all self-published by organizations connected to this subject and thus aren't independent--which is necessary to establish notability. Cazort (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we have Fantasy sport. But if there is no significant coverage of this particular website, then it shouldn't have its own article. ←Spidern → 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:RHaworth tagged Fantasy sports arbitration for deletion...but the template he gave linked to this deletion discussion and not its own deletion discussion. I think this page is not notable but I think that that page (as the Chicago tribune article mentioned above supports) might possibly be notable and worth keeping. How can we create a real deletion discussion for that article? I'd hate to see that page swept away just because this one gets deleted? I thought each page needed a separate discussion? I'm confused. Cazort (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation He didn't tag it for AfD - he prodded it. The link to here is for an example of the concept of fantasy arbitration. Peridon (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but this website just isn't significant enough to merit an article. Also, the article is blatant spam. ←Spidern → 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Idiotic comment Why don't they make up fantasy panels of lawyers to arbitrate the fantasy disputes? Obviously you couldn't use Messrs Mason or Rumpole, but if there were some way of assessing some real lawyers' recent performances, panels could be drafted from a body of them.... Free idea - just give Peridon a mention when you set it up. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dingle

Undrafted not notable college level athlete. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people or WP:ATHLETE — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won major awards in college, was good enough to declare for the draft after junior year Ringerfan23 (talk) 04:26, 5 April 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 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – regardless of whatever awards were won, there's nothing else coming from any independent reliable sources that can establish sufficient notability of this athlete (note that I am not looking at WP:ATHLETE but the general guideline as a whole; I don't normally deal with athlete AFDs). MuZemike 02:13, 7 April 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 Mitochondrial Eve. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture

Merge back into parent article from whence it came. Article contains a list of two examples, which is not reason enough for it to have been split from the parent article - even if it had been a source of contention amongst editors there. Khalfani Khaldun 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is agreement on the article to split, in line with WP:Handling trivia and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While most of the other editors of Mitochondrial Eve have remained silent (which I understand you may take to be agreement), as a user who does not regularly edit that article I have brought the split to AfD because this is a case that I believe should be looked at by editors who aren't tied heavily to personal opinions about the parent article. I believe we are going to find that a wider group of editors believes that splitting the content off to get it away from opposing editors is not a proper way to deal with a debate, and from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Khalfani Khaldun 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An example is Osama bin Laden in popular culture which is separate from the main article. I think this is a win-win situation because there are a number of editors who are against a pop culture section in the article Mitochondrial Eve. There was some edit warring over the issue, which has since ended with the creation of the popular culture article. Should the popular culture article be merged back, it is sure to reignite debate and edit wars regarding its inclusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list with only two entries (and a pop-culture list at that) won't be kept, though. So while I appreciate you were trying to resolve a conflict, in this case, it's no solution. All it'll result in is split-delete-merge-resume war.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to edit-warring at the parent article I guess then. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it appears to be just name-dropping references (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and nobody has written about this subject in reliable sources (WP:OR). WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mitochondrial Eve. Not enough content on its own, but content worth keeping. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into parent article Mitochondrial Eve. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article. Although short the list is bound to grow as the concept becomes more established. There's plenty of precedent for In Pop Culture articles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help "establish" any subject, nor are articles supposed to be kept in anticipation of subjects becoming "established." This is understood pretty much everywhere on Wikipedia except for IPC lists, where certain trivia afficionados think their consensus overrides core policy. WillOakland (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference in question isn't significant to the topic and should be removed per WP:IPC which states, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." Unless there is a source that can support the importance of the BSG reference to the subject, it doesn't belong in the article. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not big enough to justify a split, not appropriate to spin it out just to get rid of it. You'll have to form a consensus for its retention or deletion in the parent article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as completely unnotable. Content merged back to the parent article will not survive under {{trivia}}. The precedent is actually delete for "in pop culture" articles on far more notable entities, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balder in popular culture. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is inconsistent at best, and dependent on who shows up to a given AfD. You've cherry-picked an AfD that was dominated by "anti-IPC" respondents; the same AfD could be run today and it would probably be "no consensus". Further, WP:TRIVIA (and its companion template {{trivia}}) does not advocate the deletion of pop culture information on the basis that it is "trivia". Regardless, these points are moot; the article being discussed right now is too short to have been an appropriate candidate for splitting in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a "completely unnnotable" subject can have 358986 goggle hits.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. WillOakland (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it's now 529823 ghits (that's just for "Mitochondrial Eve" AND "Battlestar Galactica", BTW). --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try 348 hits, which appear to be almost entirely blogs and plot summaries of the episode. BTW, I don't mind if there is an article about the episode. WillOakland (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must be running different searches then, cos I get the higher number. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete content fork and waste of time. Nothing of "mergeable" value here. If there's something notable to be written about this in the Mitochondrial Eve, that can be done by editors at that article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this article nominated for deletion with a merge request? This is exactly why Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion should exist, so people don't think AfD is the only way to get things done. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was very clear that discussing this merger with most of the editors at Mitochondrial Eve was not going to lead anywhere, and as that page is not yet ready for use this is the only place I knew to try and get input for more editors. Khalfani Khaldun 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content-fork. This shouldn't be merged back as it is trivia which is wholly unrelated to the subject of the parent article. Them From Space 05:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly unrelated? I don't think so, else there would be no "in pop culture" articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for IPC articles, historically, is to dump content that can't be rewritten into prose because that would require a synthesis, and can't be removed due to objections from trivia buffs. In other words, exactly what happened here. WillOakland (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not wholly unrelated. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by that was that the individual blurbs had more to do with other subjects than this one. In short, they were passing mentions, and passing mentions are trivia. Unless the trivia in itself is notable we shouldn't have an article about the trivia in itself. Them From Space 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mention is hardly passing. In Greg Egan's novel, for example, it is central. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions are important to the stories themselves, but not to the topic of mitochondrial eve, which is why they don't belong in the mitochondrial eve article. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you mean by the term "mitochondrial eve". If you just mean the scientific usage they you would be correct, but the term covers more than that, including its representation in popular culture. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsplit and delete the content fork. A 2-item list is just too short for something that has a primary article. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now a 3-item list. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per nom et al. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use for main article, since this is just a trivia section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand and improve until its enough for an article. This simply is too small at present. DGG (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no existing GFDL burden, no substantial new content to merge – a mention of Greg Egan's short story can be rewritten from new reliable sources. The "unsplit" was a reversion with no changes to that section, and there have been no additions since. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For closing admin's convenience, diffs between revisions referenced above and latest: Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture Mitochondrial Eve (unfortunately, the changes don't line up properly) Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Mitochondrial Eve. The above comment only leaves me wondering: why should attribution of any changes (even small ones) be eliminated, edit history be deleted, and content be entirely rewritten, just so we can have a redlink at this article title? Meh, redirects are cheap. DHowell (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is useless on its own, put it back in with the main article, keep the information and make it one click closer to the people who want it. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jahmile Addae

Undrafted not notable college level athlete. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people or WP:ATHLETE — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the prod because the infobox indicated he was signed by 2 NFL teams. However, the article claims that while he was on the active roster, he never played in a game. Therefore, like Johnny Dingle, notability is borderline. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is "signed" a contract and being singed. Theres a big difference. Looks like they gave him a shot, and didn't perform the way they wanted and he got booted. I'm no expert but I assume A LOT of them end up with that fate, making him no more notable then the hundreds of others. To qualify under WP:ATHLETE you need to have played for them, i.e. in a regular season game. Not just attending a training camp and then getting sent home. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being signed isn't enough for notability (or being singed, for that matter :-) and there aren't the sources to make him notable for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 2 April 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 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the independent reliable sources shown doesn't provide adequate coverage to establish notability. You got the one article what does an OK job, but the high school article has only a trivial mention at most. MuZemike 01:59, 7 April 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. Valley2city^‽ 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Lorence

No particular evidence of notability; also, the "My music comes from an emotional space" quote gives no Google hits, which is a bit suspicious. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely (self) promotional, no notability to speak of. Dahn (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to help in the construction of this article for the new editor and find some credible references as to notability, but only found local reviews. There are reviews, but the notability of the reviews is difficult for me to determine because I do not know much about the world of new age music and can't tell what amounts to notability. Jenafalt (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenafalt (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is promotional material. ←Spidern → 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mitochondrial Eve. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture

Merge back into parent article from whence it came. Article contains a list of two examples, which is not reason enough for it to have been split from the parent article - even if it had been a source of contention amongst editors there. Khalfani Khaldun 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is agreement on the article to split, in line with WP:Handling trivia and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While most of the other editors of Mitochondrial Eve have remained silent (which I understand you may take to be agreement), as a user who does not regularly edit that article I have brought the split to AfD because this is a case that I believe should be looked at by editors who aren't tied heavily to personal opinions about the parent article. I believe we are going to find that a wider group of editors believes that splitting the content off to get it away from opposing editors is not a proper way to deal with a debate, and from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Khalfani Khaldun 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An example is Osama bin Laden in popular culture which is separate from the main article. I think this is a win-win situation because there are a number of editors who are against a pop culture section in the article Mitochondrial Eve. There was some edit warring over the issue, which has since ended with the creation of the popular culture article. Should the popular culture article be merged back, it is sure to reignite debate and edit wars regarding its inclusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list with only two entries (and a pop-culture list at that) won't be kept, though. So while I appreciate you were trying to resolve a conflict, in this case, it's no solution. All it'll result in is split-delete-merge-resume war.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to edit-warring at the parent article I guess then. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it appears to be just name-dropping references (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and nobody has written about this subject in reliable sources (WP:OR). WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mitochondrial Eve. Not enough content on its own, but content worth keeping. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into parent article Mitochondrial Eve. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article. Although short the list is bound to grow as the concept becomes more established. There's plenty of precedent for In Pop Culture articles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help "establish" any subject, nor are articles supposed to be kept in anticipation of subjects becoming "established." This is understood pretty much everywhere on Wikipedia except for IPC lists, where certain trivia afficionados think their consensus overrides core policy. WillOakland (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference in question isn't significant to the topic and should be removed per WP:IPC which states, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." Unless there is a source that can support the importance of the BSG reference to the subject, it doesn't belong in the article. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not big enough to justify a split, not appropriate to spin it out just to get rid of it. You'll have to form a consensus for its retention or deletion in the parent article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as completely unnotable. Content merged back to the parent article will not survive under {{trivia}}. The precedent is actually delete for "in pop culture" articles on far more notable entities, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balder in popular culture. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is inconsistent at best, and dependent on who shows up to a given AfD. You've cherry-picked an AfD that was dominated by "anti-IPC" respondents; the same AfD could be run today and it would probably be "no consensus". Further, WP:TRIVIA (and its companion template {{trivia}}) does not advocate the deletion of pop culture information on the basis that it is "trivia". Regardless, these points are moot; the article being discussed right now is too short to have been an appropriate candidate for splitting in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a "completely unnnotable" subject can have 358986 goggle hits.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. WillOakland (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it's now 529823 ghits (that's just for "Mitochondrial Eve" AND "Battlestar Galactica", BTW). --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try 348 hits, which appear to be almost entirely blogs and plot summaries of the episode. BTW, I don't mind if there is an article about the episode. WillOakland (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must be running different searches then, cos I get the higher number. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete content fork and waste of time. Nothing of "mergeable" value here. If there's something notable to be written about this in the Mitochondrial Eve, that can be done by editors at that article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this article nominated for deletion with a merge request? This is exactly why Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion should exist, so people don't think AfD is the only way to get things done. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was very clear that discussing this merger with most of the editors at Mitochondrial Eve was not going to lead anywhere, and as that page is not yet ready for use this is the only place I knew to try and get input for more editors. Khalfani Khaldun 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content-fork. This shouldn't be merged back as it is trivia which is wholly unrelated to the subject of the parent article. Them From Space 05:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly unrelated? I don't think so, else there would be no "in pop culture" articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for IPC articles, historically, is to dump content that can't be rewritten into prose because that would require a synthesis, and can't be removed due to objections from trivia buffs. In other words, exactly what happened here. WillOakland (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not wholly unrelated. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by that was that the individual blurbs had more to do with other subjects than this one. In short, they were passing mentions, and passing mentions are trivia. Unless the trivia in itself is notable we shouldn't have an article about the trivia in itself. Them From Space 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mention is hardly passing. In Greg Egan's novel, for example, it is central. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions are important to the stories themselves, but not to the topic of mitochondrial eve, which is why they don't belong in the mitochondrial eve article. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you mean by the term "mitochondrial eve". If you just mean the scientific usage they you would be correct, but the term covers more than that, including its representation in popular culture. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsplit and delete the content fork. A 2-item list is just too short for something that has a primary article. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now a 3-item list. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per nom et al. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use for main article, since this is just a trivia section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand and improve until its enough for an article. This simply is too small at present. DGG (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no existing GFDL burden, no substantial new content to merge – a mention of Greg Egan's short story can be rewritten from new reliable sources. The "unsplit" was a reversion with no changes to that section, and there have been no additions since. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For closing admin's convenience, diffs between revisions referenced above and latest: Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture Mitochondrial Eve (unfortunately, the changes don't line up properly) Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Mitochondrial Eve. The above comment only leaves me wondering: why should attribution of any changes (even small ones) be eliminated, edit history be deleted, and content be entirely rewritten, just so we can have a redlink at this article title? Meh, redirects are cheap. DHowell (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is useless on its own, put it back in with the main article, keep the information and make it one click closer to the people who want it. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Audrey Joseph. There is a consensus that the material is not worthy of an individual article, but it seems an obvious search term, and some material from this article would be usable in the other, were their not the risk of copyvio. Were it not for the copyvio, I'd simply redirect to Audrey Joseph, and leave the history intact. As it is, I'm going to initially delete the history behind the redirect as well, and see what can be fathomed out. Can those wanting to merge material come chat with me and we'll work out which aspects of the history are not copyvio? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club Universe

Unsourced and promotional in tone (for its owners, who have moved on to other ventures), this defunct nightclub has only 1,300 ghits, and no independent coverage that would even allow it to approach passing the GNGs. I'm sure its patrons had fun there and miss it, but it did not achieve wide acclaim, fame or infamy that would establish notability or generate the type of secondary coverage that would allow for independent verification of its claims. Fans of this club are welcome to host a memorial site elsewhere, but wikipedia is not the place for it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite possibly a copyright violation. I note the entire content has been lifted from [6]. Hard to tell which came first but either way there is no siginificant reliable coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the place does appear occasionally in reliable sources but only ever as a passing mention, therefore not enough to establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This, disappointingly, is a rather cynical and somewhat bad faith take on the subject. I certainly am not familiar with all the gay discos worldwide but this was amongst the largest and longest running and the king of gay clubs for as long as it was open. The name of the venue is 177 Townsend (capacity 1200+) and the back of the block building was 174 King st (capacity 400-600). The two venues were run by Audrey Joseph, another article at AfD ~~via the nominator~~. In part this subject will be covered only so much by regular google hits because of wp:CSB and the timing of it's existence. Its reprisal events are somewhat covered but frankly they don't shoot for media coverage as much as buy fullpage ads in LGBT publications advertising which celebrity was going to perform that weekend. Club Universe was the main Saturday night club, Pleasuredome was the main Sunday night with Latino club Futurama in the 174 King space. The only reason the clubs don't exist anymore is because the lease was only for 15 years and the building was torn down as the property was worth much much more due to the neighborhood gentrification. While in business these were the leading clubs of the city and likely the largest gay clubs in the United States west of Texas/Chicago - which I believe also have mega clubs. If we had articles devoted to the venue this should be merged there; as we don't, as of yet, merge to Audrey Joseph article as she ran the venue and club. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt "Bad faith?" "Cynical?" Sure you don't want to strike that? I'll give you a little time to think it over. (And i didn't nominate Audrey Joseph, you got that wrong as well).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, I've struck that nom also nommed the other article. Four hours after disparaging the creator of the Audrey Joseph article as a COI - with no evidence - and completely ignoring the dozens of reliable sources presented, claimed that article was somehow in violation of BLP. Which also has yet to be shown true in any way ... they nommed this article. Nom's statement includes - Fans of this club are welcome to host a memorial site elsewhere, but wikipedia is not the place for it. I see that as bad faith that the article was somehow written to memorialize a club. I choose to assume volunteers are here to improve articles but we each must decide what we choose to believe. Also please note sarcasm is generally unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok well, then, i consider your argument to keep it in bad faith and cynical. So there. Nyah nyah nyah.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG, they should get a blog if they want a memorial for this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with respects to WP:NTEMP, as a quick search found many articles about the club from 10 years back... Google News... showing continued coverage over an extended period of time in Reliable Sources. Certainly the article needs a good sandblasting, but with respects, that's a subject for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyright violation [7] Untick (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A straight cut and paste from myspace. How appropriate. Yes, that should make it speedy, though i'm not sure of the procedure once the AFD has begun.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As JamesBurns pointed out above it's not possible to establish now which came first, the article here or the MySpace page. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This has also undergone changes over the past two years. -- Banjeboi 11:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elbasho

