Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 26

< 25 April	27 April >

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World School Council

Not finding anything supporting the existence of this organization. Even the official URL goes to a newly created, ~~essentially blank~~ website. At best it's an attempt to promote a new social organization, at worst it's a hoax. Either way, it doesn't meet notability requirements. RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - C'mon. I can hardly find evidence that this organization even exists, let alone is notable. Open-close case, I would say. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search found nothing. Whether it's a hoax or just so new that it hasn't even got its website up yet, it can't possibly achieve verifiability from independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above comments. Quantpole (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the website now has something there. However, this changes nothing about the organisation being notable, so my vote is unchanged. Quantpole (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that the web site at the external link now has content. I doubt this is a hoax and it now looks like the founders included "create Wikipedia page" in their launch plans for their new organization. As laudable as the purposes of this organization may be, it's still lacks the coverage in 3rd party sources required and should be deleted as a result. Perhaps once the organization does something and is recognized, the article can be recreated. For now, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle.--RadioFan (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand that Wikipedia is not a "promotional vehicle", whatever that is supposed to mean. This page has been created to state facts about the World School Council, which is what an encyclopedia is for - you can view more information about what the World School Council has done and plans to do via the website - the page will be edited to include this information soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattie92 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 April 2009

"Not a promotional vehicle" means that Wikipedia is not here for people to write about their own brand-new organisation with a view to helping it become famous. It has to be established and well-known, so that people independent of it have thought it important enough to write about, before it gets a Wikipedia article. More information on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Bird Project

Twice recreated article about an organization that fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It has no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - all mentions I could find independent from the project, for example a mention on Pitchfork and on Spin Magazine contains trivial coverage about how it's a non-profit that sells T-Shirts designed by musicians and the money goes to charitable organizations of the musicians' choice. Hekerui (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Plenty of hits when I search, but mostly on blogs and the like. Only 6 results from google news, none of which are in very much depth at all. Quantpole (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - coverage is sparse. The best source is probay this NME article which isn't a lot. This Canadian Musician article reads like a regurgitated press release. Overall, not enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Jordan

Non-notable musician, no sources. Also his second single, Darkness into light. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good faith search brings up nothing about this person beyond his own myspace page (most results are about Louis Jordan). No evidence of the singles charting. No evidence for notability. Quantpole (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. I simply can't find a single source that points to a claim of notability. (On a side note, you should have seen how many sources I dug up for Louis Jordan when I misread the title.) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both articles, same reasons as I gave here. CanadianNine 23:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as there are no reliable sources covering this musician or his not yet released second single. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 27 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. I would recommend Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book); if you find a better target, feel free to contact me on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athair

Non-notable character, written largely in universe. No sources found. Seems too minor for a merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate character list, but trim it first. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it could be moved somewhere, it should, but, as it is, I concur with Hammer. HJMitchell You rang? 14:41, 2 May 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, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, although the number of different continuities and character lists makes it nigh-impossible to discern to which article it should be merged. As it is, though, it's almost entirely plot summary; it's not even clear regarding which media, exactly, featured the character. Powers ^T 01:45, 3 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

92-foot yacht ESSENCE

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a "one event" kind of deal to me, with no notability outside of the accident. Let me rephrase that: even the accident is not notable. I once hit our trash can, backing the Camry out of the driveway; it's a pity the New York Post was not there to report on it and ensure my entry into WP. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I nominated this for speedy deletion). Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews Wikipedia is not a news site, Wikinews is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.218.21 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia and Wikinews have different copyright standards. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. Broccoli (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 29 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. Technically hasn't played on the field, but consensus is gonna be obvious. Wizardman 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Wyche

Non-notable football player, never played a down in the NFL. Wizardman 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's among career leaders in some categories at Syracuse per Syracuse Univ. bio. He was selected to play in the 2006 East-West Shrine Game, which is a significant honor recognizing him as an all-star, and was then named Defensive MVP of the game. Also, there does appear to have been significant news coverage of Wyche during his playing days. Google news turns up a feature story from a Jacksonville newspaper and this feature from the Daily Orange. There are also several other articles from Syracuse newspapers providing substantive commentary on Wyche, including this, this, and this. I'd err on the side of a keep on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:ATHLETE: has played in the highest amateur level of American football. Grsz¹¹ 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays top level football.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he plays in the NFL--Yankees10 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He actually hasn't played in the NFL. He's on the roster, but hasn't been on the field at all. That being said, it looks lik eCbl62's refs make this article ok. Wizardman 02:02, 27 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. G3, confirmed hoax. None of the listed reviews exist. Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dots(wargaing)

I can't verify that this game actually exists. The purported reviews don't seem to exist either. Therefore, I don't believe it passes WP:N. Wperdue (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a big fat hoax. Check out the publisher's official site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a hoax. Can't find any reliable sources. No evidence of being released. Would say speedy delete but not sure what category it would come under. Quantpole (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. I don't know what the speedy category is for deleting games played on paper. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. Such a criterion would also lead to the deletion of Tic-Tac-Toe. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, non-notable game by a non-notable game company. - Vianello (Talk) 01:27, 27 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. per Cbl's evidence. College football isn't inherently notable though despite the other comment. Wizardman 02:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Simon

Never played a down in the NFL. Non-notable. Wizardman 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Search of google and NewsBank databases does not reveal sufficient substantive coverage to support notability. There's a brief report on his being hired as a graduate assistant, but I don't think a "graduate assistant" position is a sufficient claim to notability. There's also a 2005 blog feature, but I don't think that is enough to support notability. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Associated Press ran a story on Simon here in which Fulmer called Simon "one of the most dominant players to ever suit up for the Volunteers." I also found a feature story from The Sporting News on Simon (headlined "Captain Comeback") here. USA Today also ran a feature story on Simon here. These are major mainstream publications, all with feature stories on Simon. After viewing these stories, I have to change my vote to "Keep." The article needs to be developed, but there has been substantial mainstream media coverage, including feature articles, about Simon. I have to switch to "Keep." Playing a down in the NFL is a ground for automatic inclusion, but is not a requirement. College football players with significant media coverage of the type found here on Simon also meet notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:ATHLETE: has played in the highest amateur level of American football. Grsz¹¹ 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian A. Vaughan

Candidate for provincial legislature and former local legislator with no evidence of substantial independent coverage. Accordingly, he fails both the general notability guidelines and the specific guidelines for politicians. Were there a list of Reform candidates in the 2009 BC general election, I would have no qualms with turning this into a redirect to that list. In the absence of such a list, this page should be deleted altogether.

