Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 10

< 9 March	11 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Goodbuzz

Non notable anonymous author. Only links are primary sources. Topic seems to be just a advert hook to a blog page. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have this feeling of deja vu. Mandsford (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, doesn't seem notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, unnotable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of minor local notability at best, as even the article pretty much admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:41, 10 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 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMBr57

PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to PHP#Usage where it can mention that PHP, in addition to being a server-side scripting langauge, can be called from the command line, can be used to create native GUI applications, and can be used for shell scripting. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically not "removed without comment"; see Talk: HMBr57. – 74 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merge as a non-notable fork of a piece of software which we don't have an article on (r57shell). This isn't a shell script (the article is incorrect in this regard); it's a dynamically generated web page (like most other PHP applications) that can be used to execute commands on a web server. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have an article which describes r57shell, c99shell, or their ilk. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. This is essentially a web script written in PHP. Not notable and not appropriate for a merge to PHP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, there's no reliable sources that talk about it. Second, about half of the Google hits I found have been taken down and give me a 404 error when I try to look at them. Third, most of the OTHER sources I found weren't even in English (I know, I shouldn't be using that as an argument, but when there's no sources in English, that kinda says something against its notability). Fourth, the websites that were in English that hadn't been taken down made it look like this was a security hack to be used on a compromised web server -- in fact, the article on linux.com that's linked to in the article has comments posted on it to the effect of "this is the worst idea ever! Why would you install something like this on your web server??". Fifth, the sources that the article lists don't even use the term "HMBr57" in them -- they talk about "PHP Shell" instead, which is written by Martin Geisler, NOT Hosam Badreldin. So, in conclusion, I'd say that my best argument in favor of deleting this is that both it and its author both fail the notability test. Anything else and I'd just be rambling on. Matt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the current search results for "hmbr57" are, in fact, Middle Eastern web boards which got hacked and had this script installed on them. A few of them even haven't been fixed yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:53, 12 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 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyInfo

Non-notable software. On google I can see download sites that carry it and a couple reviews in personal websites [1]. Best source I could find is a 2002 review from the owner of Sitepoint, who calls it "yet another variation of the NoteCenter concept"[2]. The only source in the article is a single review in wikipedia which is signed by the software maker[3] (doh). Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, has a single source, and I agree with above statements.Spring12 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most software of this type is not notable, but in this particular case I'm going to argue that within the niche, this seems to be a bit more notable. After sifting through the shareware download sites that regurgitate the company's PR material, I found this, this, this and intriguingly, this. It's not OneNote for sure, but you do not get many actual reviews on this type of shareware-that-shows-up-everywhere applications. §FreeRangeFrog 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 21:06, 9 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, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently sourced, random piece of software. Esteffect (talk) 00:16, 10 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 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Dweck

Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News archive search finds a fair number of reliable sources. These include a New York Times obituary of someone whose notability derives from his work with Dweck, so it would be reasonable to assume that Dweck himself would also get such an obituary, which is usually regarded as a bright green light for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason per Phil to establish notability-almost anything featured in the New York Times can be automatically considered to be notable enough for its own article; as for references, that can be easily fixed. In fact, I might do that now. Even though it hasn't even reached Start class yet, it can be easily changed into a B or even GA article if enough effort is poured into it. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources found are substantial coverage, subject does not appear to meet any of the additional criteria in WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 14:04, 11 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.

keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.

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 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caricom Airways

There are zero sources available which gives this "airline" any notability. Am thinking it is quite possibly a hoax. Russavia ^Dialogue 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax -- I found some lists of airlines including "Caribbean Commuter Airways" (Caricom), but is existence as a commuter airline sufficiently notable? Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide those lists? Because the alleged ICAO code and callsign does not exist in ICAO 8585-146, and has been removed by myself from the article. But even then, mere existence in a directory doesn't confer notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:54, 6 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) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds plausable, but not notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

Via where can I provide you with documentation? my e-mail: s.chin@caricomairways.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.190.58 (talk) 20:46, 16 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 Renegade Five. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrounded Universe

Non-notable, no information given aside from one sentence (which is a general summary) Ejg930 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:31, 6 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) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent artice as a plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to allow for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:13, 10 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 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Harris