Contested prod. Non-notable internet radio station, no reliable sources. GlassCobra 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't be notable without sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 2 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Parker's Flashback (1981 film)

No claim of or supporting notability, fails notability guidelines for porn. Prod removed by IP SPA editor without explanation Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The eponymous star of the title meets WP:PORNBIO for his unique contribution and, of his limited filmography, there are ten other articles describing specific films. I'm not claiming this is a classic of world cinema but pre-AIDS direct-to-video gay porn films are few in number and of some social-science interest. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:31, 2 April 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 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or as an alternate redirect to Al Parker. Just because Parker is notable doesn't mean every film he has starred in is. There doesn't seem to be sufficient notability for this film in either case. MuZemike 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, classic bareback is a limited and collected genre. Specifically, Flashback is a great example of this genre and people who collect classic bareback will probably wiki the movie.De Bergerac (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think either of the keep !votes is grounded in policy; while the film might be of "social-science interest," that wouldn't make it notable absent an appropriate published social-science source; if just being collectible were enough to confer notability; we'd have thousands of articles on individual coins, stamps, comic book issues, and probably even Beanie Babies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rustpack

Delete Non-notable band, was speedied just the other day. Prod was removed by article creator with no reasoning. Previous article was written by someone affiliated with the band (User:Rustpack), so this one may have conflict of interest as well, but I'll assume good faith for now. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability provided in article text. Two external links are not verifiable in English. I don't mean to sound lingually snobby, but it does make verifiability a chore at best. - Vianello (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, I can't find anything useful in Internetland. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google rustpack -wikipedia -myspace gets 100 ghits. See no evidence that they meet WP:BAND Bali ultimate (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Does Hollywood

No claim of or supporting notability, fails notability guidelines for porn. Prod removed by IP SPA editor with explanation "as is my right" Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. The producers of Cluedo would be surprised this links to them. JamesBurns (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnotable film with absolutely no significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Can't find a single review, news article, anything beyond the production company's own press releases. Claim that it was "illegal" because of the actresses age unsupported and unverifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No listing on IMDB, at all, either under the movie title -- or in the extensive list of Lord's film appearances. And look at that list in the article of all of her co-stars: a veritable "Who's who" of porn stars in 1985! As unreliable as IMDB can sometimes be, does anyone seriously think the fans of blue movies would have neglected to add that title if it actually existed? I suspect a hoax here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pamlico 140

Non-notable product. --- RockMFR 17:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As above, but if it could be proven that someone notable used one, maybe it could be saved. Colds7ream (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Since the article states that this is a discontinued product, and there is no link to the company (unless I missed it) this doesn't fall under advertising. I'd rather see someone from the kayaking community weigh in on this. Reasonable effort was expended on the article, which counts favorably for me. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. Some effort gone into this; but the companies don't even have articles, and WP:NOT a kayak catalogue. Rd232 ^talk 02:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not, but no one claimed it was. Since we have no notability guidelines for Kayaks we clearly need an expert to weigh in on this or even better, judge it on possible references rather than perceived notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No one claimed it was" - true, but that's the impression the content gives. Without references, it's hard to judge notability except on perception. Together with not having articles on the makers of this particular model it's a fairly big thumbs down for me, slightly mitigated by the effort put in. Rd232 ^talk 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. g11 Tone 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Selling

An advertisement masquerading as an article. Pretty much textbook {{db-g11}}, and is probably speedy-able as such, but figured it would be better to bring to AfD, as I'm also nominating the following related pages (for the same reason as above):

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD-G11. Colds7ream (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Blatant ad. Gigs (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The links to the online store were enough for me. Wperdue (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Speedy Delete This is blatant advertising, the sources are all promotional. Speedy it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing under 12's

No evidence of notability, no sources. Google comes up with nothing. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure how this could be notable enough for Wikipedia in its present stage, and I have not found any related "reliable" sources, myself.Spring12 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google shows nothing, and article would have to be rewritten from the ground up anyway. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator[8] (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Porter (director)

Does not meet the requirements set in Wikipedia:Notability (people). More specifically, under the guidelines in Creative Professionals, the subject is not widely cited by peers or successors, the subject did not create a new concept, etc., the subject's works have not been covered in enough independent sources to warrant notability, the subject's work is not (a) a significant monument (unless award nominations count in this category), (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has not received enough "critical attention," or (d) "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. If more reliable, independent sources can be presented in this discussion reconsideration is in order, but my current research has not turned up enough reliable material besides database references to this particular "Stephen Porter's" award nominations and bio. Spring12 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Tony Award nominations are significant in terms of establishing points (b) and (c). A production nominated for a major award establishes that the creative work is "a significant exhibition" (in this case a theatrical exhibition) and that the production and those involved with it are certain to have been reviewed by major newspapers, etc. As the director of multiple notable productions Porter is a notable director. Further Porter himself has been personally Tony Award nominated for "Best Director" which clearly establishes notability. This is really not a well thought out AFD nomination. The solution on the part of the nominator should have been to either tag the article as unreferenced or to have gone out found references. Nrswanson (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, speedy close, disruptive nomination. Subject is unmistakeably notable. Nominator's rationale is nonsense. Everybody should know that Broadway plays are reviewed in major magazines and newspapers. So just find the 3d party references. Completely unsuitable action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. As for supposed research by Spring12, the New York Times alone has several hundred articles related Stephen Porter, including about a dozen with his name in the article's title.[9] Doesn't seem like an even remotely extensive or intelligent search to me on the part of Spring12. Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Pburka (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care-to-cure

Notability not asserted. Sources consist of YouTube and blogs. Reads like an advert. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy if possible, A7. Smells of spam as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsdrinktea (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam for an apparent good cause but nn student society is still spam. Rd232 ^talk 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes against the grain to delete a charity article, but the author here seems to have completely misunderstood what a reliable source amounts to. With sources, and the "word from our sponsors" style cleaned up, it could become acceptable, but I fear that the charity is just too minor for sources to be found. SpinningSpark 12:53, 2 April 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. A5 Tone 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Contemplation upon Flowers

Transwiki'd to WikiSource s:A Contemplation upon Flowers billinghurst (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The part that isn't copy/paste is original research Lets drink Tea 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) delete A good idea to transwiki. No need to keep it here any longer. Does this not fall under speedy delete A5? -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A5 of CSD. The article has already been transwikied. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaestroZone

Possible hoax, a website article which does not state its site address. A google search seems to indicate that the site has not yet gone live. If it is a real site then wait for it to go live and then get 3rd party coverage. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the primary editor appears to be the primary developer of the site so COI comes in to play. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and COI here. But I'm confused as to how this is a hoax; I found the site without any problem: http://maestrozone.marksmusiconline.co.uk/ Now finding notability, I could not. -WarthogDemon 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site "MaestroZone.com" does not exist, and this seems to be a test page at the editor's own website. Although I'm not asking for deletion on those grounds, it fails WP:N easily. Darrenhusted (talk)

I am confused, but no doubt it's just me being slow here. At any rate, I wasn't thinking you were AFDing this on that, so no problem. :P -WarthogDemon 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is information about a social network site for musicians that has just started. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra use and have told me that they will link to it when they update there website, this will be soon. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markharding93 (talk • contribs)

But that does not make it notable, not after one month. Where do you rank on Alexa? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have only just released so, like when facebook first started, are not a very high rank. Soon we will be releasing www.maestrozone.com but untill then we are ok with our subdomain. Please remove the delete request. User:markharding93 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do that Mark. You're right, when Facebook started it ranked no where, it also didn't have a Wikipedia article. However once it was one of the hundred most used sites then it did. Unless you can jump a few million places in three days I don't see your article staying. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with this site and it is not a hoax! The Chicago Symphony Orchestra do use and have not yet put the link on their site. They will do this when they updgarde their site. User:markharding93 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't source it at the moment, which is what matters - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I mis-spoke when I said hoax, but on the article pages for MySpace and Facebook they list their sites, you did not list your homepage. This caused me to be suspicious. No matter, MySpace has 124,000,000 visitors last month (February) and Facebook had 276,000,000 visitors. I only noticed your page because you kept trying to spam the Facebook page. Once you've had 100,000,000 visits then you may have something. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no primary sources, let alone secondary. And per above - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain how i can improve it and use sources - primary and secondary. User:markharding93 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well see WP:SOURCE, which should explain it. By primary and secondary I mean "internal" and "external" sources (i.e. if they are involved with the company or third party). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my earlier A7. →Dyl @n 620 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for deleting this. User:markharding93 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By A7 he means it's not notable enough to merit a page on Wikipedia, please read the link he provided. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate sourcing, little to no third party coverage, A7. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but the author is welcome to add it back once there has been some media coverage indicating the importance of the site. Pburka (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - currently [10] apparently no third party coverage as required by WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an advertising media to help launch the product.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet our notability requirements; a Google News archive search turned up zero relevant hits. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Smythe

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no relevant Google hits for this alleged author or her works or the alleged sources used other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. I suspect this article may be a hoax. Note, for example, the claim that as immigrants to the United States in 1912, the subject and her family were not allowed to live in New York City. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the following: The book is a fictional autobiography, the main character is called Susan Linkwater (often just referred to as Miss Linkwater) and is written as if a diary. Uh, in that case, the main character would more likely be referred to most of the time as "I", unless for some reason she was not on a first name basis with herself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. I can't even find evidence that the purported reference (An Encyclopedia of America's Forgotton Authors) exists. Pburka (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedly Delete: Try the National Library of Australia at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au or the New York Public Library. Even if the hoaxer had spelled "Forgotton" correctly that title does not exist, nor do any of the purported works or author. Creator then needs a block. T L Miles (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No trace to be found of Smythe or Night of the Black Cat. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the very least, nonnotable for sure. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Venezuela. Material can be merged from the history, which remains visible. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Venezuela relations

Amazingly, not an article from Plumoyr or his sockpuppet Groubani. It still doesn't matter, though, this is a non notable relationship between two countries without representation in the other country (Venezuela's is in Bulgaria, and Serbia's in Brazil). Other than that, the article consists of Venezuela's decision not to recognise Kosovo's independence. I highly doubt that not recognising someone's independence makes a relationship notable - especially, as I've already stated, between two countries that aren't represented in the other country. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article due to lack of notability, they don't even have embassies with each other. Possibly merge any appropriate information into Foreign relations of Serbia and Foreign relations of Venezuela. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no signs of notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Foreign relations of Venezuela, if only as an example of Pres. Chavez using foreign policy (in this case, relating to Kosovo) in regard to his strained relations with the U.S. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The relation between the two countries is not significant enough to warrant an article. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: To the foreign relations section of the Venezuela article. South Bay (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Venezuela. The decision to not accept Kosovo's independence is obviously an important bit of information that needs to be covered in a better context. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the relationship's patent lack of notability (no embassies, tiny trade flow, very far apart from one another); Kosovo bit is entirely covered at International recognition of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - usual notable bilateral relations - [11][12][13][14] and so forth, usual stuff. WilyD 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link says nought about Venezuela; the second and third are amply covered at International recognition of Kosovo; the fourth involves four students - students! - travelling to Belgrade to learn more about protest techniques: not exactly a reflection, one way or another, of bilateral relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You still haven't addressed why you feel that bilateral relations should be held to a much higher standard for inclusion than any other type of article. Redicule is also not an effective argument (though since you have no meaningful arguments at all, I suppose you need to go with what you have). Not sure what happened on the first one, I may go back andfigure out what I meant to link to. WilyD 16:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Students don't work for their government; they have no official capacity; they were little more than tourists. So yes, claiming that as a basis for notability in this relationship should be subject to mild ridicule. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I sympathise with the difficulty in making good arguments to delete notable articles, leaving you with nothing but misdirection and ad hominems. Bilateral relations do consist of a lot more than just the official dealings at the federal level. Public opinion, acts of private citizens, whatever, all impact the relationship between the two countries (as noted by professional information providers) Wily D 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a leap of logic bordering on a WP:SYNTH breach. Just because four politically-motivated tourists (with whom, by the way, I have total sympathy) spent a few days in Belgrade does not constitute evidence of a significant relationship, unless so presented in an overview of Serbian-Venezuelan relations (which of course doesn't exist, since reliable, scholarly sources don't consider this a notable relationship). - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Aberdein

Was nominated for PROD by another user, I am contesting as the individual was runner-up in a notable, professional touring car championship in the 1990s (this meets WP:ATHLETE). I have, since the prod nomination, expanded the stub slightly and also added references (the article was previously unsourced). Have nominated per process but vote to keep. Esteffect (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Its referenced which seems good. But, My only concern is he notable?. The south african circuit isnt really mentioned anywhere else in wikipedia (no way to find out from this article) so the article does appear orphaned and does it need an article? Maybe the race itself would be better at having an article, and if it exists perhaps a merge into it. I think though because the article is being developed and the interest is there that maybe its worth giving it a bit more time to see where it goes Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to argue that he is notable, as he won races and almost the championship in a professional competition. If he was a fill-in driver, or had not done anything of note, then I think notability could be questioned. Esteffect (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (if it can be called speedy after 7 days). The nominator doesn't want this deleted, and there is no process that says a disputed prod has to go to AfD. Why on earth was this relisted? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I prodded it originally, but was satisfied with the improvements made by the nominator and so didn't wish to pursue deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:36, 4 April 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Wichita

Just a small list, only one entry has an article. Ipatrol (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No justified reason for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no valid reason for deletion has been given. Redlinks are an invitation to expand the encyclopedia. Things like Featured Lists require a minimal number of redlinks; standard-quality lists do not. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entirely notable list. Redlinks or the size of the list are no reason to delete it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about Wichita, Kansas. Just because someone created a template for "lists of tallest buildings in the United States" does not mean that everyone is entitled to an article about the tallest office buildings in their favorite town. Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless more notability can be demonstrated. Nerfari (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a policy or guideline that would require deletion of this list. I'm willing to change if anyone has one. Does WP:N apply to lists? Hobit (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well WP:COMMONSENSE says there has to be a limit. You can't have a list of tallest buildings in every village. Nerfari (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well no, but Wichita is the largest city in Kansas in population terms. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:US tallest buildings lists has only 68 cities, so I'd imagine that there will be a list for "every village". (I looked for a discussion of how the cities were selected for the list in this template, but didn't find one. That would be the place to go if you were worried that these lists were including non-notable cities, towns or villages.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe when someone makes an article, it gets added to the template. Nerfari (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER would imply you could. I could see stopping at cities that have no buildings higher than size X (10 stories? 20?) Hobit (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the Witchita article. There is inadequate notability to justify a standalone article. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and sourced Jwray (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who was it that said being the most notable Socialist in the US was the equivalent of being the tallest building in Wichita? -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a list of the tallest buildings in a "village", but rather that of the largest city in Kansas. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly a BIG city then. Nerfari (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wichita is the largest city in Kansas. This list can be expanded as articles are created for the different buildings. I haven't seen any policy here that says this should be deleted.Wacko Jack O 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burswood guitar users