There are also conflict of interest/autobiography issues, since User:Haneyguy appeas to be Vaughan. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, if looking for sources, this Ian Vaughan is different from the one in New Democratic Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election from Calgary East. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an elected official of minor notability and no likely interest outside the local area. eaolson (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable unless he wins; otherwise, gross failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO in general. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and also possibly fails WP:SPAM. Fleetflame 19:01, 29 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary cell terminology

This article claims, based on a reference written in 1911, that there is a problem with confusing terminology. In my view, this article is going to create more confusion than it prevents. It has no useful content for the modern reader. The bit about the conventional direction of current is misleading, since nowadays the positive current convention is almost universal.

I thought initially that I would propose a merger with Primary cell, just to avoid destroying any information since I'm an inclusionist at heart, but on reflection I can't find anything of value in this article. The only bit of information that's helpful is the last sentence, but that is repeated in the Primary cell article anyway. After that, all we need to say is that the cathode is marked as (+) and the anode as (-). Maybe somebody could make use of the 1911 book in an article about the history of electrochemistry, but it shouldn't be presented as current information. Heron (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still opportunity for confusion. As you say, "the cathode is marked as (+) and the anode as (-)" but, in an electrolytic cell, the opposite is the case. Biscuittin (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS nothing has changed since 1911 so the information is not outdated. However, I am happy to merge it with Primary cell if you prefer. Biscuittin (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a summary of Primary cell terminology to Primary cell and I withdraw my objection to deletion. However, I see that Primary cell terminology has been nominated (not by me) to be copied to Wikiversity so please do not delete it until this has been done. Biscuittin (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful replies. I'm happy with your addition to Primary cell, and I shall wait to see what happens with the transfer to Wikiversity before deleting Primary cell terminology. I still don't see what use the article will be to them, but that's their problem. --Heron (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to primary cell, maybe it shouldn;t have an article in its own right but it should have something. HJMitchell You rang? 14:46, 2 May 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, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 3 May 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, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book from 1911 does not constitute "multiple reliable and independent sources." Now adequately covered in Primary cell. Edison (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we ignore the request to copy to Wikiversity and delete anyway, for two reasons:

The article is misleading, as the alleged 'confusion' results from archaic terminology that is no longer used
The request was made by an anon IP that has no history of replying to questions, so there is little chance of getting the requester to explain his or her reasoning, and therefore the request is unlikely to be acted upon. --Heron (talk) 17:22, 10 May 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, at any rate; a merger can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley riots

The title itself is biased (assuming protests were "riots") and the article itself is unscholarly and quotes solely from right-wing sources. This is merely an attack article trying to push a certain point of view Greedyhalibut (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously needs a new name, and it needs a large rewrite, but the topic itself is notable, though Free Speech Movement might be the best place to redirect it to till it's better. Extremely weak keep. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable, and has reasonable sources. If the objection is the name, then I think the first step would be to discuss that on the talk page. The nominator saying it quotes only from right-wing sources seems to be patently false, considering it uses material from such people as Jo Freeman. If anything I would have thought the objection would be to it being too left-wing. I certainly don't think the article can be called an attack page. Quantpole (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the last comment, I'd like to change my nomination to Merge. (The page is fairer than I thought the first time I read it - should have looked it over again before nominating.) Still, the title is a non-starter.

To clarify, my main complaints (which have to do with the title and the section on "influences"):

-The title is clear pushing a point of view

-The framework of the article is "antinomianism", a broad category which explains nothing beyond making silly pieces of analysis like: "the antinomian “treats his mind as if it were completely malleable, devalues reality, rejects reason and understanding, and selects certain experiences to create a fantasied, dogmatic cosmic view of the world.”"

-Undue weight is placed on musical groups as "influences" and the article makes highly speculative interpretations of these groups' work

-The relating of events is better, and should be merged into Free Speech Movement.Greedyhalibut (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These all appear to be what you see as content problems, which isn't what AfD is about. AfD is about establishing reliability and notability. If there's a problem with content I'd have thought the first step would be discuss it on the talk page. Quantpole (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Original Posters

Problem 1: Greedyhalibut: You initially seemed to take great offense with this article, but later admitted that you hadn’t really read it and it was fairer than he believed. We elected to take your criticisms with a grain of salt as you seem to be pushing your own agenda; ignoring the sources we had backing our information.

Problem 2: The Page Name appears to be pushing a point of view: According to our findings, these protests are often clumped together and referred to as the “Berkeley Riots”, therefore, we found no reason to address this issue.

Problem 3: Issues with the Antinomian Section: We admitted that it was not clear that this was not a definite influence, although multiple scholarly sources state that it most likely was. We changed some of the language to reflect this, but chose to leave it in the page. If anyone else would like to do more research into this area they are more than welcome to, but our sources are legitimate and make sense.

Problem 4: Music Section It is in common agreement that the music of the era had a huge affect on the events during it, and our sources provide justification as to how they influenced them. We saw no reason to address this issue. Again, if anyone else would like to do more research into this area they are more than welcome to, but our sources are legitimate and make sense.

Problem 5: Events The events included in this page strictly refer to those that took place in/around Berkeley. The Free Speech Movement was nation-wide, and therefore we see no reason to move this section into the Free Speech Movement section.