I placed a PROD on this article that was quickly removed, article concerns non notable architect that is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet. Maybe someday. The page seems to be part of a general PR effort (ghits are LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., not any kind of third-party coverage). J L G 4 1 0 4 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 5 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) 00:03, 10 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 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound & The Story

Contested prod. Instructional DVD. The author/instructor is notable, the DVD itself is not. Delete, or at the very least merge to Blackbird (album). Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why this is needed to be deleted; I see no reason why the DVD is not notable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.243.250 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to find third-party reliable sources (click to see what we mean by that) that attest to the DVD's notability. The only way to remedy the situation would be to provide such sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:07, 5 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) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourceable article about a DVD of questionable notability Lets drink Tea 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable instructional DVD. Any worthwhile (and sourced) content can be included in the guitarist's article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:56, 11 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 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Vakili

Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 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, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "Controversy" section has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and I am also unable to find any neutral, reliable sources that might demonstrate notability. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 12 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 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ferreira

Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find refs back to wp Chzz ► 16:44, 6 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) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: broke at least one important story in Botha's time. Apartheid's environmental toll. Ottre 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, the comment on the article's talk page suggests the subject may be notable, but without references both this assertion and the content of the article cannot be verified. —Snigbrook 14:13, 11 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 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardmen RFC

Not notable. This isn't the Otago University Rugby Club, whiich would be notable - it's simply one of the social teams which plays in the University's competition. Hardly of any particular note even locally, let alone beyond Dunedin. NOTE: Looks like it has had a CSD notice attached to it at some point which was removed by the article's creator. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Unnotable sports team Lets drink Tea 00:04, 10 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 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate nationalism

This article does not cite any relevant sources, and no effort has been made to find them since the page was tagged 5 months ago. Article should be deleted under WP:NOR Jonovision (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article can be saved. I would like to see the corporatism category built not dismantled. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been more than enough time to fix it. In the five years since the article was created, nobody has added relevant citations. The warning tag was added 5 months ago, and nobody has touched the article. Can you provide any citations that would justify keeping the article? --Jonovision (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I don't know what you're worried about. It's tagged sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 07:07:35
    - Comment - The point I'm trying to get across is that this is an abandoned article. It was probably based on original research, and nobody has been working to improve it. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state#Ways to spot article potential, especially points 4 through 7. --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loads of news refs to this; needs improving but there's no deadline -- Chzz ► 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please do show us to these news refs. I'm still trying to figure out what corporate nationalism is, because I haven't found any sources outside of Wikipedia. --Jonovision (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with corporatism until there is enough reliably sourced material there to merit its own separate article. This one is simply WP:OR. THF (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This merge was already discussed, and there was unanimous opposition. See Talk:Corporate nationalism. --Jonovision (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have trimmed the article to a point beyond objection, I hope. There is enough material there to go on for anyone looking for this topic specifically.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A note on sources:

This article has cited two sources:

The very first edit claimed the text was "Taken from the Christian Falangist Party of America website." (Christian Falangist Party of America "is dedicated to fighting the "Forces of Darkness" which seek to destroy our Western Judeo-Christian Civilization", in case you haven't heard of it. I hadn't). I couldn't actually find the relevant text on their website.

The current version cites a collection of essays called "Sport and Corporate Nationalisms". From page 7: "Simply put, and prefigured on the operations and machinations of multi-, trans-, and supra-national entities, the politico-cultural nation of the nineteenth century has been replaced by the corporate-cultural nation of the twenty-first century. We have termed this process, corporate nationalisms, processes that are qualitatively distinct from those that helped to constitute the symbolic boundaries of maturing nation-states during the nineteenth century." The authors seem to have coined the term specifically for this book, and it conflicts with what's in the article. It smells of someone googling for "corporate nationalism" to find references, and not actually reading them.