Not sure whether a speedy would have been more appropriate? There is absolutely no notability here, and the author seems to have a COI. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Googling around, it doesn't appear that Burswood Guitars themselves are notable, so I find it difficult to believe a list of people using them would be, and at least for now, neither of the people listed in the article appear to meet the notability guidelines. It would be sort of pushing it to speedy this as A7 as that's for people, organizations or web content. However, I think a WP:SNOW closure looms in the future. Cool3 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. Deletion Mutation 15:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. I see no reason why lists of people should be treated differently to articles on people. Neither of the people on this list appears to be notable. The criterion used to select them is not notable. JulesH (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP/MOVE/MERGE: I spent some time tracking this down... Burswood is a chinese made guitar brand, they produce low-cost guitars & their most notable product, at least in north american terms, is probably the guitar model they produce for this guy: Esteban's infomercials. the mention of those infomercials should probably be expanded within his bio-article, as they are a significant part of his fame/notability. something about burswood should be mentioned there, as they produce the guitars. not quite sure if burswood should have an article page of their own or not, but they should be mentioned in lists of guitar manufacturers, products, etc.; info about them is relevant to somebody studying guitar manufacturers/makes/brands, models, etc. since the user list only has 2 names in it, perhaps we could find someplace to tuck it in, rather than simply erase? if nothing else, please cc it to my usersection? guitars aren't my specialty, & i have a long list of other things to do on here, but there must be someplace appropriate to insert the info, eventually, & i'd rather it wasn't lost. i might tackle esteban's infomercial guitar fame... lol Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think to have a list of people who use this manufacturer's guitars, we need to have at least 2 (preferably _many_ more) notable people who use them (and where we have a reliable, independent source that comments on this). So, who else should be on the list? Because at present we only have one name, which isn't valid content for a list, plus two others who aren't notable and hence should not be on the list (per WP:SAL). JulesH (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT. Next thing we'll have is a list article on people who have seen a person whose played a Burswood guitar. I'd also say WP:SNOW here, I don't think anyone aware of policies will have an issue with it being deleted. Should have been prodded in my opinion. Matty (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ce fut en mai

Transwiki'd to WikiSource billinghurst (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki to Wikisource. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

already Transwiki'd. s:Ce fut en mai

Keep. The lyrics belong in Wikisource, but the lead section is fine for an encyclopedia article about a song which, judging by the snippets displayed by a Google Books search, seems notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. (I've removed the song text and linked to Wikisource in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An easily expandable article about a thirteenth century song. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have expanded the article and added references. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request. Article had been marked for transfer to WS, rather than transfer section. I am ambivalent about the article itself. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bühnenkunst Theatre Company

Non-notable organization. Article contains only primary sources. Only non-trivial mention of the company in ghits is a book, which appears to be self-published [15] and not well-distributed. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, no significant coverage Lets drink Tea 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't read German, but could someone who does take a look at these: [16] [17]. I'm not even sure if they're about the right theater, but if so, they might be good sources. Cool3 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pressemitteilung.ws is a site for press releases (which can be self-submitted, as this one is). Potsdam-abc.de is a website of the University of Potsdam - the page is a blurb about how an alumni of the University founded the company. I don't read German, but Google translate helped. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes, I should have thought of Google translate myself. Based on the google translation, it would appear that these are not sufficient to establish notability, so I'm now leaning towards delete. Cool3 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - selfpromotion of nn theatre company (not one independent reliable source). (Article created by User:Jliebe; founder is given as "Janek Liebetruth"). Rd232 ^talk 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and general precedent that groups local in scope don't get articles outside of truly extraordinary circumstance. Article is also very obviously spam/self-promotion: "remain close to our company", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Speedy deleted (G12) by User:Firsfron — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Scolnik

While there is certainly an assertion of notability, I still don't think this individual meets our notability criteria, whether it be WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC. No awards, no compelling non-trivial 3rd party coverage, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. I42 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's a copyvio, as pointed out above. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't speedy it as a copyvio because (1) the author claimed to have permission from UCI (though I realize a one-sentence claim is not sufficient), and (2) in the likely event that it was rewritten to avoid the copyvio (or permission was properly secured), I wanted to establish consensus that the subject is not notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an admin reviewing candidates for 'speedy deletion', I have added a 'hangon' notice to the article, in order to allow the poster an opportunity to provide licensing information to the Foundation. This discussion should proceed on the merits of the article. -- Donald Albury 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Never mind. Someone else deleted the article even though it had a 'hangon' notice. -- Donald Albury 19:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased/Shelved Punjwood films

No items on this list have articles on Wikipedia. List is entirely unreferenced. Most unreleased films do not meet notability guidelines. Radiant chains (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Indian Punjabi films and spin back out if that article gets too large. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of films fall by the wayside. There will be some notable ones, but this list makes no attempt to show WP:N. I could be persuaded to keep though, if references were forthcoming. SpinningSpark 12:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Hekerui (talk) 12:57, 2 April 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. Valley2city^‽ 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy

I am putting this article up for deletion. Even if it were well-written and properly sourced (neither of which applies here), the subject is insufficiently notable. There are no articles David Hume and the history of philosophy or Wittgenstein and the history of philosophy so why should this apply to Rand? Particularly as there is considerable evidence she neither understood nor even read any philosophy. It's about time we took a stand against the proliferation of articles about this figure who is revered, without reason, by a multitude of fanatics who flock to Wikipedia from Rand newsgroups. End of sermon. Peter Damian (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Nice find. An absurdity and a disgrace. Might as well create the redlinks you mentioned if we're going to keep this. But your examples are too generous. I'd equate Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy with J. K. Rowling and the history of philosophy or perhaps Rush Limbaugh and the history of philosophy. --Down2theRhythm (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the title sucks! However, demonstrating that "---- and the history of philosophy" ends up in a redlink does not mean much. There are a number of articles about the philosophy of David Hume or the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. I'm not sure what the point is of equating Ayn Rand with J.K. Rowling or Rush Limbaugh. However, Ayn Rand is a philosopher whose work continues to be studied [18], and perhaps this belongs in another of the Wikipedia articles about her. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information Rand acquired a large cult following and the royalties from her best-selling romantic novels funded "research" by like-minded individuals. But this is not serious academic work, and no proper academic philosopher has ever considered her writing as anything more than a joke. Hope that clears up any misconceptions. With best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Googling Harry Potter + Philosophy gives very similar results! Peter Damian (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for additional reasons. Wiki is littered with sub-sub-articles about Rand, Objectivism and philosophy. It's hard to know how many, as they don't necessarily link to each other. Certainly we have an article on Rand, a separate article on her Objectivism, another on criticisms, separate articles on Objectivist metaphysics, Objectivist epistemology, Objectivist ethics, Objectivist politics and the Objectivist movement. I don't believe Wikipedia treats any major philosopher in this way. It's an epidemic and a disservice to readers.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
- Weak Delete: Ayn Rand is at best a footnote in the history of philosophy. However, Her relationship with and understanding of other philosophers and philosophies should probably be covered somewhere. I'm inclined to believe this shouldn't have its own article as it seems a little hyper-specialized, but I am not totally convinced. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Is it not persuasive that we don't have separate articles on the relationship major philosophers have with the history of the subject? By all accounts, Rand's engagement with philosophical scholarship was slight. Her acknowledgment of Aristotle is well known, and there are a handful of comments on Nietzsche and Kant. That's all. Compare the voluminous, scholarly engagements with philosophical history by, e.g., Hegel, Derrida, Bertrand Russell, Deleuze, Dummett, Heidegger, not to mention Aristotle (random choices); these don't warrant separate articles.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
- Comment. Do the editors voting Support support deleting or keeping the article? To me it's unclear. Pburka (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: Changed to delete, thanks Phurka :). TallNapoleon (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can all be covered in the Objectivism article. Pburka (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I agree that Ayn Rand is no more a philosopher than the guy who wrote "Who took my cheese", IF people have written more than a couple of independent, published third party sources about Ayn Rand's place in the history of Philosophy, AND people can make a case for a fork from Ayn Rand on size, then this is a legitimate topic. Sadly, I think both these lines have been crossed, but I would like a look at the references. After the AfD is decided this then needs to be moved to a different title: "Person X and the History of Philosophy" is neither a standard or encyclopedic title. T L Miles (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for the various reasons above.--Snowded (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or perhaps a slight merge to another article on Ayn Rand or on Objectivism. This article's title strongly implies that Rand played some sort of pivotal role in the history of philosophy, when in fact it simply describes the philosophers who influenced her. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of you obviously joined Wikipedia long, long after it was widely known as "that website with lots of articles on Ayn Rand". (You can thank the Rambot for ridding us of that reputation. It added tens of thousands of articles created from US census material, which made Wikipedia into "that website with lots of articles about places in the US no one has ever heard of -- or cares about.") -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) which seems to be philosophy. pohick (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as a major section titled Philosophical influences on Rand. This article has sections on the influences of Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Kant, which Objectivism (Ayn Rand) does not. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth merging, everything is already covered and the title is not a useful point of access. DGG (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. J Readings (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, for all the reasons noted above. Some of this is blatantly opinionated and Rand herself should not be used as a source in regards what Kant (or anyone) actually said. But, move some of it to the regular Ayn Rand page, which needs improvement anyway.--Levalley (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

The first Afd was closed as no consensus. This was challenged at a deletion review, and the discussion there resulted in a consensus to relist this for deletion. I am personally neutral on the deletion. Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG as repeated searches have found no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Further, this is a self-styled order lacking a legitimate fons honorum, as neither its 'Royal Protector', nor its 'Royal Patron' were "a nation's head of state" at any time during this order's existence (nor for that matter was either of them ever a head of state, or even the undisputed claimant to a throne, should it be restored). Additionally, it has been disavowed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of São Tomé and Príncipe [19] (purportedly one of its main beneficiaries, whose former bishop is one of its 'Spiritual Protectors'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG I have discovered new information (I didn't know about the earlier AfD). One of the basic sources was Catalogo De Ordenes Extranjeras En Espana, "by Jose Maria de Montells y Galan and Alfredo Escudero y Diaz Madronero, 2007, published by the Academia De Genealogia, Nobleza Y Armas Alfonso XIII en colaboracion con la Sociedad Heráldica Española, Madrid, Kingdom of Spain". It turns out that the Sociedad Heraldica Espanola has no official standing and is a private venture (and part of a network of similar private ventures). see[20] and[21]. The Spanish Heraldry Society was founded in the 1980s-"La Orden se reúne anualmente en el Alcázar de Segovia, España, lugar donde habitualmente se realizan los solemnes actos de investidura de nuevos miembros. Para su ingreso no se exige prueba de nobleza, aunque la condición de noble puede acriditarse por el pretendiente que la poese, pero sí y de forma muy estricta, se precisa ser persona honobrable y distinguida con méritos suficientes, a juicio de los órganos rectores del orden para integrarse al elenco de la misma. The Order meets annually at the Alcazar de Segovia, Spain, where they usually performed the solemn act of investiture of new members. Your admission does not require proof of nobility, although the condition can acriditarse by the noble suitor that poetry but in a very strict and is honobrable person and needs to be distinguished with sufficient merit, in the opinion of the governing bodies of the order to join the cast of the same" from here[22]. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure, non notable organisation with no third party sources. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Based on the available data, it would appear this organization fails WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, self-styled order.--Yopie 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep this entry WP:ORG doesn't seem to concern itself with the nature of an order being self-styled or not. The group is comprised of a number of notable persons including the exiled King of Rwanda and several former state governors. This bishop in São Tomé not recognizing the group is a strawman arguement. No where on the groups website do they claim to support him with financial gifts. See WP:FAILN which specifically addresses articles failing to meet notability standards but that otherwise would or could. In short WP:FAILN deletion is a last resort. An expert tag should be put on this page and a request made on the talk page prior to moving for deletion. Seems irrational to rush for deletion as this has not been attempted.--Norelec (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Norelec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: (i) "no significant coverage in reliable third party sources" is a direct concern of WP:ORG. (ii) Notability of some members is irrelevant as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. (iii) WP:FAILN explicitly states that deletion is an option for where "sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I admit the difficulty of keeping this spam and BLP magnet clean is a problem, having tried to do it for quite a while now. But its nonofficial status does not make it unnotable. A few notable people do belong, and their presence gives it some importance. Better that we have a n article than not.I admit that these persistent attempts at aristocratic survivals in an alien world are and ought to be destined for oblivion, but they are not there yet. DGG (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG, please cite which notability guideline suggests that a "few notable people do belong" is sufficient to establish notability, as that argument appears to run directly afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED (see below). Can you point to any relevant guideline that this organisation come even close to meeting? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.
— WP:NOTINHERITED

Delete per lack of no significant coverage. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable ersatz "order" (and I must join the chorus shouting, Notability is not contagious (i.e., you can't make yourself notable by selling or giving something to somebody notable). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Fernandez

Delete. Unremarkable shop manager, notability not evident, fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person. Fails WP:BIO. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a vanity page, perhaps? The only external links are the subject's blogs. Nothing to indicate that the person is sufficiently notable for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable vanity page. ←Spidern → 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unclear why this person is notable Vartanza (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Numerix

AfDs for this article:

The outcome of the previous nomination was "no concencus".
The company is, in my view, not satisfying notability. Despite the previous AfD discussion, the article still has no reliable references. There are, after the company's five years of existence, only five news articles to be found in a Google News search. They are in:

Chemie.de — just a copy of the Wikipedia article, as it was somewhere in 2006.
Press release by the Press Trust of India — according to this site it appeared in the Economic Times, August 23, 2007. It is a short article, including two lines on Zeus Numerix.
Business Standard, India — mentioning Zeus Numerix once, in a list with four others
Rediff News, India — one sentence on Zeus Numerix
l'Expansion, France — also mentioning Zeus Numerix once. Two sentences in a two-page article.