This certainly was not meant to be an attack page, but if you disagree with the information wholeheartedly then we welcome you to do your own research and point out where ours in incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.92.37 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I still say Merge. The events section can be merged into Free Speech Movement, which does not indicate a nation-wide but a local movement. The antinomian and music sections represent the views of some scholars (not very good ones), but not a scholarly consensus on the events. Sorry, but the music stuff is just silly:

"In line with the antinomian personality, Hendrix came to this deduction as his inability to have power over his love life garnered a feeling of weakness within him. In order to counter this, Hendrix dismisses any thought of close relationships or responsibility, instead turning to purely sexual relationships"

The does not shed light on Berkeley in the 60s. And the title is still biased - just because the events are referred to that way does not make "riot" NPOVGreedyhalibut (talk) 04:52, 30 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. per Clay Collier; if we have no source for the biographical essentials of a BLP, we have no basis for an article. There seems to be no suitable content for merging into an article about the Khazar. Sandstein 05:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Alan Brook

Non-notable fringe scholar who claims that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazar (Turkish) converts to Judaism. The article contains no reliable sources or mainstream reviews of his work. If some substance could be verified, a merge to the Khazar article might be more appropriate than a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Seems to have a decent number of hits on GBooks [1] GScholar. [2] Edward321 (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' The entry is nothing but his book and his web site it has no content. It has the filler of listing both editions. The articles are derivative of the single book. The article should remove listing both editions of the book as separate. It seems self-promotional for his opinion. If we use the criteria for academics and authors then Brook, as a person does not make it. But his single book may make it. Therefore, he should be merged into Khazars. --Jayrav (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the accepted theory, but its sufficiently important to be included here, along with its notable proponents. His main book was published by a mainstream academic publisher, and his first listed encyclopedia aerticle by a leading theological and humanities publisher, His book wasreviewed by multiple mainstream sources--see [3] The reviewsshould be added, and they show the notability. DGG (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is given full presentation at the Khazar article and the book is featured. The theory may be notable but the author is NN. We are debating Kevin Alan Brook, not the Khazar theory of ashkenazim. The review belongs in the khazar article. --Jayrav (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayrav. Doesn't meet WP:BOOK, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG. Article is also a bit spammy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect substantive and verifiable matrial into the main Khazars article per nominator at Khazars#Alleged Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim which is unfortunately linked to (antisemitic) racial theories linked to this topic, so "merge and redirect" is being very charitable, since most of this is probably a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOTMYSPACE. IZAK (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the nomination, also, this seems like little more than an attempt at a publicity stunt and seems to fail WP:N since it has nothing more substantive than primary sources. HJMitchell You rang? 14:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't be sufficient sources to verify the facts about his life (thus potential BLP problem), and doesn't seem to be notable as an author. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Nominator) Upon review of the above comments; this article should be deleted, this is the most appropriate choice since the subject of the BLP is a non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:53, 4 May 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 Merged to The Fixxers by User:Michig. Malinaccier (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Life

Unreleased album without any reference that establish notability Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've also nominated The Fixxers for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Fixxers. The group is notable.--Michig (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with a merge--not that there is much to merge. Go for it, Michig--I think you can do that while the article is at AfD, no? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and merged.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems OK where it is now it's been redirected. Good effort, Michig! HJMitchell You rang? 14:56, 2 May 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, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accept merge. Powers ^T 01:46, 3 May 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 Pidgin (software). Stifle (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier (software)

Non-notable fork of IM software Pidgin (and an especially minor, barely changed one at that); only a few minor mentions in blog posts, and the article has been proposed for deletion and speedy deletion in the past, citing notability issues. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to numerous blogs, it made it on slashdot, which is fairly significant as it is a high traffic site. The software is still kept up to date (the current version for download is 2.5.5, the same as Pidgin). In addition, previous attempts to merge the controversy into the Pidgin article have been systematically deleted in the past, so it's probably best to have its own (small) article where users that are interested, can read up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.83.10 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's equivalent to getting a blog post onto the front page of Digg. What does that really amount to in terms of notability? I mean, sure there's a bit of praise and bits of interest being shown in the comments, but it all dies down after a day and the subject is quickly forgotten. GraYoshi2x►^talk 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. It shouldn't stay where it is but it's good information and I feel it should go somewhere. Could it be merged somewhere better? HJMitchell You rang? 15:01, 2 May 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, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts to integrate it into the Pidgin page had all of the information removed since the Pidgin editors felt it was spamming the page -- so I moved it back to its own page. I think a separate page is probably better, this way the Pidgin page can just have a single line about it that references the larger page, if people are interested in finding out more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.64.20.230 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because editors reject it on Pidgin doesn't necessarily mean that it must then deserve an article of its own, especially when it seems to fail notability guidelines and relies mostly on original research to support details. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GraYoshi2x►^talk 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Just from the Carrier features page, Carrier seems non-notable on its face. That feature list would barely warrant a blog item in a typical project. I wouldn't think a Slashdot article reporting a software change would establish a subject's notability. As comparison: there are all kinds of Mozilla Add-ons on the Mozilla website that are probably more extensive than this fork of Pidgin, and yet don't rise to WP:Notability. If it's not notable enough to exist in another article, it certainly isn't enough for its own. --Closeapple (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pidgin (software). Just a few differences to Pidgin, so it really doesn't need an own article - while of course the information itself is notable! darkweasel94 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pidgin (software). I don't feel it's notable enough to be merged into Pidgin. Maybe a mention, but not all that content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pidgin (software) and add a sentence or two about the forking drama. That's what's notable, not so much the software result itself (similar in spirit to WP:BLP1E). The software doesn't really sound notable itself except as in relation to the parent-project. Excluding info related to the forking from the forked package, especially since the forking seems notable an clearly related to Pidgin. I think a slashdot main-page picked item is a source of notability for what it's actually about (again, the forking drama). DMacks (talk) 05:41, 11 May 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. The consensus is that the article should be kept as media coverage exists though it needs to be cleaned up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fireflies festival

non-notable festival. References are all to blogs, which are of course the most reliable sources in existence. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The Hindu is certainly a reliable source, and there seem to be a few more hits there. It's a start at least. Jfire (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems notable but the article has some serious issues. If it could be re-written by someone with a sound knowledge of the subject, with WP:RS, it should be kept. HJMitchell You rang? 15:05, 2 May 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 17:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a couple of reliable sources as discussed above. They should be included in the article and yes it needs a huge cleanup. In addition there are plenty of notable performers. Lastly, thank goodness no one was injured by the scorpion last year. Drawn Some (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough news hits:[4]. Fences and windows (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the media coverage presented by Fences and windows. The article needs to be cleaned up, not thrown out. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:47, 4 May 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) 03:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Stefson

non notable band. I believe that a label released album is enough assertion of notability to warrant a deletion discussion instead of speedy deletion A7. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 - Not only does the article not even assert notability(or assert much of anything), but the only real source for it I can find is here. A passing mention simply doesn't pass WP:N. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy (at least not anymore) since the first reference shows the subject is on a record label. ~EdGl ★ 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable subject, material could and should be recreated if they obtain some claim to notability. HJMitchell You rang? 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable, since the band's article is only a stub in the Iceland Wikipedia (where the group is from). No non-trivial, reliable sources, and only one ablum, so it fails WP:MUSIC. ~EdGl ★ 15:19, 2 May 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 Doraemon media. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobita and the Animal Planet 2008