How do you guys even know that "corporate nationalism" means what the article says it does? --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an article when it disagrees with sources is a matter of editing, not deletion. So here is the proper question to be addressed at AFD: How do you, Jonovision, know that no sources exist? You tell us outright in your nomination that "no effort has been made to find them". We must take that statement as including you, too. As such, you're part of the problem, not the solution. You're doing yourself the very thing that you are criticising. You're not making any effort to find sources, either. Put in that effort. Look for sources yourself. Report what you do and don't find. Looking for sources oneself is what one should always do before nominating an article at AFD. One cannot honestly say that no sources exist, the deletion policy criterion under which we delete articles in cases such as this, unless one has actually looked for them onesself. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

The article has lacked valid citations for 5 years
I looked for references, and couldn't find any, which led me to believe that the article contained original research
The one citation that is currently in the article is clearly worthless, and anyone who bothered to read it would realize that in a minute.
I assumed that nobody else even checked that invalid source, because it wasn't removed, and I also assumed that nobody else made any effort to find valid sources, as none have been uncovered.
If anyone who has tried and failed to find sources for this article before I nominated for deletion, I apologize for suggesting that you didn't make an effort.
I applaud the efforts of anyone who has looked for references since I nominated the article for deletion. However, suggesting that I haven't is a personal attack. I'm deeply offended by the previous comment, and would appreciate an apology. I care about the quality of Wikipedia's content, and I nominated the article for deletion because I sincerely believe that its content is dubious.

To summarize:

This article does not have any valid references, and several users have commented that they believe the content is dubious
The single reference which is on the page provides a conflicting definition
The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. Nobody has stepped up to provide sources, despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --Jonovision (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First a corporation will always have the interests of its shareholders primary, and all else secondary. If the company is gov't owned entity, then it is a whole different issue and still warrants deletion as it is already covered here Government-owned_corporation Jtyoga (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Corporatism does necessarily mean commercial corporation. The corporatist political culture extends to cultures that regard the family or extended family as the corporate group which the corporatists hold to be the primary unit of society. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the people who want to delete it could use the most elucidation on the topic.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - per Gregbard. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure how more discussion is going to help us reach consensus, because so far everyone in favor of keeping the article has simply said "The article can get better, give it a chance", or "There are references all over the news". Nobody has seriously responded to my concerns, so I'm going to ask a few basic questions. I hope the people who want to keep this article would be kind enough to answer them, and that this might kickstart a discussion.

Where did you first hear the term "Corporate Nationalism"? (In school? From a book? From the wikipedia article?)
Have you ever seen a work that provided a definition of the term, or did you infer its meaning from the context?
What indications have you encountered that the concept is notable, and not just a term that's used in a small handful of academic papers?

--Jonovision (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think the term is mentioned in a couple of texts about the "learning company", an Australian version of learning organisations. Ottre 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Jono, you are obviously feel very strongly about this article which I do not. However, I always find the deletionist/immediateist view fascinating. You are crying out for references and that's fine. However, no references really only justifies deleting particular statements not entire articles. I don't see what the urgency is with you? I think I have resolved any controversy arising in the article through a substantial cut and reword. Jono, aside from the crdibility issues, do you have ANY objection to the statement on the topic currently? I.e. do you deny that Corp. nationalism is what is claimed in the article? If you do, there is a direction for people like me to go, by way of responding. If you are just demanding that people head to the library to satisfy your urgency, I don't know what to tell you other than "no deadline". We actually can go a long way on consensus, if we have consensus builders. If you have no content objections, you probably should just let it go. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I do have content objections. When I tried to find references that support the content of the article, I found the term being used in ways that conflict with the article's definition. [4] and [5] use the term in the context of national identities being influenced by corporate activities. [6] uses the term in the context of government intervention against foreign control of companies. In [7], it refers to trade protectionism. I think Aymathh2 said it better than I could: this is a term which "means whatever the use wants it to mean". --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't really feel that strongly about the article when I nominated it for deletion. When I first came across it last week, I assumed it was a valid article, and went out to look for sources so that I could remove the citation tag. I was surprised that I couldn't find any, and even more surprised when I looked at the article's history, and saw that it never had any sources for 5 years, and that nobody was maintaining it. What I do feel strongly about is that the people defending the article seem to have a strong bias against fact checking. I feel like I'm the only person here who has actually tried to verify the validity of the content. If anyone else has looked, they haven't admitted that they have come up empty-handed. --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the current article is merely a dicdef. There does need to be some evidence of its general use. DGG (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article history, different editors have held different views of what the phrase means: corporations should advance national goals; nations should favor the interests of corporations; nations should delegate some roles to corporations etc. Seems like a dictionary definition of a term that is not widely used, and then means whatever the user wants it to mean. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. This phrase has been bugging me. It is like "Progressive Conservative": what does it mean? Took a break, took the dog for a walk, had some food, still bugging me. So I dug around a bit and found five meanings, which I have added the article. I suspect there are more. This would be no problem with a Wiktionary entry, which welcomes definitions of all the meanings of a term in one article, but it clearly violates the WP:DICTIONARY policy, which says that each meaning should have its own article. Any volunteers to turn this one into a disambiguation page pointing to five (or more) dicdef-type articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Aymatth2, I think this is quite a bit better than what we had before. I'm not sure about how we could split this up into five articles, though, since we don't have enough high-quality sources to establish notability for each individual definition. --Jonovision (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to save the article. As it stands, it is in clear violation of WP:DICTIONARY policy: "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data).". I don't think any of the meanings warrant a new Wikipedia article. Existing articles on Nationalism, Nationalization, Corporatism etc. cover the concepts. I have added a Wiktionary entry (see link in this article's page) which I think is sufficient. I suppose, maybe, the page could be turned into a sort of disambiguation page giving the different meanings and pointing to the articles that discuss these meanings. I would prefer to just delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 11 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 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox-Rays rivalry