In the previous AfD discussion, three additional links were provided: [23], [24], and [25]. However, it turned out that the first and third of these are copies from each other, and originate from a blog site. The second is a press release by Zeus Numerix itself.
In conclusion: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:N, is lacking. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have partially cleaned up the article and added a couple of sources. Salih (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Hindu Business Line, August 24, 2007, is identical to the Press Trust of India article above. The article in Fluid Power, April-June 2005, is a new one, and the only one (until now) which has the company as its subject. Fluid Power was published (it was merged with other magazines) by the Times Group in India. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crowsnest convinced me that this article does not meet the notability criterion.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP, as confirmed by Crowsnest's excellent research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's just not the coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 3 April 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. yandman 12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahavard Quarterly

Not notable. Created by IP address. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Looks like a copy-and-paste of this. Google seems to come up with few relevant hits. However, I don't think there are enough mentions of this for it to qualify as sufficiently notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. absoluteastronomy.com is a Wikipedia mirror, i.e. that is a copy of the Wikipedia article rather than the Wikipedia article being a copy of the absoluteastronomy article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, hardly readable, non notable. Deletion Mutation 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. It does look like a cut&paste from somewhere but not the absoluteastronomy site. JamesBurns (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:41, 2 April 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. Good arguments have been made on both sides here. That the notability of actors does not spill over to the notability of the film is a perfectly reasonable view, and accepted as common practice. Nonetheless, the award the film received, and the reviews (some of them critical), have persuaded enough people that the subject passes notability standards, and the level of support for that view is strong enough to prevent there being a consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving God

Fails WP:MOVIE. BJ^Talk 09:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PROD'd this and agree it is too promotional and non-notable to qualify for inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 09:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources, no awards, straight to video, not even an assertion of notabilty? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it was slightly notable it should be completely rewritten. Deletion Mutation 17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would consider there to be assertions of notability. Cast members notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, screenplay apparently by someone notable, and an award from a film festival rather more notable than the one held every other year in Downby in the Swamp (weather permitting). I don't find the tone spammy. There are sources quoted. What's wrong with straight to video? Is this a new policy that I've missed - a film is not notable if released on DVD instead of in the cinema? Not a film I would watch, but then again I wouldn't watch Four Weddings, Forrest Gump or Rambo (any of them) either. Personal choice. I comment not on other matters concerning this and other nominations. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I can't find a single published review of this movie. Notability is borderline at best. Pburka (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Ving Rhames stars in "Saving God"

That looks more like a press release than a review. Here's the original version of that release, on the website of a PR company. Pburka (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Ving Rhames Stars in Newly Released Christian Film ? or Movie Review: Saving God or dvdvertict's review ? RenegadeMonster (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. The first of those is basically a rehashed press release. Quoting the producer is a dead giveaway. The next two both look like legitimate reviews (they even criticize the movie -- definitely not PR). However they're not from well known publications so it's difficult to say if they count as WP:RS (something in print in a major newspaper would be better). But they do not seem to be user contributed reviews (i.e. someone has actually paid for them to be written) and they've got Alexa rankings of 20000 and 50000 respectively (i.e. obscure but not incredibly so). Pburka (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blue-ray.com review ? RenegadeMonster (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited from Golden-globe winning actors to the films they appear in, and any published reviews of this movie are likely due solely to Rhames' involvement and those of the other noteworthy cast members. Meta Mutation (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though the starring folks would seemingly help this film be notable, it has not received in any significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources since its release. Bulk of news hits are just the press releases from the producing company or the press releases about the festival it was released at.Only found only one review that wasn't a blog and might meet WP:RS [26] All others found either fail WP:RS or are "claimed" reviews from the official website that has no actual sourcing and appear to just be "paid for" commentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are plenty of reviews out there, mostly from are-they-reputable-are-they-not sources though. Like [27] for example. I would suggest though, that the strength of the cast and that award make it eligible for inclusion. Weak keep I know. I'd try and rewrite this article but I struggle when its for a film I'd rather rip my teeth out than watch. However I'll watch the page and no-one else wants to rewrite I'll have a go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-Ray.com does not meet WP:RS, nor do any of the other reviews. The cast does not make it notable either, nor is the award a major one. Again, it still does not meet WP:NF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The movie sucks and the article sucks, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It seems notable enough, with the awards it won and the cast. Jwray (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards indicates multiple, where as it appears to have one, a minor, seemingly unnotable, film festival award, that isn't even verified. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now verified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would help if the article included something about what the movie is about. (Is it a drama? A documentary? Andrew "Dice" Clay's latest come-back vehicle?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had a plot, but it was WP:COPYVIO; while reasonably certain the article was created by the film makers, better not to presume for those purposes. Added a short rephrasing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that I have read the plot, it sounds like it's an update of The Cross and the Switchblade. Still not certain whether it's worth an article in Wikipedia, though. -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a film notable and well recieved by experts within its genre. Note The article has just received a well-needed sandblasting and expansion. It has won at least one award and even though now on DVD, is still making the Christian Film Festival circuit. That Christian films do not get big box release and coverage does not negate their notability to the millions of Christian viewers acroos the country. It ain't Saving Private Ryan, but in proper context for what it is, it meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but let's be honest. It has been reviewed by ONE critic (not really considered a major one), two "family film" review sites/magazines that pretty much review ALL movies (briefly, and without any actual critical review) and personal Christian websites which are not RS. I've removed all the film festival stuff again - its pretty much completely irrelevant and doesn't belong in film articles. Being in a Film Festival, especially a bunch of minor ones, is not notable unless it won an award, which it didn't except at one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an ordinary article on an ordinary film. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not impressed by the awards, but I think it scrapes by the GNG. I don't think being in festivals automatically makes a film notable but it illustrates what kind of audience it has, so it's worth including in the article. Nerfari (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Davies

This article does not establish the notability of this "eco-feminist". Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 08:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Despite what the article history would have you believe, I did not create this article. The article was created by Wilsonscott (talk · contribs), however the first edit contained personal info and was oversighted. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 08:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither of the references mention her so article fails WP:V. Claims such as Eco-feminism and left-wing politics need citations per WP:BLP. I42 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of the two sources, only one has a mention of her, and that's in a list of names. Not verifiable, doesn't seem sufficiently notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete t least as WP:PROF, which is almost irrelevant. Not everyone who's been a lecturer at a college is likely to be a professor or a researcher. DGG (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. ←Spidern → 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an open-and-shut case: Article establishes no notability, nor do the furnished external links. The first link does not even seem to reference her, while the second contains her name only within a long list of "Teaching Staff 2008". Decidedly non-notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Corse Evans

A case of WP:ONEEVENT, although a significant event. The only coverage in reliable sources comes from obituaries and even those are placed by family and friends rather than editorial. The only verifiable facts about the subject are her death, family and club membership.

The rest of the article appears to be based on the fictional account given in A Night to Remember (either the book or the film). As to whether this character needs mentioning at either of those articles I leave to someone who knows the fiction better than I. However, the absence of her name in an extensive cast/character list leads me to believe that even if she occured in the film she is a relatively minor character in the fiction. Nuttah (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nominator - nothing supports the claims in the article and there is a significant liklihood that fiction is being presented as fact. The verifiable facts already appear in List_of_passengers_on_board_RMS_Titanic. I42 (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_passengers_on_board_RMS_Titanic. In response to Edward below, this book may be more reliable than I first supposed - good point. Never-the-less, this is someone known for one event so I am not persuaded to !vote keep. Furthermore, I do not believe the New York Times article asserts any particular notability because it is a paid advertisment, not an obituary - anyone can pay to make personal announcements in the newspaper. However, as there is (appropriately) mention of this individual at List_of_passengers_on_board_RMS_Titanic we should redirect to that article. I42 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obituary in the NYT is generally considered an indication of notability, and the book A Night to Remember is not a work of fiction. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The novelization may be based on actual events, but it is not a factual account but dramatized. Hence the assertion in the article that 'That boat never came and Miss Edith Evans stood on he deck looking out at the survivors sailing off into the distance. She began pondering on the words of a fortune teller and realised she should have listened. "Beware of the Water" the fortune teller had said. Edith Evans went down with the ship. Her body, if recovered, was never identified.' This is not an eye witness account, it is a plot line invented by Lord. Nuttah (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Night To Remember is not a novelization, since it is not a novel and came out before the movie of that name. The section you quote in the article is not Lord's words, it is an expansion on the Encyclopedia Titanica entry on Miss Evans [28] which appears to be an expansion on what Lord actually said in his book. [29] While we do not know Miss Evans last thoughts, the events listed (including her mentioning the fortune teller) were mentioned by surivors Archibald Gracie and Caroline Brown). Edward321 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The NYT entry is pretty clearly a death notice placed by the family, which anyone can have if they pay for it, rather than an obituary written as part of the editorial content of the newspaper, which would imply notability. There may be evidence of notability, but this isn't it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a number of pages devoted to her in Titanic: Women and Children First[30]. I put less weight on the plaque at Grace Memorial, as that was paid for by her friends, but certainly a church isn't going to keep every memorial donated to it for a hundred years if there was no interest. (This NY Times article[31] indicates the plaque at Grace Memorial is a stop on Titanic history tours.) She is also a character in the Broadway production of Titanic[32]. You'll also find a number of other news articles in the Times if you do a gnews search for Edith+Evans+Titanic (leaving out the middle name).[33] The article needs more work, but I think we have a bit more than just the obit to go on here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And a comment -- "Miss Evans" does appear in the IMDb cast listing[34] for the film A Night to Remember. Doesn't appear to be a major role, but she is there. (Not saying this meets notability, just correcting an error in the nom).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. As all these references are in relation to the Titanic sinking I remain of the view that WP:BIO1E applies. I42 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that this person is sufficiently notable. Please see the numerous books that wrote about her role on the Titanic. I have added some sources to the article, but there should be quite a bit more that can be added. ←Spidern→ 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ditto re my WP:BIO1E concern. I42 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She had no frolew in the Titanic,except for having the misfortune to be there. DGG (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YNOT News

Promotional article created by a SPA blocked user. All contributions related to YNOT and is a non-notable subject.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article creator (since blocked due to COI and SP concerns) wrote about creating the article about YNOT in a column posted to the site. Conflict of interest concerns for sure here, along with notability. Nate • (chatter) 07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N and/or WP:V - there are no independent references which establish notability. I42 (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. This INCREDIBLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK reference on the page provides an interesting look into this organisation's aims to "expand the presence of the adult industry on Wikipedia by tenfold". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a promotional article with no clear evidence of notability and no independent sources. If this really is a notable organization, I am entirely confident that someone outside the organization will write about it. The author would be well-advised, as I think someone mentioned in his last incarnation, to improve the articles about adult entertainment topics while avoiding writing about himself and his own company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- More sources have been added. LaserVaZer (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "Lankiveil", there is no nudity at the link reference you mentioned. You'll note that tthe website in question contains links to the http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/, not in violation of NSFW principles based upon images, not textual words which are found throughout Wikipedia itself. LaserVaZer (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mate, there's breasts in the "Scarlett O'Hara" ads, not to mention a lot of extremely suggestive imagery in the other ads. Not to mention that I'm fairly sure that most employers wouldn't see visiting blogs on the subject of pornography and the adult industry as being suitable company time behaviour. I'm not suggesting that the article YNOT News has any unsuitable imagery on it, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- SIGNED LaserVaZer (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — LaserVaZer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment The sources added do not appear to be about YNOT News. In fact, I cannot find YNOT News even mentioned at the New York Times blog source or the Inquirer source that you added, though I'm open to the possibility that there's a brief mention that I didn't see. What's needed is articles which have YNOT News as their main subject, and which show how this organization is important, as you may recall my telling you when we were discussing the deletion of Peter Zed, back when your name was User:Sevencraft. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional, non-notable, believe sockpuppetry involved.Bevinbell (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-promotion, deceptive sourcing. --JaGa^talk 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate Non-notable, advertising, no multiple references to reliable sources. A very amatourish website. avn and xbiz?- reliable, well known, notable, quality publications. This site?- totally irrelevant. Vast COI concerns. If anyone reads the article about wikipedia in YNOT it will be obvious that this organization is an enemy of wikipedia, wikiProject pornography, and they have now made an enemy of me. Essentially the article says it is YNOTs goal to encourage vast numbers of non-notable porn sites to create articles on wiki, as free advertising. Destroy this heinous beast; and while your at it destroy the ghastly 'Adult Industry' template that seems to have been created by the same genious. Finally to LaserVaZer; if you are going to leave messages on peoples talk pages asking for 'help' in an AfD debate, the chances of help being forthcoming will be greater if the article in question isnt utterly non-notable, promotional bullshit. Willy turner (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotion piece. ←Spidern → 18:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Ged UK 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shownger's giant iguana

The article doesn't contain any references, and I very much doubt that this species even exists. Theymos (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1 delete as hoax. Not a single ghit in any form whatsoever. No UniProt consortium entry for Iguana gigas. NCBI has nothing either. - Vianello (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 15-20 metres in length? I think we'd be able to find significant numbers of references if that was the case. I42 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. 15-20 meter long iguana, that can weigh up to 20,000 pounds and is completely unknown to every reliable source we've dug up so far? Not very convincing. —LedgendGamer 10:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feces Bandits

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Limited coverage of the event outside Fox St. Louis. Millbrooky (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every criminal. Theymos (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of non-notable content already deleted in a previous AfD under another name. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Ursa

Non-notable micronation... just created today, with 3 members, no land, and no references... Adolphus79 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Article about an organization which doesn't indicate its importance. Theymos (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Theymos. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 06:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Negima

AfDs for this article:

This article barely survived AfD in January 2008 and since then nobody has done anything to help it despite the five cleanup tags dating from 2007, including "no references". The jist of the original AfD was that this article violates our policy on no original research. As it stands today, the article is ridden with original research, most of which can not be fixed using material on hand that isn't apropos of the source itself (first party sources). Under our verifiability policy, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A quick browse through google, and google news shows a lack of reliable sources needed to back up the article, as per our policy WP:V. Also, the topic of Magic in Negima appears to not meet our notability guidelines, due to the absense of the topic's discussion in reliable, third-party sources. This follows apropos of WP:V as it's impossible to have a notable article on a topic which can not be verified.

In accordance with our deletion policy, this article should be deleted on four different grounds:

It is an article which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.
It is an article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it has failed.
It is an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline.
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#OR, and WP:NOTMANUAL)

Each of these in itself is a valid reason to delete this article and since it has already been given a chance to redeem itself over a year ago deletion seems like the only viable option to keep this article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Them From Space 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom 114.158.117.221 (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep my comment as per the first nomination. I do not care if it is deleted or not, the article was created purely because it was in the main article and that article became too long, I have it created just because consensus at the main page is this and I have followed the then discussion about the split. but I hope that delete supporters do drop the WP:CRUFTCRUFT type of arguments. The article has no WP:RS and WP:V to show notability, that is pretty much more than enough fact to delete it. Also, I must remind the above anon user that AfD is not a vote. MythSearcher^talk 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per the excellent nomination. There's really nothing more to be said that Themfromspace hasn't. Reyk _YO! 11:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge If it came from an article which has not been deleted, then send it back there. And have the editors on the presumably more active article deal with what material they by consensus choose to retain. Collect (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again, per the excellent nom. A big ol' pile of WP:OR, essentially. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:DEADLINE. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest you actually go improve it if you use the WP:DEADLINE arguement. You don't have to get it into great shape, you only need to fix the problems addressed. MythSearcher^talk 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again as per the superb nomination. Completely lays out all the extremely valid reasons for deletion. Remerging would be rididculous, as you'd simply move the issue to another article (regardless of how much content is merged). The WP:NOTAGAIN arguement against deletion is grasping at straws, a 14month delay is more then ample time between nominations, and the nomination is justified. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator as being unverifiable Lets drink Tea 15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on all the grounds given by the nominator. Remerging does not seem to be a good option, since this material does not belong in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTMANUAL). -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last time, I argued a weak keep to give conerned editors the time to clean up the irrelevant material and so demonstrate the notability of the topic. This hasn't happened. Delete until such time as independent notability can be demonstrated. I recommend that concerned parties snag what useful and relevant material belongs in the main article (as in, a summary of this). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete fail as it was given time and again the opportunity to provide citations and RS references but nothing happened or at least no one wanted to do that kind of heavy work. --KrebMarkt 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this article looks to be irredeemable. For those hoping the editors of the main article might take interest at all, you might as well not hold your breath - the article has been on my watchlist for months, and has received no significant editing (beyond really broad, basic cleanup) or talk page discussion in that time (and it definitely needs it). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the first AfD, I recommended to transwiki this to the Anime Wikia. But that project appears to be pretty much dead. The original problems still remain, first and foremost is that there is not a single reliable, third-party source on the subject of the article. Second, this is still an excessive amount of plot detail with little real-world context, and what context there is is entirely original research. As for the IP's WP:NOTAGAIN argument, perhaps he/she should read the page before using it again. This nomination doesn't fall under WP:NOTAGAIN do to two factor. First, this is the second time the article was nominated for deletion. If this was like the eighth nomination, then WP:NOTAGAIN may have some legitimate bases, but not on a second nomination. Second, it has been well over a year since the first nomination. Again WP:NOTAGAIN is only a valid arguement if the previous nomination was a few days or a few weeks ago, but not a whole year. In fact, using WP:NOTAGAIN as the main reason to keep is itself a bad argument as detailed by WP:NOTAGAIN --Farix (Talk) 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article could be useful and interesting to those who are fans of the series. Since all information comes from the manga, it needs no reference other than that. Dream Focus 21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is nothing to say that it does all come from the manga, theres no references (noting the entire series doesn't count). The manga itself probably doesn't even go into that much detail (a similar thing happened with a related article). it's pure WP:OR, which is a legitimate reason to remove large quantitys of the content, even if the page stays. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally material from an appendix from book 4 and a few chapters after that. Someone added in the comparison at the beginning, still could be sourced from an official guide book(though all considered primary and is not really helping much) Then tons of random edit from various editors adding in WP:OR and I must say, it is really beyond repair. If it is remerged, the only thing I would merge is maybe a sentence in the main article saying the detail magic system of this series could be found in the appendix of chapter X, Y, Z and book M, N, O. MythSearcher^talk 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No article is beyond repair. Deletion should be done as a last resort. If there was massive cleanup, the article written properly, would you agree that the topic has the right to exist? Dream Focus 10:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really convinced this is possible: go ahead and do it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Crowsnest, get some real work done before asking what would happen if it is done. The same argument was given in almost all AfD discussions, but little actually got done. Enough time have pass to prove the article actually keep getting worse. If you can find WP:RS and WP:V to back the article up, I think most people would change to a keep consensus. If not, then too bad, no matter how massive the clean up is, I don't think it is going to help in this situation without actual sources to prove its notability. MythSearcher^talk 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the well-worded nomination; no evidence of any notability whatsoever, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough time was given to interested editors to fix the many problems, and now it's time to call the shots and admit it's not going to happen. (If someone steps up to prove me wrong, please allow userfication though.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a big fan of the manga, but I don't think anything in this article has any real-world notability. The appendicies of the manga volumes do often go into a lot of detail on the magic used in the series, but I doubt there would be any reliable third-party sources covering any of this information. Calathan (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Sephiroth BCR. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:08, 1 April 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. Valley2city^‽ 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Chamis