Alternate version of a article that was has previously been through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doraemon The Musical: Nobita and the Animal Planet) and was merged with List of Doraemon media. Article is for a stage play that ran for only a few months in a single country in a foreign language. I think it is telling that the Japanese wiki itself has no equivalent for the article - some information is included on the page there for the original film version but it does not have it's own page as we do here. I'd advocate merging with the film article here, but we don't have one - it redirects back to this article. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is part of the Doraemon franchise, why delete instead of merge or redirect to List of Doraemon media (or other suitable target)? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another version of this article was already AFD'd and merged into List of Doraemon media, which is why I opened with "Alternate version of a article that was has previously been through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doraemon The Musical: Nobita and the Animal Planet) and was merged with List of Doraemon media". Shiroi Hane (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, so why not do the same with this? Why propose it for deletion instead? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The other article has already been merged and that one had the benefit of not having a confusing start as a film article. There's no point redirecting as the title is not even correct (2008 does not feature in it anywhere, neither does 2009 which was in the original article title). Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator hasn't explained his rationale for deleting instead, merge per the precident of a previous incarnation under another title to List of Doraemon media. Onward. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The only thing that could be merged to List of Doraemon media would be the one-line plot summary, but the list currently doesn't list the plot summaries of other media. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:30, 24 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 19:41, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gil'ad Be'eri

badly referenced, BLP. Sources are either primary or user contributed. The article has a difficult time establishing notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable and likely autobiographical. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral until I do more research. Ain al-Hilweh and an old version of Sidon identify Be'eri as an Israeli historian. Be'eri was added to both articles by the same Wikipedia editor in November 2006. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Google found many mirrors of our old Sidon article and a few copies of Ain al-Hilweh. Haaretz, Israel's leading newspaper, had a very brief notice about a poetry journal to which Be'eri contributed. (Translated here, search for Gilad Bari) The other Hebrew ghits appear to be of little value. As far as I can tell, Be'eri's "text" about the Lebanon war seems to be a website, not a book. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much on the Hebrew side. No article in the he wp (which is usually good at least with people articles) and then only one link to a poetry site. --Shuki (talk) 17:30, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marzena Kamizela

Per WP:BLP1E: asserts notability as a model, but coverage is limited to a minor air rage incident w/ sources demonstrating no career-wise depth of coverage. Has no Swedish Wiki entry, which further indicates non-notability to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is mentioned in relationship with the on-going debate on the plane companies zero-tolerance regarding normal Nordic behavior abroad and lack of respect of the sideeffects on flying anxiety. Her case is also believed to be important in relationship with the blatant discrimination made on poor passengers compared with rich ones. As it is mentioned in her article the international standard for cases of air-rage was made with the Peter Buck case. The plane company did choose to abandon her on an rural and backward area where the culture calls for strict punishment of outsiders. The article should not be deleted. Maybe it should be integrated with other articles. 62.243.186.70 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article should stay. The reason that she has no page on the Swedish wikipedia is that she is half Polish. Lately non-swedish ethnic groups have caused a lot of disturbance and crime in the south of Sweden. They are in a process of rewriting their story, so she will have to be on the Polish wikipedia instead because then the right wing part of their parliament can claim that she was yet another foreigner going beseark. That does not make her less Swedish or known overthere. 87.48.134.50 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) — 87.48.134.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I changed ISP April 1 2009 and used to operated under 81.19.225.98. 87.48.134.50 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay. She is properly on the Polish wikipedia rather than the Swedish because people from Eastern Europe have a bad reputation in the nordic countries after Poland has joined EU. Second she is a symbol of the injustice committed by airline companies. Next time they will properly drop gay passengers off in Iran, so they can be hanged. She was of no danger to the plane, so they should have given her to the US authorities or the authorities back in England. But the court system in UK has made a clear statement with the Peter Buck case, so that's maybe who they choose to drop her off in that hell-hole. I am Danish. I have seen Southpark. I know what this country stands for. 80.160.33.94 (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 80.160.33.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment "A symbol of the injustice committed by airline companies"? Kamizela got drunk on a plane, went into a rage, and spent a week in jail for it. The event has no apparent importance, and it's still just one event. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it states in the Swedish newpapers, she took the treatment for flying anxiety which by most house doctors is to drink alcohol and combine it with one sleeping pill. The Swedish expert in the local newspaper confirmed that this widespread approach can backfire in some cases. It seems that the Polish media is full with articles about her. Maybe you can google translate something there. I believe that there is more to her story than just this incident but I havn't time right now to investigate. If you choose to remove her, you can remove May Andersen also. I support that it was injustice. A similar incident happened with the Danish actor Ole Thestrup and it was also a miscarriage of justice. I have been flying to Spain in 70's a lot and it is normal for people to get drunk. The plane companies prefer it and continues to serve free alcohol for that purpose. Covergaard (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless she can be shown to be notable as a model. This is what BLP One Event and Do No Harm is properly about--a single incident having no connection with any underlying notability, for a not very well known person, that shows them in a poor light. If she is notable as a model, then the article must be rewritten around that, not this incident. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 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 00:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article centers on a routine incident involving someone who does not seem to notable for anything else. Air rage is quite common. Maybe it could be merged into an article on "unusual behavior on public transport", or something like that. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more significant about this person than about many others, and definitely notability isn't proven. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case brought so much outrage in the nordic countries where people are tired of the arrogant behavior of the plane companies. Maybe if it is deleted it should be merged into the air rage article. Her approach to fight flying axience was (alcohol+pills) by the book if you ask family doctors here and it just went wrong. But while people have been busy critizing the lack of modeling information in English about her, none have tried to locate info in the Polish language. Are articles on this wikipedia to be US centered or on world-wide-view Covergaard (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. If a different-language Wikipwdia has standards that allow her inclusion there, it's a separate matter. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 3 May 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) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My First HELLO!