Contested WP:PROD. The Article highlights a baseball rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays. Should we keep this? –BuickCentury Driver 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. You're the one nominating it. Please provide a reason on why you think it should be deleted, or why you believe a discussion is warranted. We're not here to mindread. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you weren't sure, why did you remove the PROD? And if you're not sure, then it's probably not notable enough. Anyway, I initially PRODed this article, since it's about a rivalry of dubious notability, based on a single season when these two teams were the two best teams in the American League East. It narrates a few episodes but otherwise there's no information about the rivalry itself. --Mosmof (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any time two teams compete in the same division for the same title and playoff spots, there is significant rivalry. The only issue in this case is the fact that the 2008 season was the first time the Rays were ever in significant playoff contention. The article needs cleanup and referencing, but numerous sources [8] [9] [10] [11] exist. Rklear (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By that logic, we should have articles on every divisional and localized interleague "rivalry" that exists. Not every rivalry is as notable as Red Sox-Yankees, or Dodgers-Yankees, or Cubs-White Sox to warrant its own article. By virtue of the fact that the Rays interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox dance that dominated the AL East for most of this decade, of course any match with the Rays and either the Red Sox or Yankees will become an intense showdown. Merge useful content into Tampa Bay Rays, Boston Red Sox, 2008 Tampa Bay Rays season, 2008 Boston Red Sox season. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper; who cares if there are articles on every rivalry? If they exist and are notable within WP:GNG, they merit inclusion. Whether a rivalry is "as notable" as Yankees-Red Sox is beside the point. Rklear (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this,[12] there were a few interesting incidents between the teams before 2008, but you'd never know that by reading the article in question. It basically serves as a recap of what happened last year, which can be summarized in the teams' season articles. For now, I'm going to say delete. I just don't see how this can be viewed as a real rivalry after just one season, and the article doesn't make a case as it stands. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess it would help if there was some sort of guideline for determining what is and isn't a notable rivalry. It's obvious there are rivalries, and then rivalries. For example, Rays and Red Sox were undeniably rivals in 2008, and you wouldn't have much trouble finding articles discussing the two teams as rivals. But any reference to rivalry is limited to the 2008 season. If the Rays plummet back to earth, I imagine they will cease to be rivals, whereas the Yankees and Red Sox will most likely remain rivals even if one team is in last place and the other is headed to the World Series. Also, "rivalry" is sort of indiscriminate/undefined - two teams in the same division are, by definition, rivals. But that doesn't mean they're rivals. I have similar concerns about Battle of Ohio (MLB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mets-Braves rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Mets–Phillies rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I'm curious to see what arguments are raised for keep or delete. --Mosmof (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete. They may be in the same the division, but they're over 1000 miles apart and have only really played one notable series. It's not exactly Duke-North Carolina... Hippopotamus (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hippopotamus. The Red Sox and Yankees are one of the most significant rivalries in professional sporting and have a history going back to the beginning of modern baseball, the first time the Red Sox and Rays played each other in the postseason was last year. There might be some ill-will on the part of Red Sox Nation, but common sense says that a single postseason defeat isn't enough for a true rivalry to form. I'm not saying that it isn't brewing, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles are written on already notable subjects, not ones that might become so someday. -Senseless!... says you, says me 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, it's pretty clear the two teams are going to be rivals this year, too, and it makes little sense to delete an article that is on the borderline of notability when that notability is fairly certain in the near future. The article can be improved by discussing the previous ten years, the Rays signing Wade Boggs, etc. But I can also see an argument for consolidating this and similar articles into American League East Division rivalries, where notability is less of a close question. Incidentally, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry in the sense Mr. Senseless is talking about only dates back about 30 years: the Red Sox and Yankees were almost never good at the same time until the mid-70s. THF (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- While I understand the need for sports fans to compare every rivalry to Yankees-Red Sox or UNC-Duke, that isn't the standard by which articles are determined to be notable or not at Wikipedia. A topic only need be covered by independent, third party sources. If the rivalry only existed in 2008, perhaps it would make sense to rename/move the article to 2008 Red Sox-Rays Rivalry or something of the sort. There is no reason or precedent that shows that these articles should be treated any differently than any other article in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the strong feelings against this and articles like it are driven more by personally-held sports opinions/emotions than Wikipedia's standards and community-accepted practices. SMSpivey (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be covered by Wikinews, not Wikipedia.--Sloane (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. As of now the only thing that makes this a rivalry is that they ran very close last season for the AL East and the then in the ALCS. One season doesn't make it a rivalry. BUC (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't seen much in the way of policy discussion here, mostly point of view on what constitutes a rivalry. If someone (the nominator himself as a good faith gesture, or Rklear who seems to have taken the time to research this) would take the time to actually add references, this article would fit even the most strict definitions for inclusion (WP:N, WP:V). I think this AfD is premature and the issues would have been best worked out on the article itself and it's talk page. By the way, a good copy edit and redesign of the article wouldn't hurt either. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be making some general improvements to the article as part of WP:ARS. Magnetic Rag (talk) 21:46, 12 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 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brasstronaut