This seems to be a non-notable voice actor, having had just a few bit roles. Found zero reliable sources with info on her after a search. Wizardman 04:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - enough out there to verify that she is a voice actor (and one who hasn't had any big roles), but I can't find one non-trivial mention in any source at all. Fails notability criteria. Somno (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the page stay. It can be enhanced. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- How can it be enhanced if there are no sources? Somno (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bit parts only by the looks of it. Does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Only bit parts, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. ←Spidern → 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Question: Should the result of this AfD suggest the results of all the proddings of "X-Y relations" articles? Valley2city^‽ 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Estonia relations

Disputed {{PROD}}. Topic fails WP:N--no non-trivial sources on this "topic" could be located.[35] Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example WP:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations, or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the official Estonian government site:

In South America, Chile has been one of Estonia’s most important trading partners. Estonia has exported machinery, equipment and mineral fuels to Chile. Estonian imports from Chile include wine, fish and crustaceans as well as fruits. The total turnover in the trade of goods between the two countries reached MEEK 99.6 in 2007. OECD membership allows for the further tightening of economic relations.

In 2006, Estonia and Chile issued the joint Antarctic themed postmark series, designed by Ülle Marks and Jüri Kass, bearing images of the Emperor penguin and the minke whale.

It took all of 20 seconds to find just one example of a particular relathionship. So, perhaps we can agree to leave this? Thank you. PetersV TALK 05:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why can't people write in English and not Wikipedese? Can you state "Disputed {{PROD}}" in English? Thank you. PetersV TALK 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this isn't just some random pairing of two countries forming yet another contentless article like many other articles that have been deleted, but an active relationship in terms of meetings, trade and treaties, which has had some coverage by the respective foreign language media. Chile physically co-locating the Estonian Embassy in Helsinki (a 75km one hour ferry ride from Tallinn) along with its Finnish Embassy is more of a function of economics than importance. Martintg (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, but where are the independent secondary sources that would establish the notibility of this topic? Such sources are required by WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 08:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the respective Estonian and Chilean media, something an English language Google search would not reveal. Martintg (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it's probably not worthy of coverage in the English Wikipedia. Might be suitable a topic for the Estonian, Spanish, or even Russian Wikipedias, though. Yilloslime ^T_C 08:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: "Sources published in a medium which is both widely available and familiar to editors, such as a news website, are more likely to be utilised than those from esoteric or foreign-language publications regardless of their reliability. For example, a 2007 story on the BBC News website is more likely to be utilised than a 1967 edition of the Thai Post.". Martintg (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong answer. International relations are not just the business of the involved countries' languages. International relations are world affairs. These days, the Franks speak English, so lingua franca for discussing world affairs is English. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To which the obvious counter-argument would be that finding English sources for such a relationship shouldn't be that hard to find then? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands now. There is no permanent diplomatic representation in either country of the other (anyone can be an honorary consul), and the only sources for info thus far are non-independent sources. If there is "respective Estonian and Chilean media" coverage, this independent coverage needs to be demonstrated within the article, as there is no offhand notabe relations between the two countries -- political, trade, transport, cultural, military, etc. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the current Chilean ambassador to Estonia, Carlos Parra Merino officially presented his credentials to the Estonian President in 2007 [36], he is Chile's permanent representative to Estonia, being located in Helsinki is just a convenience for him, nothing more. Martintg (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I stated; The Chilean ambassador to Finland has concurrent accreditation to Estonia, and has residence in Helsinki; meaning there is no permanent diplomatic representation of either country in the other. There are varying reasons why countries have embassies in other countries also covering other countries in concurrence; it may be due to limited resources of countries, or it may be that relations are not yet fully developed; those are just two reasons. Without the demonstrated existence of independent sources to give the bilateral relationship notability, the article by all rights should be deleted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:N mentions anything about where an accredited representative resides being a requirement for notability, and Helsinki is a convenient ferry ride away from Tallinn. As I said, the relationship is notable in the respective foreign language medias, references of which will be presented in due course. You vote is premature. Martintg (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't, but it does state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I've looked for sources myself before voicing my opinion here, so this isn't an opinion I haven't voiced without checking first. I've also mentioned numerous things which can come into "bilateral relations" and there is nothing there to be found; not by me anyways. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's a visa-free travel programme for a reason? It takes away quite a lot of the embassies' workload, allowing consuls to effectively deal with a lot of the remaining diplomatic business. Besides, this isn't anything like, say, Cyprus-Chile, where Cyprus maintains its supposedly Chilean embassy on the other side of the world -- in Madrid, no less.

Of course, that's not how it's formally said, but for all practical purposes, Chile's embassy resides in Talsinki. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's how the Chile's embassy actually puts it: Embajada de Chile en Finlandia. Concurrente en Estonia. in big, friendly letters atop the title page. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visas and the like are usually the domain of the consular service of an embassy; an embassy isn't just a visa-processing centre. It is high-level representation of one country to another, and includes functions such as the fostering of trade ties, cultural ties, military ties, etc via their respected attaches; basically the representation of one country's interests in another. The existence of a permanent diplomatic mission, whilst not the be-all-and-end-all of this subject, can often indicate possibly notability of a subject at a casual glance. I wouldn't object to article being recreated in future though, but as it stands now, it doesn't demonstrate notability, and the nomination is a correct one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has become quite clear, Chile maintains a permanent diplomatic mission to Estonia. The situation is similar to how Chile's embassy to Luxembourg is located in Brussels -- a Benelux city that happens to formally locate on the Belgian side. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to clarify the issues raised above. I'll take your word that Chile is indeed important to Estonia. NVO (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll try to not to puke when I see that this was started by Groubani. Although I do not endorse the reckless creation of a multiplication table's worth of articles about nationX and nationY, the fact that they have negotiated agreements, and that the Prime Minister of Estonia has conferred with the President of Chile, is proof enough that there is a notable relationship here. It occurs to me that this should be the rule of thumb on notability of a relationship-- a meeting between the heads of government or negotiations on an agreement specific to the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is notability by assertion: nowhere do the notability guidelines state or even imply that the mere existence of bilateral agreements between countries makes their relations notable. Notability still boils down to coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and no one has demonstrated that such coverage exist for the topic Estonian-Chilean relations. Some sort of rule of thumb for dealing with these types of articles would certainly be welcome, and hopefully after enough of these have gone thru AfD we'll have a good idea of what that rule might look like. But I don't think it'll be as simply as what you propose. For one, what about notably bad relations? We wouldn't expect to see bilateral agreements or embassies in countries with terrible relations, yet there would be tons of literature on the topic of their relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines differ for different things. If third party independant sources are the only requirement, then are you suggesting we should also delete the individual entries in List of Heroes of the Russian Federation? Martintg (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:|Notability]] applies to topics--specifically whether a topic is appropriate for stand-alone article. It has nothing to say about what specific facts get covered in an article.Yilloslime ^T_C 07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::snip :: moved mostly-off topic bickering to talk page[37]. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No indications of any particular notability. The contact between the two countries appears low-level and routine: 6.3 million EUR in annual trade is tiny (many large stores would make this kind of revenue in a week), the treaties are all low level boilerplate type stuff and all kinds of combinations of national leaders meet all the time (and since when are press releases useful for establishing notability?). Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't noticed, Estonia's economy isn't all that big and Chilean wine does have the greatest market share in that country. Is doing a joint stamp issue a low-level and routine thing? Martintg (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, joint issues are a standard thing and are typical done by postal bureaus. That information belongs in that article, but can't seriously be used to establish notability of a bilateral relationship. A joint-stamp issue is not like a joint space mission which could be used to establish some degree of notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joint space mission? Get serious, by that criteria the only article worth keeping would be Soviet-US relations, every thing else would be deleted. These arguments are becoming a bit silly. Martintg (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard rumours that it's common in Russia to see the world affairs as a Manichean battle between USA (also known as the International Imperialism) and Russia (also known as the Third Rome), and to believe that all international relations follow from this eternal opposition. I guess these rumours are somewhat validated now. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joint space missions require high-levels of co-operation -- military, technical, political, etc. Joint-stamp issues require probably nothing more than the signature of a post office "manager". Also, the level of trade between Estonia and Chile, as Nick-D mentions is miniscule, and is about the same amount of trade between Australia and Albania each year - we wouldn't build an article based upon Australia exporting $2 million of margarine to Albania a year. To bring it straight back to this, have there been any state visits between Estonia and Chile? Have there been any treaties signed between the two countries which indicate a notable relationship (visa-free travel isn't really notable either)? Is there any history of contacts between the two countries? etc, etc, etc. These are what one calls notable relations. If anything like that could be supplied, I'd change my opinion to keep in a flash. Instead of absurdly arguing to keep an article based upon the existence of a joint-stamp issue, it would be better to find sources to demonstrate actual notability; as I said previously, I searched myself for this info before I voiced my opinion here; a search in Spanish or Estonian may yield something substantial, and they should be found. This is exactly what was mentioned by several editors at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_14#Template:Let_it_develop -- articles don't exist because someone thinks it is important, they exist because they are notable, and notability can be established by following WP:N. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a small country like Albania, maybe $2 million of margarine exports from Australia may be a very significant thing. Are we suffering from systematic bias here? Visa free travel is not notable? Russia may have engaged in joint space missions, but has Russia achieved visa free travel with the USA or Europe yet? When it does, that would certainly be a notable event. Chile and Estonia has enjoyed visa free travel since 2000. As for joint stamp issues, the event was attended by the Chilean ambassador with lots of coverage, for example as reported here in this TV item. There are some 759 Google hits when I search on the terms Tšiili suursaadik eesti (Chile ambassador Estonia), if I had the time I'm sure I could dig up quite a number of references. Martintg (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CIA World Factbook's entry on Estonia, in 2007 Estonia imported $US 16.23 billion worth of goods and services and exported $US 13.16 billion. As such, EUR 6 million is a tiny proportion of the country's trade and, not surprisingly, Chile isn't listed as being one of Estonia's main trading partners. Countering systemic bias isn't an excuse to include trivia or claim that trivia generates notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However Chilean wine does dominate the Estonian market, which is remarkable given the EU wine lake. We all want to get rid of these random pairings created by Groubani, heck I agree with deleting Estonia–South Africa relations and Colombia–Estonia relations, but given enough random groupings will actually generate a handful of pearls. Unlike those two other articles mentioned, there are a number of bilateral agreements (which in of itself would be notable for an encyclopedia), high level ministerial meetings, cultural events like the Chilean film festival and a joint stamp release. There really is a need to develop specific criteria for notability of diplomatic relations for inclusion into WP:N, until then, I think this article should make the cut. Martintg (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'd say every major grocery store in Estonia has dedicated shelf space for Chile wines. The largest ones have wide selections of 'Wines of the world', of course, but I was quite impressed last week, seeing a dedicated rack for Chile wines in a relatively small store oriented for students (it's located next to a major UT dormitory). They had three self-serve sections for alcoholic beverages altogether: "Beer" (a few manufacturer-branded refrigerated showcases), "Chile wines" (a man-sized rack full of various bottles) and "Alcohol" (unclassified shelves of various bottled alcoholic drinks from the bubbly to the fortified. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't share the nominator's view that these relations are non-notable. The article details a depth of interaction that goes beyond the other whimsical foreign relation couplings that turn up in AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that no one other than the Estonian and Chilean governments has bothered to make note of (i.e. written about) their relations. Notability for a stand-alone article requires coverage in independent secondary sources. We do not have that here. It's fine for wikipedia to mention somewhere that Chilean wine is popular in Estonia and that neither country has an embassy in the other, but those facts alone don't justify a stand-alone article. Significant coverage of those facts would. If this was band, and the only sources were the band's website and myspace page and a few Events Calendars from local papers establishing that they'd played some shows, then everyone would agree (I suspect) that the topic is non-notable. We have an analogous situation here, but many folks seem to be confusing the issue of whether there is trivial coverage of their relations with whether the relations themselves are trivial. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing apples and oranges. There are a zillion bands out there that would love their very own Wikipedia article, hence the bar to notability must necessarily be set high. However anything published by a government is intrinsically notable. There are 192 countries within the UN, but the Estonian Foreign Ministry has only published information on relations with 70 countries, relations with the other 122 countries aren't deemed notable enough by the Estonian state. Martintg (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plain non-notable diplomatic stuff, as the nominator correctly points out, see previous consensus and mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever relations --Enric Naval (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the media of the Chile-Estonian relations, both print and TV. For example, the joint stamp issue event attended by the Chilean ambassador in the press and TV, significant trade in chilen wine dominating the Estonian market, the meeting between the Estonian PM and the Chilean President, Estonian opposition leader and major of Tallinn Edgar Savisaar meeting with the Chilean ambassador as well as various bi-lateral agreements in preparation or in force, such as a visa free travel agreement. Martintg (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is anything at all to actually write about, as seems to be the case here, the article is justified. DGG (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, notable, needs more coverage. feydey (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is notable, has sources, yet, needs more work. Likeminas (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the requirement for establishing notability (which is here) is not simply that any-old sources can be dug up, but rather that independent secondary sources can be found, and furthermore that such sources actually discuss the topic, not simply mention it trivially in passing. The article still has no such sources. The sources it has are a few Estonian government webpages, and briefest possible mentions that 1) Chilean wine in popular in Estonia, and 2) they issued a joint postal stamp. Can someone explain to me how any of these sources are independent, secondary, and non-trivial? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we deleted all the articles on WP which only rely on news sources and no "independent secondary sources" we'd have to delete half the content on WP. "Trivial" as has been used herein is personal editorial POV. You think a joint postal issue of two countries at opposite ends of the globe is trivial, I think it's not. PetersV TALK 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read me comment more closely. I never said the joint issue was trivial, on that it--and more generally the topic of Chile-Estonia relations--has received only trivial coverage in independent secondary sources... Yilloslime ^T_C 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? I just provided 5 independent sources from the press and TV. Since when is an item broadcast on television news considered trivial coverage? Martintg (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to refs used in the article—sorry if that wasn't clear. But the refs you (Martintg) provided aren't any better. Two of them are already cited in the article and I discussed them above. The others (translated using google[38]) don't actually discuss the topic of bilateral relations between these countries. One is about the stamps and talks about their design and the interest of each country in the Antarctic--nothing about their bilateral relations. Another is about a meeting the PM of Chile and the President of Estonia--a high level meeting for sure, but there's nothing in the article on the topic of their bilateral relations, it only briefly relates what the leaders talked about. The last one talks about a meeting between the Mayor or Tallinn and the Chilean Ambassador to Estonia who happens to live in Finland. Not a word on the relations between the two countries except that (and please excuse google's poor English): "The Mayor and the Ambassador said that building up contacts and the development of the capital cities of both countries, and between the perspective of both parties begin preparations for the establishment of cooperative." If we were talking about bands or video games we'd call these types mentions "cruft". Yilloslime ^T_C 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there are a zillion garage bands who would love their own article, thus the requirement for notability is different for bands. You voted keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Russia relations, but looking at those sources in that article, most are concerned with missile sales. Missile sales fulfill notability criteria, wine sales and visa free travel and joint stamp release not, apparently. Martintg (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple: there appear to be plenty of sources on those missile sales (and other aspects of Cypriot-Russian relations) that are independent, secondary, and actually discuss the issue in some depth. I'm not seeing that with this topic.Yilloslime ^T_C 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) It's a sad commentary that missiles count and other things apparently don't. I thought when it came to encyclopedic articles it wasn't about popularity contests and simple mass mentality and mass media. As for "cruft", sorry, I debugged my first program in 1972, I pre-date "cruft." Perhaps you have a more accessible metaphor? PetersV TALK 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or more to the point: 100 sources fixated on missiles versus even just 1 source fixated on joint postal issues at opposite ends of our planet are about equivalent in terms of topical interest and encyclopedic significance in my book. I don't deny you your significance of missiles (or that many agree with you). That's no reason to deny the significance of postal issues (or paucity of coverage because missiles are more interesting because of their apocalyptic appeal). PetersV TALK 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding an earlier "Which is exactly what I stated; The Chilean ambassador to Finland has concurrent accreditation to Estonia, and has residence in Helsinki; meaning there is no permanent diplomatic representation of either country in the other." An ambassador is an ambassador, period. A building is not a relationship. Latvia's ambassador to the U.S. and to Mexico happened to live in the U.S. while posted here. That doesn't mean there aren't relations. Helsinki or Stockholm as the center-point for Baltic activities/headquarters diplomatic or otherwise is common and in no way a measure of importance. PetersV TALK 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova–South Korea relations