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC, unreferenced, can find no info about them online: remote possibility that article is a hoax. MuffledThud (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If claim in article can be verified then redirect to All the Small Things (TV series). If not Delete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:26, 27 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 G12 by Ged UK. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center

I'm not sure if this article is notable enough, and the article is written like an ad. my name inc 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the reason it looks like and advertisement is because the material is copied from the coompany's web site. Tagged as for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruusu Hiao Jun

I cannot find any reliable sources - or any sources whatsoever - that could be used to verify the information in this biography of a living person. Google gives absolutely nothing (for her or her school) and the lack of sourcing in English for a supposedly English trained dancer makes me suspicious that the article may be a hoax. Guest9999 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, she seems to be either non-notable or non-existent Fahrenheit 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Putting her dance videos on YouTube is a nice hobby, but no evidence is shown she satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 27 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. The "KEEP" opinions generally do not address the pertinent points of our inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 05:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maged Salah Al-din

No evidence in article, and I can find no evidence, that he meets either our criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Well known Egyptian writer, he wrote more than 20 or 30 books, His book important 'Tahafout Al-Akadimea' effects a large controversy in the Egyptian press... Do not delete the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptian-2009 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creation of the article and the comment above are your only edits, you may know very little about our policies and guidelines. We can't take your word for this I'm afraid. It's not that we doubt you, but we need evidence. Read the links I mention above about notability and WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. You have about a week to come up with some reliable, verifiable sources that show that this writer is notable. Links to the press controversy would certainly be useful. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see how this is verifiable either. I would love to know, though, what the "irregular form" is in class mobility. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP why you want to delete a page because 1 thing or 2 things wrong? you can delete the word or the line or the paragraph that you see it is wrong but not all the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptian-2009 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not clear enough that I can judge. Has he any academic position? Do the books have reviews? DGG (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ you can delete any academic writes, but he is Well known Egyptian writer, yes his books have reviews Egyptian-2009

— Egyptian-2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment You can only add one 'keep' or 'delete', and it should be based on Wikipedia related arguments to do with our criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO - have you read those links? We need evidence from reliable and verifiable sources backing your claims. Writing a book is not enough, and so far we don't even have evidence for that (I'm not saying he's written no books, I'm saying we have no evidence for that. I did look using Google first. No evidence found there about him. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian-2009: Do you have any links to/scans of Egyptian newspaper articles which talk about his book? Either Arabic or English will be acceptable. cab (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Arabic is minimal but among the GHits for his name in Arabic I don't see any from reliable sources such as newspapers or academic journals: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Just the author's home page [5], a bunch of forums, and trivial mentions of other people with the same name in long lists of names. cab (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the book mentioned above by Egyptian-2009, "Tahafout Al-Akadimea", does actually exist (see Google Books; it's in Worldcat a few different times [6][7][8] and looks like it's held by a total of 10 libraries in the US—Library of Congress + various university libraries); offline sources may exist, though I have my doubts. cab (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Edit The book "Tahafout Al-Akadimea" is original from the University of Michigan [9], and Maged Salah Al-Din is a great genealogist in Egypt. As well as he rebuild Sociology by his book "Al-Aa'raab Fi Al-Mizaan". You can edit what you see wrong or not appropriate in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahla abbas (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

- comment, the "book" is not from the Univ of Michigan, it was merely digitized there, simply because that's where dissertations are digitized (I can't remember the name of the company that does this -- UCI??). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, none available as far as I can find through some searches. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP You can edit the page, not to delete a page about one of the famous writers in Egypt. About the book "Tahafout Al-Akadimea" I think you can read here [10] that Michigan University prepared a digital copy of the book, and that means (when Michigan University do that) that the book is so important. Keep the page. Nour egypt —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

We have our own criteria for people and books, and being digitised is not one of them. I've seen claims that there has been controversy in the Egyptian press, but no evidence. We've found evidence that the book is in very few libraries so far I understand it, another suggestion it isn't notable. If he was a great sociologist, there would be evidence for that in the professional sociology journals, and that hasn't been forthcoming either. If he's one of the most famous writers in Egypt, why isn't there at least Egyptian evidence (and you would definitely expect evidence from sources in other countries as well). No one (I'm not sure how many editors we have here arguing for Keep) has produced any evidence that meets our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:46, 4 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Faces of Jazz

Contested prod. Radio show aired on a college radio station. Its popularity on the campus is asserted, but the article says nothing about whether it is even known outside the campus. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:N. No third-party sourcing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wperdue (talk • contribs)
Delete No evidence the college radio show satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Jake Wartenberg 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:07, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Green (singer)

WP:BLP1E, no sources, so fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Otterathome (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no sources is a bit misleading, also BLP1E is in the light of international concerts and tours, not to mention releases... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 17:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to seek out sources for every single claim made in an article with no sources, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.--Otterathome (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever take a look at WP:BEFORE, including the passage "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist"? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is policy, that is optional. If good sources exist, there will be no problem adding them. Not my job.--Otterathome (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is your job to see if sources exist, per WP: ATD: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. To know that, you need to do your homework. It's just good manners. And no Gaming the system! ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy [[WP:BIO]. Edison (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources: [11] [12] and plenty more here. I'd rather mark the article and let someone who keeps up with reality contest-type shows fix it. I detest the things, myself. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy keep as the nomination and behavior of the nominator are borderline bad faith and plenty of sources exist. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have the references finished and the US Tour is not yet mentioned, but I was working on an article about Green that mentions a lot more than BGT (see my draft here). Widely covered in the press in several countries. Signed with a notable label, part of the first major magic show in the Philippines, etc, etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 27 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.

Administrator note The "keep" decision below was changed to no consensus after discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_4.--Aervanath (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No solid consensus, thus defaulting to keep, which I think had a more solid following anyhow after consideration of all things said. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie Steel