Non-notable band. Speedy tag was removed with "(decline speedy - may be notable (check Google News))", so I did check Google News, and got only three articles, none of them proof of notability. In addition, all three of the hits are to www.pressdisplay.com, which is a compendium of back articles from a variety of newspapers, but every one of them is apparently removed from pressdisplay's database, so even if you wanted to pay to read them, they're no longer available. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google brings up 7 hits, none of them citable sources. ~Cr∞nium 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Firestorm ^Talk 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The decline was because of the 20 Google News hits I got, there was for example this article about the band in Vue Weekly, a reliable source. One might want to consider that source. Also, mentioned on Canada.com. So Why 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The two sources above, plus this, this and this just about cut it. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, not only for the sources supplied by SoWhy & Sparklism, but also for these ones too, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Seems to meet the notability criteria with all the sources listed above. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:14, 10 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 Myst (series). MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterium

Contested prod, notability not established, I can't picture it ever being established, nor can I picture it being developed into an sourced article that isn't just a list of locations. I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons, if not more:

Rehevkor ✉ 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A simple google search on Mysterium + Convention turns out plenty of RS which can be used to establish notability. Instead of pulling the AfD trigger, there are many ways to flag an article for sourcing... or even improve it directly. MLauba (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for notability issues and it was not addressed. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Redirect and apologies. My previous vote and the google check were made in a hurry without proper verification on my part. I do however not retract my gut reaction to the tone of the Nom, which to me reads like "I don't know about it so it can't be notable" the way it was phrased. MLauba (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Myst (series) and include one sentence about Mysterium there. Very short news article at InsideMacGames. Remainder of ghits are blogs and forums. Not enough to fully satisfy the WP:GNG. Not sure what RSs MLauba is referring to, if something substantial can be specified then I can review my !vote. Delete Mystralia due to a complete lack of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That reliable sources (questionable ones, at that) mention the topic is not sufficient. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[Myst (series) and merge Chzz ► 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether this is kept or deleted, I would prefer to see this content at Mysterium (convention) if it will be kept, and move the text from Mysterium (disambiguation) here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Myst (series) as per MLauba Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge Not notable, only deserves a blurb Lets drink Tea 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to Myst Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one reliable source? Merge some of the content and redirect. --Sloane (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 10 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.