Disputed {{PROD}}. Topic fails WP:N--no non-trivial sources on this "topic" could be located.[39] Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example WP:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations, or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mere existence of diplomatic relations has been determined not to be notable, and here they really are little more than "mere". No cultural/historic ties, no embassies, thousands of miles apart, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication of the cooperation between these two nations on anything. Assuming all of the unsourced statements to be verified, the South Korean ambassador to the Ukraine is welcome to visit Moldova. Let us know when the Hyundai plant gets built there. Mandsford (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No relations of which to speak, really. Jd027 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations debate, I list that Estonia not having any representation in Colombia counts against it. We have a similar situtaion here - Moldova doesn't have any representation in South Korea - whose representation is based in Kyiv. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability is presented. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 06:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere to Run!

This is the only episode of Storm Stories with its own article, and it is not sourced. As the general caretaker of TWC articles, I'm wondering if this article deserves to stand. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It reeks of OR and doesn't establish notability. Theymos (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having the notability to justify its own article. The article itself is merely plot summary and is devoid of citations. Them From Space 04:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable television episode, with no notability, and shades of OR to boot. Normally I'd advocate a redirect, but given that there are no other articles on this series, I'm thinking a delete would be a better idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete per nom and above !votes. Deletion Mutation 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. DGG (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to assert notability. Insufficient indepenedent coverage to boot. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 2 April 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrktorrent

Hrktorrent is not notable. I can't find any coverage in secondary sources, and the only results on Google are repositories. The mention in libtorrent (Rasterbar) is sufficient, I think. Theymos (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Theymos (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 2 April 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 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any reliable sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – that can establish any notability of this software. MuZemike 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability neither asserted nor demonstrated through sources, and as MuZemike demonstrates it appears unsourceable. A distinct lack of any support for the article over two relists also speaks for itself. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutish Anand Sharma

Speculative negative BLP of the alleged 'terrorist'. No follow-up news about this person from the Pak government (unlike in the case of Ajmal Kasab). Another pro-taliban group took the responsibility of the Lahore attack so the accusations were clearly false. I suggest this article be deleted: faint notability + BLP issues = delete. Capricorn42^Talk 02:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly speculative, unverifiable, and a hint of propoganda as well Lets drink Tea 02:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when important WP:BLP issues are weighed against the slight chance that a person is notable, BLP wins. Them From Space 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete. There are a number of sources, and they seem reliable. Just because Ansar Wa Mohajir took responsibility doesn't meant that Sharma didn't do it; he could have been a member. Or Ansar might not have actually been behind it; source #2 mentions some discrepancies between Ansar's claim and actual fact. Notability is not temporary. I believe that these sources are enough to make Sharma notable, even if there was no later coverage. The policies pointed out by Capricorn42 make this a clear delete.Theymos (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person came into light only due to the bomb blast accusations by the Pakistan government; the media quoted what the government said, and then the whole issue went into a state of silence—no legal proceeding, nothing. Perhaps a sourced paragraph about the allegations in the Lahore bomb blast article (if exists) is fine; but IMO, writing a whole BLP based on a frivolous accusation is an overkill. (see Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Pseudo-biographies)Capricorn42^Talk 05:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and subsequent valid WP:ONEEVENT arguments --ClubOranje^T 09:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete, per nom and above. One event. Deletion Mutation 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Docku: What's up? 18:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's-Cola

This appears to have been a product with extremely limited commercial availability and distribution. I believe this presents problems with WP:N and WP:V. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, and much to spammy Lets drink Tea 02:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Letsdrinktea - subject is not notable. - Fastily (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:SPAM. South Bay (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-Obvious spam T-95 (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious spam for a company that went out of business in 1955? I can see the evident verifiability problems here given the lack of reliable sources, but calling this spam seems an odd criticism. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would merge if there were a specific article on the small regional bottlers -- such as Hoffman's in New York, Polo Club in Connecticut and the like - but there are no encompassing articles. A spendid case where keeping a small piece of American commerical history alive is not too onerous for WP. There is clearly no commercial interest in the article, so it does not violate, AFAICT, any rules here. The bottles have been sold on eBay, and listed in bottle price guides. White Castle served it in Kansas City. [40] etc. Collect (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Assuming some sources added for the observations regarding this being served at restaurants and the collectible status. I agree that there should be an encompassing article for colas that are no longer available (or soft drinks in general), with this being one of the beverages therein. As Collect notes, (AFAICT=As far as I can tell, BTW) there have been many beverage makers who came and went over years. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Mandsford. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Withdrawn pending clarification of the article scope DGG (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Quintet Repertoire

I don't think you can really define or limit the repertoire of every brass quintet on the planet in one, fairly OR-y article (and I say that as a trumpet player of nine years). It isn't non-notable, and it doesn't fall foul of any of the other policies, but it seems to be trying to do a job no article can effectively do. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow what your objection actually is. This is a repertoire list, of which there are several on Wikipedia. The list is not a circumscription of the brass quintet repertoire. Like other repertoire lists on Wikipedia, it is a listing of significant works that have been written for the medium. No more no less. Nothing on the page is not verifiable, and there is no original research.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to clarify it, then; "list of pieces written for brass quintets" or something. I interpreted it as "list of works brass quintets use" which would be completely unmanageable. Assuming good faith and whatnot I'll withdraw the AfD now. Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dissident Genro

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxs video

Notability is not established. Nothing on google news. a google search doesnt even bring up the companies website, if it even has one. no evidence the studio has won any awards. The only evidence I have that the studio exists is this imdb entry [41], and retail sites selling the companies dvd's. Note that the companies name appears to be 'MAX's', not Maxs Willy turner (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Willy turner (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Before notability or verifiability there is a need to prove existence of the subject – which I can't manage either. AGF or no, going just on the word of the entry creator is a stretch. 9Nak (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. I don't see even a claim of notability. Rami R 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Lets drink Tea 02:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Rosenberger

Two primary claims are as a songwriter and author. No indication that the subject meets WP:Music or WP:Creative. Both books are indicated to be self-published. Taroaldo (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If nominator had only typed in the lady's name in Google News, s/he would have found this, with three bona fide references to the subject. Granted, that's not a whole lot, and I'd love to see more, but it seems to me that someone with such an esoteric skill ought to get a little leeway: two references from the Augsburger Allgemeine and one in Freies Wort is good enough for me, esp. if you throw in the results from a regular Google search. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't speak German; is there much more than "according to a local newspaper, N.N. plays the cittern" that can be verified from reliable sources? 88.112.62.225 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the first hit: "To remedy this situation, for the last couple of years the goldsmith from Krumbach worked diligently on the conception of a modern study book for the Waldzither, which was created in cooperation with the Thuringian organization of music schools and was presented at the conference." That is a random paragraph; the conference was organized by the subject, the "situation" to be remedied was that there was no study material for this particular instrument. So that's much more than "M.R. plays this instrument," yes. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment Although Martina's works are self-published, they sell well and are well-known in the field. Several people have used her work without referencing it - including on Wikipedia. This article serves to document her as an active researcher and author, as well as musician, songwriter, etc. I would like to add external links to the article but was not able to. These would include a link to her web site, which has several newspaper clippings about her and her work, and to waldzither.de, where she is referenced a great deal.

Comment I think the article needs editing rather than deletion. Rosenberger's main claim to fame is as a key figure in the recent revival of the waldzither tradition and one of only two people to have done extensive research in this important part of the German musical heritage. This may not be clearly enough stated in the article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about this person at de.wp? Given the information presented here and on the article, I'm leaning towards delete -- we have a limited capacity to maintain bare adequacy on articles about living people who are marginally notable, and more often its better to delete them until their status changes. Avruch^T 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what is needed here is really some attention from a specialist who can deal with the material. OCLC shows no copies of her work except in the Bavarian and German national libraries; Julliard catalog gives no results for either her or the instrument. Beyond that, I'm out of my depth, but I suspect it's the not uncommon situation where something ought to become notable, but may not be quite yet. DGG (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies, and apply WP:BLP rigidly by cutting out everything important that we can't find a source to. Is anybody fluent in German? I'm not good with the language style used in newspapers. Them From Space 04:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, neither notable as a goldsmith, nor as a musician, nor as an author. Deletion Mutation 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I hadn't looked to carefully at the other Augsburger Allgemeine article: it's pretty trivial and it may not be our Martina. What we have left (study German or take my word for it ;) ) in terms of coverage via Google News are two bona fide, fairly in-depth articles on the lady and her work in what I consider to be reliable sources. I have not done the library search DGG has, and I have yet to look carefully at the 'regular' Google hits; I do believe some are worthwhile there. So I continue to lean toward keep, even if weakly. I'll be glad to work some more on the article, but I can't do it in for another couple of days, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am compiling a list of references to include in the article. If you check the external links, you will see some of the newspaper articles there. You can find information about her and the conferences on waldzither.de and www.guitarraportuguesa.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cittern (talk • contribs) 07:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but we need reliable sources, and the finding of the articles is not the issue--I've already given that link, above. (BTW, there is nothing in these 'references' right now except for links to websites and a dead link to something that's not a newspaper.) Drmies (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her personal webpage has PDFs of the articles under Press. Here is a list of news paper articles:

Freies Wort, Mo, 13.10.2003 / S.9 „Tradition der Zithermusik in Deutschland besonders im Bergbau weit verbreitet“

Freies Wort, Di, 14.10.2003 / S.14 „Es „zitherte“ kräftig in Suhl“ Waldzither in Theorie und Praxis vorgestellt/Internet-Seite ist geplant von Liane Kotsch

Freies Wort, Do, 16.10.2003 Profile „Neue Puzzles für das Zither-Spiel“

Freies Wort, Sa, 29.10.2005 / S.32 „Wenn es im Thüringer Wald zithert“ von Cindy Henkel

Mittelschwäbische Nachrichten, Fr., 4.11.2005/ S.21 Kultur „Wenn es im Thüringer Wald zithert“ Übernahme des Artikels vom „Freien Wort“ von Cindy Henkel

Freies Wort, 25.10.2007 / S.19 „Die Thüringer Waldzither“ Symposium/Fachleute kommen nach Suhl Red

Freies Wort, 01.11.2007 „Lang Vergessenes im Focus“ Symposium/ Am Wochenende gibt es Konzerte und Vorträge zur Waldzither Von Stefan Reisner

Wochenspiegel, 01.11.2007 „Waldzithersymposium zum 3. Mal in Suhl“

Freies Wort, Sa., 03.11.2007 / Titelseite „Ein Wald voller Zithern“ Foto ari

Freies Wort Fr. 02.11.2007 / S. 16

Freies Wort, Sa., 03.11.2007/ S. 15 „Ein alter Schatz erklingt ganz neu“ Geschichten zum Wochenende

der letzte Waldzitherbauer ist der Suhler Hilmar Günther

von Heike Hüchtemann

Freies Wort, Titel, 03.11.2007 „Ein Wald voller Zithern“ Foto:ari

Wochenspiegel Nr 45, 06.11.2007 WSSHL3-2 „Wie aus einem Erbstück und purer Neugier eine Lebensaufgabe wurde“

Freies Wort, 08.11.2007 „Altes Instrument hat wieder eine Zukunft“ Symposium - die fast vergessene Waldzither feiert ein Comeback unter Eingeweihten

Mittelschwäbische Nachrichten,24.11.2007/ S.8 „Waldzither/Botschafterin Martina Rosenberger“

Mittelschwäbische Nachrichten,14.11.2007/ S.36 Die innere Stimme der Tausendwunderfrau Musik: mit der Waldzither in die Welt von Andreas Langer

These are libraries that hold here books:

Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek
Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe
München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
Münster, ULB
Zwickau, Westsächsische Hochschule Zwickau

MDR did a short program about her and her work - I'm trying to locate the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cittern (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 April 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 Nomination withdrawn. To tell the truth, I didn't think this could have been turned into a good article. The original material seems incredibly researchy, but the work of the article-rescue squad is admirable. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and sex