WP:BLP1E, currently with 1 source, so fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is only a few hours old and the nomination does not seem to have considered good alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Given the precedents of Susan Boyle and Shaheen Jafargholi, we can expect thousands of readers here looking for information and so it is absurd for this name to lead nowhere here. WP:BLP1E is not appropriate because the person is the topic, not some larger event in which she played an incidental part. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's a news search which demonstrates worldwide coverage already. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't great deletion arguments. The entire article is about her appearance in that show, so WP:BLP1E applies. Linking to a google news search doesn't help either. Each source needs to be individually assessed, add them here or the article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken as the main topic of the source which I added was the illness which the subject suffered six years ago. The subject is clearly notable and the coverage indicates that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER as well as WP:N. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am mistaken, the source only exists because of her appearance in the show. I can't read the article, but I somehow I doubt it doesn't talk about her appearance in the show. Because, does every minor who nearly loses an organ get in the news? No.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still misunderstanding and misapplying WP:BLP1E which says, "if the individual's role within it is substantial", they merit coverage. It is only if they "essentially remains a low-profile individual" that coverage is not merited. This is not the case here - the subject is now a notable star, her history is notable and this is demonstrated by coverage of all aspects of her life. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely WP:CRYSTAL sounds, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." can you find any sources not published this month because of her appearance? If not, then WP:BLP1E still applies.--Otterathome (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Though it is still a bit WP:CRYSTALy, I believe the the WP:BLP1E argument is somewhat voided by the fact that it would be silly to have an article on Hollie Steel's appearance on Britain got talent instead of just this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Not everyone appearing on a TV talent show is automatically entitled to an encyclopedia article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. This is not just anyone - this seems to be the main competition for Susan Boyle and so we can expect a lot more coverage as they go head-to head. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we expect in coverage is WP:CRYSTAL, which is the reseon my opinion is rather weak. I expect coverage too, but we have to base the decision on weather we should keep or delete on the currect situation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply if it's "notable and almost certain to take place". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interpetation of almost certain to take place is a little narrower. The finals of Britain's got talent IMO is almost certain to take place. That Steel is going to be in it, not so much. That it is almost certain that something will become notable, is not something I believe WP:CRYSTAL is supposed to be supporting, but rather seems exactly what it is warning against. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's currently the 9/2 second favorite. The only way she's not going the distance is some kind of accdent/disqualification which would cause an even greater media frenzy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's still a gamble. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't care what odds the bookies give unless it's objectively 100%. — Gwalla | Talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the author of the article I vote we keep it. The power of wikipedia is that it can be timely and keep up to events and popular culture in real time. We don't need to be controlled by an elite like a traditional encyclopedia editorial board. Yes, just like Susan Boyle and Paul Potts, this young lady is taking the Internet by storm. As of my writing this opinion over 600,000 views have been made on youtube.com of videos showing Steel's performance. Wikipedia can afford a few bytes to keep an article about a this young lade. User: Dane C. Sorensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.219.252 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign in, but I did right the above. And the count is now over a 1,000,000 on youtube! Dane Sorensen[reply]
This AfD conversation is mentioned on Britain's Got Talent. Ikip (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, snowball keep per above. Ikip (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Ikip, that's nonsense. There is no snow here. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to Britain's Got Talent (series 3). This is a 1E right now, and it can be broken out if something long-term comes out of this. Right now it's three sentences and before I edited it down to that, it sounded like a grossly spammy press release. It's hardly a snowball keep by the way, her near loss of an organ, unless reported at the time of her loss of an organ because she was, seems irrelevant. She's hardly the only four year old to have had pneumonia when she was young. Also, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and WP:ATA; given she's been famous for two days now, it's really quite premature to have any substantial coverage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook 1E case. We bent the rules for Boyle because she is clearly notable - having being parodied on South Park - and is a very notable interest story on the other side of the pond, none of the other BGT series 3 contestants have risen to the notability required to surpass the 1E. I could make a similar case for DJ Talent (who got through last night) or Dan Kahn (who didn't). With only three auditions out of the seven done, and speaking as someone who knows a bit about this crap, we can't really trust the betting market as a sign of popularity as they're in flux. When she gets the recording contract/RVS performance, then she'll be notable, but I doubt she will be beforehand. Can be adequately covered in the series 3 article. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checking: DJ Talent is notable for two events, and so is Shaheen. However, Hollie still isn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Series 3 article. Not notable at present (despite a few newspaper reports). Quantpole (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has newspaper coverage, which means she qualifies for an article under the current wikipedia rules. Dream Focus 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the appropriate series article for Britain's Got Talent. Boyle was widely reported on because of the Youtube hits she generated and how her appearance impacted her fame. Jafargholi appeared in a children's television show and toured as young Michael Jackson is a musical/concert tour in at least 3 different countries. So both Jafargholi and Boyle have had significant impact outside the show, which I do not yet see for Hollie Steel. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good refs now. BUC (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook BLP1E. The article doesn't even mention anything she's done outside that one appearance on BGT! - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the text book and quote the part where it says to delete anything. All I see is "In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.". So your conclusion doesn't match the guideline you cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually the better options." In this case, the 1E is "appeared on a TV show". I see nothing to differentiate this contestant from other contestants who've appeared on similar TV shows and do not have Wikipedia articles. If she were listed with all the other contestants of Britain's Got Talent, as is done with articles for some other reality TV shows, I wouldn't have a problem with that. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some talk in these nominations of bias against British as opposed to Americans. Checking, I find that there are hundreds of articles in the category American Idol participants. What gives? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking further, they seem to get in per WP:MUSIC#9 = "Has won or placed in a major music competition.". This applies to Hollie too as she has clearly established her place in this major event. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're misreading that. "Placed in a competition" means getting second or third place. The competition is still ongoing, so she hasn't gotten anything yet. — Gwalla | Talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That goes to show how vague the guidelines really are. I consider making the final "placing in a competition" too even if that final contains more than 3 contestants. But yes, with the competition still ongoing, using that criterion is way too soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly not as clearly exempt from 1E as Shaheen Jafargholi. But as per Colonel Walden easily passes WP:MUSIC several times over. If we delete popular articles that meet our inclusion criteria, we're signalling that the peoples encyclopaedia is really eliteopedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another contestant in an ongoing reality show. Come back when she's won something, or done something important that doesn't have to do with the show. — Gwalla | Talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it is early for her long-term notability to be assured, I see little harm in letting the article develop for at least a while before merging it into the BGT season article. Powers ^T 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I had an account, I'd vote to keep the article. It's definitely because I'm a Britians Got Talent fan and not because it has gotten 4 additional sources. 24.12.63.48 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E. This is a textbook case. We spin out into articles after somebody has actually achieved notability for more than one event, not on the "we think they might" principle. Ray^Talk 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting both policies. WP:NOT#NEWS is directed at routine news like weather reports and road accidents. This topic is not routine, as demonstrate by the worldwide coverage. And WP:BLP1E doesn't mean what you assert as we have lots of articles about people notable for just one thing, such as Rosa Parks and Gavrilo Princip. The point of this guideline is that people on the fringes of a famous event do not merit separate articles if they are not the focus of the event. An example in this case would be Hollie Steel's brother. He gets quite a few mentions for appearing in the same audition and for his mentoring of his sister. But he doesn't rate separate coverage because he is not the focus of the reporting. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide coverage? Looking at the article now, the only sources in the article are from papers based in the United Kingdom.--Otterathome (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use English language sources by preference as this is the English language Wikipedia. But please see:

Hollie Steel, la nueva rival de Susan Boyle - Spain
Hollie Steel va-t-elle voler la vedette à Susan Boyle ? - France
Hollie Steel macht Susan Boyle Konkurrenz - Germany
Állva tapsolt Hollie-nak a közönség a brit „Csillag születik - Hungary
Hollie (10) kan stoppe Susan Boyles drøm - Norway
HOLLIE, 10 ANNI, NUOVO IDOLO BOOM DEL VIDEO SU YOUTUBE - Italy
蘇珊大媽自塑形象被損《英國達人》有驚人發現 - China
Hollie Steel Emerges As Competition For Susan Boyle On 'Britain's Got Talent' - USA— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

Rosa Parks merits an article for being an icon of the civil rights movement. The coverage of her in secondary sources is sustained, persistent over time, and of great length. Her contribution to the history of the United States is enduring and significant. Hollie Steel is a flash-in-the-pan celebrity (a game show contestant for crying out loud) who may or may not attain lasting historical significance. In fact, odds are very strong against it. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS are about: keeping the encyclopedia from becoming cluttered with biographies of people enjoying their 15 minutes of fame. Ray^Talk 02:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, from BLP1E, "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Massive difference between Rosa Parks' iconic status in the civil rights movement and a prepubescent game show contestant on an ongoing show. BGT is not an event, it's a TV reality show and there's a huge difference between an inciting event in the sweeping change of race relations in the US, and Simon Cowell hurting her feelings and it getting reported as a bit of fluff in the news. This deletion debate should be re-opened after she gets booted off and the discussion resumed then. We can't tell right now if she's truly a BLP1E or not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we judge significance? Per WP:N, this is not done by asserting our personal feelings. Notability is established by the extent to which other media cover the topic. In this case, we have lots of coverage and so the topic is notable. There's no WP:FLUFF policy which lets you pick and choose. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just equate Rosa Parks, whose actions had far-reaching consequences for American life and who has been profiled in every school textbook on American history published in the last few decades, with a preteen game show contestant? Seriously? — Gwalla | Talk 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to American icons. I'm saying that it doesn't apply to outstanding British singers who get lots of press coverage. There's room enough for both and no requirement to delete either. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. You're saying that the Civil Rights Movement was insignificant? (Also, for the record, Rosa Parks's public fame came from one act, but it's hardly the only significant thing she did). This little kid's (single, AFAICT) appearance on a TV talent show is not in the same ballpark, not in the same league, not even in the same sport. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to the season article, but there's no way this little girl merits an article of her own, and frankly there isn't much of substance to merge. — Gwalla | Talk 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 out of 8 of those sources mention Susan Boyle in the title, and I'd imagine the rest are all about her appearance in the show. Making it a perfect WP:BLP1E case. If you believe it is an exception to this, then you will find plenty more sources to add to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You imagine? Sorry, but you're expect to read the article, sources and policies. Making stuff up doesn't count. WP:BLP1E does not recommend deletion so there's no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Since the biography currently exists, I read that as "recommending deletion." Incidentally, Rosa Parks is covered by the third paragraph of BLP1E: If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial. - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading is incorrect. Per WP:BLPDEL, "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort". The equation that WP:BLP1E = deletion is quite mistaken. If there aren't enough sources for a reasonable article then the obvious alternative, as stated, is merger into the article about the 1E. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that 'merge and redirect' would be an appropriate outcome? You have a point with your comment above about the American Idol participants being in Wikipedia; do you feel there should be a Britain's Got Talent participants article, and would you have any interest in starting it? - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous articles for this show per Template:Britain's Got Talent. If this article were merged it might either go into Britain's Got Talent (series 3) or Susan Boyle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' and punish for nominating after just 2 hours... rediculous.--Dacium (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a rationale, that's a vote, which is specifically cautioned against WP:JUSTAVOTE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia did not have an article on such a newsworthy person, it would detract from the whole point of this resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotvega (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Non-notable gameshow contestant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Currently, she is making headlines all over the world, there are more than 5 references, and she is destined to continue making headlines for a very long time. Strong keep. Jeremy 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough with nominating every single BgT performer for deletion. Because the news has already made her an international celebrity, and given her age, she definitely passes WP:N. And per previous precedents, Susan Boyle and Shaheen Jafargholi, this article should stay. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Technically a delete as per Nom as she has simply passed a first round audition for a TV show and had one interview on American TV but nothing else on British TV. Nothing in the article of much interest, just where she comes from and her medical history. If she later 'places' in the contest would then come under WP:MUSICBIO so would require the article to be recreated especially if Simon Cowell tries to exploit her. Can't see harm in keeping it open to save having to recreate it later. I know it is probably against WP:CRYSTAL .Holkingers (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appearing on a talent show does not assert notability. If she gains some more plausible claim to notability, recreate the article, just not now. HJMitchell You rang? 15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For things like this I'd be tempted to say "redirect", but she is notably sourced and whether one likes it or not (and I usually don't) some reality show contestants do meet notability standards before they win. (Or even if they never win)--T. Anthony (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability besides a few articles. She's done nothing else besides BGT (unlike Shaheen Jafargholi) and even then she has not had a profound impact on the show (unlike Susan Boyle. If Hollie Steel deserves an article then so do most of the other contestants on the show. Ixistant (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides? You don't get to ignore the evidence. Those few articles now number over 330. Most other contestants on this show get nothing like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 3 May 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joos Horsten