PROD removed as if this isn't WP:OR. This seems to be someone's school essay. See already deleted Sex and aging, Sex and music. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 01:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure original research LetsdrinkTea 02:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how an article with 4 reliable-source references is "pure OR". Yes, there was some OR in the article (which I have now removed), but there was also useful work that should be kept. JulesH (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - article has a large multitude of issues in addition to being someone's original research essay. - Fastily (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What other issues do you see with it? I've fixed the essay-style tone, and removed the original research. JulesH (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how WP:NOTWEBHOST applies here; this is not somebody's personal page about themselves or their own projects, but an article on a valid encyclopedia topic. JulesH (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:OR. South Bay (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, and a personal essay. Them From Space 05:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does actually sound like a fairly reasonable topic for an encyclopedia article - there's definitely been plenty of research on the effects of alcohol on sexual behaviour. However, this particular article very much reads like an essay and does not provide a very encyclopedic discussion; it has huge WP:OR problem. No prejudice against an encyclopedic article being created, but this is not it. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the OR, and the section on Date Rape which was the major problem with it reading like an essay; could you take a look at it again and let me know if you think there are still any problems with it? JulesH (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nicely done, good to see a lot of it was salvageable. Looks like a good start to an article. Keep. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A valid topic for an encyclopedia, and an article that provides a basis to work from. The article has 4 references that are used to back up perfectly valid background information about the subject. Yes, there's some POV and OR that needs to be trimmed, but per WP:DELETION we should fix this article, rather than deleting it. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed from the article a chunk of content that seemed inappropriate, and rephrased the remainder. I don't feel the article reflects original research or reads like an essay any longer. JulesH (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - OR--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, poorly written essay containing original research. Deletion Mutation 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vaote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, batman. JulesH's edits have improved this article somewhat and it's worth a second look, at least.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 21:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic that is constantly in the news. Comes up often enough to merit its own page. JJL (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alcoholic beverage, though it may not even be necessary to redirect. I fail to see how this couldn't be added as a section there, if not simply added subtley across the 2 of the 3 relatable sections (which appear in succession), Alcoholic beverage: Alcohol consumption and health, Alcoholic beverage: Alcohol expectations, and Alcoholic beverage: Alcohol and religion, unless we're also proposing those sections be expanded in additional articles with more research? The thing is: I don't see anything "wrong" with this article, it just seems more like something that you'd be reading as a section (or two) in a larger profile article than as an independent article. But maybe I'm crazy? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major topic for which there are thousands of sources. Deletion will not improve this article which should be developed per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known phenomenon. I think someone once said "It provokes the desire but takes away the performance". RenegadeMonster (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many sources deal with the effects of alcohol on human sexual physiology and behavior. This is a phenomenon with great importance in modifying sexual risk-taking. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Street Polish

Nothing indicating notability. There are a few sources, but they don't really establish anything other than that dish exists. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article as about a recipe that is notable enough. It just needs a bit of expansion probably.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I say keep it -- it's a notable item of Chicago culture.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.182.93 (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep., although as per Edward130603 it could use some expansion. --moof (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Staple of Chicago cuisine. Plenty of good local newspaper articles are available, along with a few book sources, and it's been described as "famous" by the New York Times. [42] Zagalejo^^^ 00:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI would look for Frommer's, Fodor's, Let's Go! and Zagats recognition. I would surely add Zagalejo's NYT as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bachman (ice hockey)

Delete seems to fail WP:ATHLETE, was a college hockey player, a late pro draft pick but apparently never played in the NHL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per failing notability guideline above Lets drink Tea 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bachman just turned pro today and left his college where he was a starting goaltender. If this article needs deletion, please see the following and delete them as well:Bill Sweatt,Lee Sweatt.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goalie on a pro team (Dallas Stars), makes him notable.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet to play at the top level, fails WP:ATHLETE presently. Can be recreated if he ever gets a top grade game. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - appears to now be a pro.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bachman inked a three-year contract with the NHL's Dallas Stars yesterday [43], news that hit the web a few hours after the article was nominated. In response to "can be recreated", I would say "can be renominated if he doesn't play in a game between now and the end of the NHL season". We'll never know for sure if the article or this nomination was a factor in Bachman and Dallas coming to an agreement-- I can see it now: "Get lost kid, you don't even have an article on Wikipedia, you ain't notable!" "I do NOW Mr. Hicks! Look!" "Yeah, but it's been nominated for deletion... alright, we'll offer you a three year deal, and you'd better take it before your little article gets deleted." Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, which part of WP:ATHLETE does he meet then? Just being signed doesn't mean that he'll inevitably play, and he has not yet "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Seems fairly clear-cut to me. I'll recreate it myself if he ever does get a verifiable top league match, but he doesn't meet the standards yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't appear that will be necessary. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is expected to be the third string behind Turco. He makes notability for being the first player since Curtis Joseph to win rookie of the year and player of the year in the same season. He also makes notability for being on the USA under 18 international team, which is clearly stated in the WP:ATHLETE.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, where does it say in WP:ATHLETE that playing on a junior/youth team implies notability? Indeed, this line of reasoning has been shot down at previous discussions. Also, the WCHA appears only to be a (non-professional?) student hockey league, so I'm not sure how notable such an award really is, even if someone famous has previously won it as well (indeed, the award is not even mentioned on Curtis Joseph). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He also played for USA hockey, which is notable. Also, to put this into perspective, Bachman could be compared to a practice squad football player. If you do not know much about hockey, or how hockey intertwines with the NCAA you should really keep your admin privledges to what you do know.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable hockey player. high draft pick who turned pro signing a three-year deal with the Dallas Stars. FYI it's been determined an athlete can still be notable with other general notability critera even if failing WP:Athlete.--Bhockey10 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Esperanto. MBisanz ^talk 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanta Klavaro

Appears to be about a computer keyboard software, does not meet WP:N. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable software, a bit too ad-like as well Lets drink Tea 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Esperanto Too little for a stand-alone article, but presumably of use to those who wish to use Esperanto. And following the links shows a very un-ad like utility. Collect (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Esperanto. No useful information to merge, plausible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 06:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was a mention in the Esperanto article as far back as 2006. It later got relegated to the external links section and then was removed altogether in a major spam cleanout here. It is possible that the loss of EK was merely collateral damage, but as it seems to have been considered spam by the editors doing the cleanup, it would be wise not to merge it back in without a talk page discussion first. Google seems to indicate that it is reasonably popular but I could not find a RS to verify. SpinningSpark 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Cobytb Milodravosisky

Likely hoax of a possible WP:BLP; a google search turns up no non-Wikipedia mirrors for this probably-famous person. Searches for other things throughout the article, like "the goal of the Russia" also turn up nothing. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a hoax as it is unsourced. In any case, does not meet our criteria for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources Lets drink Tea 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a hoax and probably stash somewhere in the most-ridiculed-nonsense den. NVO (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily demonstrated as a hoax (coach of the Netherlands national football team, at age 99? Yeah, right!) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Two weeks and still no clear direction to this discussion. Hopefully a little time will clarify the matter. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Forde

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "This minor has not received significant media attention (89 distinct Google hits, no Google News hits)" Prod removed without adressing these problems (IMDb link added). The 98 distinct Google hits[44] include a mini-profile on the BBC website, but this is as part of their own programming, not as a BBC news report or anything, so is not the independent coverage required in WP:BIO. The only Google News hit[45] is a truly passing mention. Fram (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, With Reservations, this actor doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER as he is famous for only one role. However, EastEnders is very notable television show (in Britain) and I find that some of that notability is inherited in this case. (Even though it's a BLP, with all the associated risks.) As an actor in an important and notable ensemble cast, I would say let's keep this for now. Although "notability isn't temporary", if he gets booted from the show and never works again, we shouldn't have an article about him. I could also be convinced if I am told that he has absolutely no speaking role or such a minor role as to be irrelevant. (I have never seen the show, only read about it.) This is a mixed response, but this is a difficult case. JRP (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone with more knowledge of the show can demonstrate that he is not an ensemble player, that is role is trivial, I may remove my !vote. I can just work with what's on the page. JRP (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Come back when yer famous, innit. Rd232 ^talk 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with JRP. He does have a speaking part in EastEnders and appears regularly, and probably with time his part in the show will grow, assuming that the character (and actor) remain in the show. But we don't know what will happen in the future. ^anemone│_projectors 21:04, 5 April 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. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amvona

Looks like spam. Google returns only 19k results: http://www.google.com/search?q=amvona.com%20-site%3Aamvona.com Photoact (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my search turned up 22.4k ghits. Have you thought that any of those 20k or so ghits could be from a reliable source? Typically that isn't a good method of determining notability because all it takes is a couple good sources for an article to be notable, and it doesn't even need to be from the internet. See WP:GHITS for more information. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I checked for news sources here. All the articles are related to the company being sued by Photoflex for copyright infringement. For news sources, that wouldn't prove notability under WP:ONEEVENT.
Comment - I disagree that the article is spam under guidelines Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles The problem with counting ghits while removing the Amvona url is that, because it is partially a photography social networking site, the notability (as indicated by the number of users and amount of user-generated content) is not considered using that metric. (Oddly enough, there are 140k Yahoo hits, but, like Tavix said, not a good method of determining notability) I am requesting a 5-day additional wait before deletion - I know someone who works for the company, and, according to them, there will be a major news article published soon. Kludger (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a couple of old news articles about the lawsuit but nothing about the company itself. There are no indenpendent reliable sources apparent in the voluminous google web hits either. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (TV). MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 David Schuster World Trade Center Segments

This topic doesn't feel particularly notable, and seems to be a POV fork of either David Shuster or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (TV). AniMate^talk 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (TV). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pastor Theo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If ever kept, correct the name and remove the C from Schuster. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 03:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and redirect per Pastor Theo. Deletion Mutation 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vuzit

nn website. Eolld (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe notability has been established per the posting of the third party sourcing. The original editor has made a good-faith effort to improve the entry after initial criticism. Wperdue (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Keep Enough third party articles to establish notability. Acebulf (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established and article is accompanied by a large number of third party/external sources. - Fastily (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Francis

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Non notable child actor. He has received no significant media attention (no Google news hits, less than 100 distinct Google hits)." Prod removed without adressing the problems (added IMDb link). 74 distinct Google hits[46], no Google news hits[47]. Fram (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the case of James Forde's AFD, if this actor was an ensemble player in a significantly notable show (such as EastEnders, I would keep the article with reservations. There isn't enough information here to make a decision either way, so I'm not going to hazard a !vote. As an actor, he wasn't credited for the first two months when he performed the role, which tells me that the role is small and potentially trivial. If someone comes back and updates the article to give more information about Francis' role in the series, I could be convinced to shift to a weak keep OR is there is enough information about this "Nick Jr. promotion" that separately establishes some notability, I can be convinced. (For example, if he was chosen for that promotion because of his work on EastEnders as a child actor, that confers notability.) As it stands, I can't take a position yet, but I wanted to at least contribute some thoughts to this discussion. JRP (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for actors to not be credited until their role becomes important to the plot, so I'd consider the first two months not being credited as a plus for the current status of his character on the show. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Rd232 ^talk 02:53, 2 April 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 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NanoFX Evolved

Articles, probably by the developers, about an unreleased custom game engine and a space combat simulation game being developed for it. Release dates have "not yet been determined." References are their websites and a game developers' group. Searches find discussion in forums and Youtube and the like, but no independent reliable source.One article de-prodded by another editor with no improvement and no reason given - "deprod please take to afd if you want ok--", the other may well encounter a drive-by deprodder too, so to save time I bring them both here. If these projects are completed and released, and if they then get comment from independent sources, they may become notable enough for articles; but for now, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for promoting unreleased projects. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. These violate WP:CRYSTAL, and additionally do not meet notability guidelines. If/when these are released, and if/when they get significant coverage from independent sources, articles can be created. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no reliable sources to establish tno notability for either article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL as it's just to soon to tell about future notability. Clearly, they don't meet our notability standards in the present. Them From Space 05:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Peter Beale. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Stevens

Contested prod. Prod reason: "Child actor who received no media attention during or after his "acting" career which ended when he was about 5. Still a minor, not notable (a character can be somewhat notable without his actor being notable). Only 59 distinct Google hits."[48] Contested because "add reference and external link", both are to IMDb though, which does not address the reason for this ProD at all (I never claimed that the article was incorrect, only that the career of this person was insufficient wrt notability.) I will list three similar AfDs as well, but will do so sperately, as the notability of these persons is independent of one another, even though the prod / deprod cycle was similar. Actor has two Google NEws hits, but both are very much in passing[49]. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appearing on a popular television program is a good path to notability, but I don't imagine his character had much of a role during the years he was on. Child actors at that age are practically set pieces, but if someone knows that he played an important, memorable role in the series, I am happy to reconsider. Jvr725 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Beale, as a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victoria Sugden. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Haywood

Contested prod. Prod reason was: Non notable "actress" (acted only between ages 0 and 4, so not much acting involved there). Has not received any media attention and even very little attention in general (only 38 distinct Google hits). Being a minor only notable for something she did passively and which did not get her muich atention, there is no reason to have this article." Prod removed without adressing the problems (added a link to IMDb, which established verifiability of a sort, but this was never under discussion). No Google News hits[50], only 41 distinct Google hits[51], none of them the kind of coverage required in WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victoria Sugden, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the multiple significant roles part of WP:ENTERTAINER, and even then, I'm not so sure the one role she had was at all significant. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victoria Sugden as a somewhat minorly plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, I do not feel that a redirect to Victoria Sugden would be useful, as anyone searching for that term would be presumably want information on the actress, not the character she played, and Haywood is only mentioned briefly in the character's article.--Unscented (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, no notability. Consider redirect. Deletion Mutation 15:11, 28 March 2009 N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Chism

No indication of notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he appeared on one video, from the one season that he appeared on the AND1 streetball tour. The AND1 tour seems kind of marginal, I don't think one season there would make someone automatically notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, going on A7. Sort of says he was on some tour there. I'm waffling between A7, nonsense (it's hard to read), and no context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see how a speedy is appropriate. According to this source (not really WP:RS, since it's the NBA's wiki) he was a starter for the Las Vegas Rattlers, an American Basketball Association team, during the 2003-2004 season. If that is true, can be verified, and is a professional level of play, he meets WP:ATHLETE. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads down for takeoff

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. MySpace pages are the only sources given. Band won't even be releasing their first EP until May 2009. "Playing multiple shows in the Southern California area" isn't enough to make a band notable. Radiant chains (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. No notability present, and no notability even claimed. Actually, this probably could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Music. Just another MySpace band that fails to prove notability. OlYeller^Talktome 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Pilgrim

Entirely unsourced plot summary, any relevant info can be summarized in the novel's article. Suggest deletion, then moving Billy Pilgrim (group) to this title, with a hatnote pointing to Slaughterhouse-Five. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five as it was the first use of the name. The hatnote should point to the group from the article on the book. As for this article, it consists of nothing but plot summary and should be replaced by the aforementioned redirect as it is a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it would be better to move the band article to this title and leave a hatnote. This saves us from using a qualifier when there's no actual article for the qualifier-free name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the band describes itself thusly on its own web page: "not currently active at this time, although this page will continue to remain a place where fans can come together and share their thoughts and memories, and also to keep tabs on the current endeavors of (its former members)" [52]. It also states that its most recent album (2001) is "out of stock at CD Baby. At this time, no estimates are available for when this album will be available again". Compare that to the novel in which this character appears--continuously in print. Surely most people searching for Billy Pilgrim are looking for the character, not the defunct band? JJL (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page, and which should be the primary title for the disam. . My view is that the protagonist of such a major novel is appropriate for an article, as all the sources on the novel and the film will talk about him also in a substantial way. There are multiple published guides and commentaries on them. When a character appears in both media, there are usually substantial comparisons made. I know I'm saying, you other guys, go and do it. But stop nominating articles on leading characters of major novels and I might have time to work more on content. DGG (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep protagonist of highly significant work and associated film. JJL (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five. Billy Pilgrim isn't a notable character in himself and the article contains no content that evaluates him in an encyclopedic manner, nor does it contain any citations at all. At best, its plot summary and at worst its original research. His notability apart from the book is little to none so this redirct should do little harm. Them From Space 05:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment try a search on "Billy Pilgrim" on Google Books or Scholar. There are tons of sources. E.g.: [53], [54], [55]. JJL (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those sources all discuss Slaughterhouse 5, not Billy Pilgrim. It's impossible to discuss Pilgrim away from the works of Vonnegut because he's a character within the book. Notability isn't inherited from the book to the main character. Them From Space 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment there are plenty that are on the character and his traits/circumstances: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. They are certainly not just analyses of Vonnegut's book(s). There's even a band named after the character [62]. JJL (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major character in one of, if not the, most famous Vonnegut works, with many sources available focussing on the character, making it clear that an article here is appropriate.John Z (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per project novels characters template. "The novel centers on Billy Pilgrim to a degree that excludes the development of the supporting characters, who exist in the text only as they relate to Billy's experience of events."[63] pohick (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per DGG and JohnZ. There are no lack of sources and any merge discussion should happen in talk pages, not here. Speedy because I don't see any chance this won't be kept. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with cull. Billy is Slaughterhouse-Five. The appropriate place for what's salvageable here is the article on the novel. This should be a redirect. I didn't look at the defunct band page… FWIW, I have read this; more than once and fairly recently. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Whitfield

Non-notable local town councillor and prospective candidate for brand new minor party at forthcoming Euro elections. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way. Prod removed by creator. Black Kite 09:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the litmus test of notability, he fails as he's only been written about for WP:ONEEVENT (see search here). Fails notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Fails point 1, 3, and 4 as his positions haven't been high enough to justify outright notability. He may fulfill point 2 as a Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I feel that that's overwritten by WP:ONEEVENT. OlYeller^Talktome 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, councillor for a minor town, and now a candidate for a minor party that even the most optimistic supporter would have to say has very long odds of actually getting elected. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not yet notable. Deletion Mutation 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Marie

Contested prod. Artist has released four albums and claims one charted single, but three of the four albums are self-released (including the last one: funkee fish is her own company[64], as is KM[65]). The only other one, "Reach for me", was released by Spinout, for which I was unable to determine its notability but which has no article here (not evidence of not being notable, but indicative nonetheless). No Google news results for that album[66] or the last one[67], and that one gets only 54 distinct Google hits[68], not of them from reliable independent sources. She is listed on Allmusic (but no biography, only the simple directory listing of her music), the billboard.com links in the article are copies of Allmusic so are a bit misleading. The article claims that she had one #1 charting single: again it has no Google News hits[69]), and the one chart given as example of her #1 status actually lists the song as having a highest chart position of ... #374 (#48 in the subgenre of acoustic folk).[70] Taken together, this fails WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did my own searching to check the nominators claims. All info given by the nominator seems to be dead on. Fails WP:Music. OlYeller^Talktome 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chart claims can't be backed up, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the excellent research done by the nom seems to be right on the money. She might conceivably have made #1 on some obscure web chart somewhere, but that's hardly an indication of real notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to shoeing article. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Jahnke

There's not enough personal information avaliable for this biographical article because the subject isn't notable outside this one minor event. Martin Jahnke's actions are sufficiently covered on the shoeing article. --Tocino 04:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable - 7-bubёn >t 05:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable per WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. OlYeller^Talktome 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Classic instance of someone doing something not particularly notable that becomes a very minor international incident, but gets prominent coverage. BLP oneevent applies here. Redirect as specified by the nominator. DGG (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - one event. Deletion Mutation 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Legend

Apparently completely autobiographical, does not seem to meet bio article notability via WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources - Whpq (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Simonett

Non-notable bit actor. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian_Tire#Advertisements; this article mostly argues for notability of his "Canadian Tire Guy" character rather than the actor himself. JJL (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sort of. This one is a bit of an oddball. The suggestion to redirect has merit. However in doing the research to determine if Ted Simonett was notable, what I kept finding was the "Canadian Tire Guy" actually seems to be notable. Articles such as this and this would indicate that "Canadian Tire Guy" has reached some form of iconic status in Canada similar to something like the I Am Canadian beer campaign. There is this interview with Ted Simonett, but I don't feel a single article from a university newspaper is sufficient to hang the notability of an article on. Based on the available sources, I am proposing that the article be moved to Canadian Tire guy incorporating basic verifiable biographic information about the actor that played him, as well as documenting the character he played in the advertising campaign. I am prepared to do the necessary research, sourcing, and editting if there is consensus for this proposal. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - after a thorough read of the Brock Press "interview", it's a fine example of why university press needs to be viewed with a very critical eye with respect to use as a reliable source. It appears to be mostly made up. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concur that there's a good case for the notability of Canadian Tire guy per the gsearch I had done, and that a move and subsequent reworking of the article to focus on its title is a reasonable outcome. JJL (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move Is notable mostly for being the Canadian Tire guy, but he also played in other movies. I have no problem with a move/redirect if the article is rewritten to better fit the new title. Acebulf (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Mind/Seventeen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Mind/Seventeen

Per WP:NSONGS and WP:N, I don't feel this qualifies for inclusion. Google doesn't seem to show a lot either. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the excellent reasons provided by Esradekan, this is also an invalid subpage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not a subpage, 7" vinyl records like this are often described as "A Side Song/B Side Song". Documentable release by a notable band. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete: No charts, awards, covers, poorly written, no sources. Deletion Mutation 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warp (radio)

These three articles are part of a series of Radio Tales articles, the others of which were all deleted as a result of the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio); and it's clear that they were simply overlooked in the nom's creation of the list of articles in that AfD (note that The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) is specifically mentioned in item #3 of the nomination). Their format and content is, mutatis mutandis, identical to the format and content of the articles already deleted, so the rationales that resulted in those deletions should be applied here as well.

Note: The previously deleted articles have all been userfied in the userspace of MichaelQSchmidt, and the same treatment may be accorded these; but they should be deleted from the mainspace as explained above. Deor (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my rationale at the previous AfD, as well as my rationale for starting the first AfD. These articles contain no hint of notability and are created with a clear conflict of interest from an account that only operates to promote this radio show, who has been blocked for spamming inappropriate links about the radio shows. The yellow wallpaper should be deleted without discussion as it was part of the other AfD. It was probably overlooked by the closer since there was a huge bundle. Them From Space 00:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were so many articles that I missed these three in the previous nomination. The same treatment should also be applied to them. Actually I think this AFD is a clear WP:SNOW since it has been discussed in depth by many contributors in the previous AFD, and there was a clear consensus for "Delete". Laurent (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, no relevant content that could be merged to respective articles. Deletion Mutation 18:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haken-giri

This poorly written essay appears to be a soapbox for the creating editor's own political views, but the main problem with the article is that the laying-off of temporary workers is not a uniquely Japanese phenomenon, and there is thus no need to have a special article dedicated to the Japanese term for this practice. DAJF (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it could be salvaged, but I'm not interested in doing it myself. Maybe it has its roots in a machine translation from the Japanese Wikipedia? The topic is a hot one in Japan, and the connections with the Koizumi reforms place it in the context of Japan, so even though the topic could find a place as a section on a similar practice worldwide, I wouldn't mind seeing it stay as a standalone article on Japan. Yet I'll stop short of a vote. Fg2 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the story of the year in 2009 -- the form that the financial crisis has taken in Japan.The translation needs a lot of work and it needs better English references, but the topic is important. Good English references shouldn't be too hard to find. If I were going to do it, I think I would want to restructure it by giving the background.

Deregulation under Koizumi
Changes in the labor laws
Massive changes in the labor force, especially in manufacturing (took several years)
Financial crisis and collapse = haken-giri (in 2 or 3 months)
Backlash in the media
Aftermath
-- Margin1522 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Margin1522 is willing to do that proposed work, I'll !vote for a suspension of this AfD (I forget the name of this) for a few weeks or even two months, to give the good-faith time to do it right -- which five days is not -- and so demonstrate the notability of the subject. If that doesn't work out, then bring it back as a lost cause. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for improvements as suggested and promised. I think there is real potential here for an article. DGG (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like original research. 114.158.117.221 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RotateRight Zoom

Pulled out of db-spam deletion queue. Tone is not overly promotional, and I can't pin down notability, mostly because "rotateright" is a common function - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything that asserts its notability (maybe this, but I don't think this is much more than an advertisement for it). Matt (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The review in DDJ is a good source, and I doubt it's anything less than fully independent given DDJ's reputation, but it is a very brief review and only a single source. The same source is available in a more web-friendly format here. If another source crops up, consider this a keep. JulesH (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's primary author. The DDJ article is entirely independent coverage of Zoom. As is this blog article. Zoom is significant in that there are very few professional, high-quality developer tools available for Linux. It has gained hundreds of users in less than a year as shown here. In addition to independent developers, Zoom is also currently is in use at IBM, Autodesk, Sony and HP. A search for "linux profiler" on Google or Windows Live search shows Zoom appears multiple times in the top 30 hits. - Slingn (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, even accounting for the rather specialised nature of this software, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of coverage out there for it. To respond to the above, a newsgroup posting concerning a release of this software at #10 is the first mention of Zoom in a Google search for "linux profiler", that is not a reliable source though, and to be honest, it's not that impressive anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Ironically, Microsoft's search engine turns up more relevant results for "linux profiler" than Google. RotateRight's Zoom page is in the top 10 hits. The only question here is notability within the niche of Linux software development tools, and Zoom has been noted by DDJ and other software developers: [71], [72], [73]. Kdef (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maj

Unnotable person, no referances, search reports little notability Bacchus87 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a life long Rochester, NY resident with a slightly below average interest in local politics, I can say that the subject was involved in the Democratic primary race during the last mayoral elections. Given that, like a lot of other U.S. cities, the Democratic primary is fundamentally the at-large election (Dems generally get >75% of city votes), there is some minor signifance in that. Here is an article referencing his candidacy. City newspaper is a free weekly, but it is the only general news alternative to the "commercial" newspaper in town, and very professionally done (I have no affiliation with said newspaper other than a weekly reader). Another source, another, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.39.11 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines at nearly every step. Not only was he the candidate of an extremely minor party, but he failed to win the primary for a position of low notability in the first place. On the off chance that he might have won, the position of Mayor of Rochester, NY would still not really be enough. This is a local politician with nearly no local coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Outside of the most major cities, mayors are not notable enough outside their local area, not just Rochester. DarkAudit (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Rochester properly has an article, but failed candidates for such offices are rarely notable. The news coverage was solely based on Maj's campaign, making it a BLP1E. However, it should be noted that Chris Maj was the second president of the original Rochester Cannabis Coaltion, which later became Students for Sensible Drug Policy and is now a national organization. That may confer additional notability beyond his mayoral campaign. I am abstaining from a recommendation because I know Chris Maj personally. Powers ^T 14:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an addendum, if the consensus is to delete, I recommend a transwiki to RocWiki. Powers ^T 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed candidate, was unable to find any coverage of him except for letters to the editor (written by him), and a couple of minor mentions as a candidate. Nothing significant, and therefore I don't believe he meets the WP:BIO notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete: When the party is not notable enough, how can their candidate be? I don't see any notability outside the party. Deletion Mutation 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki per User:LtPowers. He's quoted in an article in Rolling Stone magazine as a spokesman for the original Rochester Cannabis Coaltion, which is clearly notable a group for the Rochester wiki. Ottre 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logans fire

Non-notable book that doesn't even come up in a search engine Maniamin (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it's not entirely true that the book doesn't appear in search engine results, I can't find anything outside of Amazon.com listings and the like. As such, this is lacking the sources to support notability, so I would recommend Deletion. one brave monkey 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per Onebravemonkey. The book exists, but we don't know much beyond that from reliable sources. Also in case this gets kept there should be an apostrophe in the title; "Logan's". Them From Space 05:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability criteria for books: no non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources, no notable awards, author not historically significant etc. Paid particular attention when searching to see if the book was recommended reading at religious schools so it could meet criterion #5, but no luck. Somno (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not seem to meet any of the WP:BK notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, the author seems to be slightly notable (though not having an article yet), but the book sure is not (yet). Also, poorly written and wrong lemma. Deletion Mutation 14:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socip

Advert for non-notable event. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a public event that has some value. It's surely a bad quality stub, but let someone improve it. --Mblumber (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a tradeshow/conference for which I am having a hard time finding notability. It undoubtedly exists, but showing notability via multiple reliable sources is going to prove very difficult. [74] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and spammy 114.158.117.221 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find any indication that this is at all notable. No number of attendees for this "annual" conference that only started last year, no references that are independent of S2C, and the article is a blatant advertisement. Somno (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisment. Almost a CSD G11. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project 'S'

The project appears to be complete vaporware, with no evidence of its production outside of an informal interview between its two producers Suda 51 and Hideo Kojima. Since then, there's been no official confirmation about the project and when the producers are asked about it, they're declined to make a comment about it. Thus, I see no reason for keeping this article other than to report on speculation of a game that seems unlikely to be made at this point. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until there is an official confirmation that this game is still in development the article can live until this is Project "D". --SkyWalker (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources. The game might not have screenshots or a real name, but we know it's still happening for the time being. Elm-39 - T/C/N 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last few times Kojima and Suda were asked about the project, they denied any actual development in the project. The game never really had any official announcement of its production to begin with, just a few informal statements by the supposed producers. At this point, the project is vaporware. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - This article has the notability to be in Wikipedia, so there is no real reason to get rid of it by Wikipedia standards. Unreleased games and vaporware do not automatically qualify to get hauled off, just because they are just that. Elm-39 - T/C/N 12:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources back up claims of notability. Once gained, notability cannot be lost. Vodello (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no tangible article, just the repetition of a single source (1up) which itself is reading from another source, along with a couple of sentences of gossip and original research. As pointed out on the talk-page, this later interview pours cold water on the whole thing. 3 years is long enough for this curious fusion of nothing-in-particular to be lying around. Someone another 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: lacks the non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to assert notability, by a mile. Someone another 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with possibly the Kojima Productions or Grasshopper Manufacture articles or something similar. While it just about clings onto notability, it has nowhere near enough content yet to warrant an separate article, nor is it very likely that such sources will turn up any time soon to back up such future content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mantic Ritual

This band's first album came out in the last few weeks. I don't see any mention of notable members, chart status, or frankly, anything that qualifies them as meeting WP:BAND. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:BAND by way of having a North American tour -- see [75], [76], [77], etc. This is no endorsement of their music. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC) (From WP:BAND: A "musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.") Bearian (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at those, my take is that while they have toured as a supporting act, they have not met the "non-trivial coverage" part of the requirement (i.e., something more than "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories"). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beside the multiple sources in the article itself, the German Wikipedia page [78] for them sites six non-trivial German music news sources covering the band. Also, judging by the length of the German article and complete lack of "notability discussion" there, it seems to be granted that they've established themselves in more than one "sovereign country". --Meneitherfabio (talk) 23:06, 1 April 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) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete, not yet notable, may change soon. Deletion Mutation 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holmbush Centre

Non-notable shopping centre. There was a prod which was removed without explanation. Putney Bridge (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that being the first place a invasive species is sighted helps with Notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional entry for a non-notable structure. And while the guideline strictly applies to people, the invasive-species thing has WP:1E written all over it. 9Nak (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted outside some YouTube stupidity. No substantial source coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mix between an ad and a non notable article about Youtube videos. Acebulf (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable and seems to almost be an ad. --Edward130603 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article shows it to be important in its region, and we do usually include articles on shopping centers of regional importance. It does not seem like an advertisement in any respect. DGG (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can see, an unremarkable shopping centre. Searches for the YouTube "fad" didn't bring up anything at all, so I doubt that establishes any form of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nominator, non- notable. SD5 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be merged with Middleton on Sea.--Charles (talk) 21:18, 1 April 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.