Non-notable businessman, no other significant activities or discoveries. MBisanz ^talk 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 recent news hits (in German) 24 past news hits 2 books. More articles in German.[13] I would add these sources, but I don't speak German, and I ma not interested enough in the subject to use google translate. Ikip (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do speak a bit of German, enough to recognize that those articles are in Dutch and not German. I ran this link through Google Translate and it's apparently about his death of a heart attack. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more searching along the same lines and found no sources that would establish notability. There's still more articles that could be translated but I don't feel strongly enough about Google translations to vote either way. See my work here. OlYeller^Talktome 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmkay. I'm indifferent; someone whose death is reported in a national newspaper is likely to be notable, and it sort of moots the "living" part of WP:BLP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~. I misread the book title as being about the article subject, rather than co-written by him - no opinion for the moment on deletion. Clearly passes WP:BIO based on the source in the article, which is a 279-page biography of the subject[14] published by what looks to be a reputable publisher, of which the English translation has been published by a university press[15]. I don't think you can much more notable than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep mentioned in corporate history book, cowrote book on company founder, honored by China, saved a 3rd division soccer club. pohick (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Dying does not confer added notability. WP has found buainessmwn of greater importance to be insufficiently notable in the past. Collect (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of international company. Dying does not create notability, but if someone is important, it often produces a good obit as a source. An obit in a major national newspaper of a country is evidence of notability. DGG (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--yup, notable for the reasons given above by DGG. The obits contain plenty of factoids that prove the person is notable. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting an award from the leader of a nation, makes you notable. Dream Focus 00:52, 3 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Russo

Nonsense, BLP violating interview named as a biography MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not an encyclopaedia article. Nothing from this "interview" would be salvageable even if an article could be written on the topic and if it's genuine I wouldn't be shocked if this was a copyright violation from somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy this is a really badly written article, and I can't seem to find any references. That said, userfying the article, this editor can maybe work on it and make it encyclopedic material.Ikip (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't establish any notability for the musician. But even if he were, this article would need to be completely rewritten from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 27 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. Keep, slow speedy. No delete!votes and nom appears to agree that the BLPiE concern has been addressed. StarM 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Miller (chairman)

Non-notable, barely a 1-hit CEO, not inherently notable. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that based on the new facts added to the article, he is no longer a BLP1E. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chair and CEO of AOL sounds notable to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not really a one-hit, he's the current chief digital officer at NewsCorp (source). Should be enough from news sources alone to write a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article which is more than just a CV. Guest9999 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above. Very notable person. Please note that the nominator closed this AfD on Jan 29 based on the thousands of article hits that an editor provided.[16] Ikip (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everybody, ceos of companies like this are notable, and the refs are fully sufficient to show it. They were there at the time of nomination, though an "unreferenced" tag was also present--it had accidentally not been removed when the refs were added after the first nomination for deletion, (which is at [17]. ) I suppose the nom did not realize the article had been moved. I don;t think it was a good move, incidentally--we need to find a better qualifier. DGG (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ikip. google news shows plenty of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep. ~~If this nomination is not in bad faith, then it is flagrantly indifferent to the notability of the subject and our guidelines~~. The article cites several independent reliable sources that cover the individual in detail. ~~AfD is a reasonable venue for defining the contours of the notability guidelines, but not to wholly ignore them~~. Bongo matic 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miller is both the CEO of a major company and he won a notable award. The award combined with the multiple available sources means he meets the WP:BIO inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nom is false per Bongo, the wasted energy AfD'ing would be better spent improving articles. pohick (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was proven false in January, now I guess we have to go through all this again. Tavix | Talk 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 28 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance 4 Me (Louie Jordan Song)

This page about a non-notable song as well as non-notable artist Louie Jordan fails WP:MUSIC. Also, a YouTube description says that Louie Jordan is produced by FTW Records, an organization the page creator seems to be affiliated with. Therefore the page is also COI. CanadianNine 16:31, 26 April 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" 17:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.Edison (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in any sources whatsoever for a non-notable song by a non-notable musician. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 27 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 Timbaland. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Value 2

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since no media coverage includes MTV, MTV, again and 35,000 other Ghits. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "no media coverage"—"little or no media coverage of substance". (And please try to keep the sarcasm in check.) Neither of those MTV links are substantial coverage of Shock Value 2. I don't know about the 35k Ghits you mention but a Google News search turns up 51 hits, with the only ones from reliable sources being the MTV.com mentions, or articles reporting on those two brief MTV articles. Media coverage, yes. Much substance? No. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lacks substantial media coverage. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, prominent artist and prominent album and plenty of ways we can add to this article. 90.214.234.59 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence of the album's prominence has been shown. If you have information that is not reflected in the article, please add it there or post it here so someone else can add it. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timbaland - The album has been talked about many times, however not enough information is added to be notable. It will still be a search by users. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 04:15, 26 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 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until substantial media coverage can be found. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:05, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society

An advertising piece with no apparent independent sources TS 14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added three external links that indicate notability - there are many more. Clearly a significant and active organization. The article is very poor, mostly just information published by the organization on its website and far from neutral. It needs a drastic clean-up to meet Wikipedia guidelines. But that is not a reason for deletion. System787 has improved the article considerably. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the creator of the article. Thank you for the heads up. I will modify the article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I have already previously responded to the first notification of deletion (which had the reason it looked like a propaganda material) and deleted some portions on the page that looked like propaganda material (this in consultation with the Info Mgmt department head of our organization) and subsequently removed the first notification. We have noted the advise to add more solid references that are found in the internet and we will do so soonest. But to make this process expedient, we would like to know which parts of the article make it look like an advertisement, so that we can delete these parts or modify these soonest. Thank you. (Ahpangcoga (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: I took the liberty of editing it. I believe that information about the CBCS is a value-added knowledge for Wikipedia. (System787 (talk) 13:44, 20 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 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced article, 90 google news hits from numerous media outlets. 15 google books mention this organization Ikip (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note that this article has been completely rewritten since it was nominated for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD discussion has been noted on Talk:Mindanao Ikip (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. seav (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep civil society groups in general are more notable in Mindanao than those in general, because of the highly-charged political dispute they operate in the middle of, and this collective has actual, demonstrable influence in arguably one of the 3 perrenially hot-button filipino political topics.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to address advert. Nice article. Extremely well sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikip. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 00:53, 29 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RadCon

Notability; no reliable, published, third party sources. Prod deleted without sourcing article. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:25z 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I could find on a Google search are [18] and [19], both from the local newspaper, which don't let it pass WP:N, so I have to say Delete. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to the part of WP:N that says that about local sources? Hobit (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found another source other than the ones you mentioned: [20]. I personally think that this solidly meets WP:N. The three articles here are written in detail about the topic, we now have two independent sources, and if you read the articles, you will find that the convention has been going for over 16 years. It may not be interesting to everyone but I certainly think it is worth keeping and I certainly think it meets WP:N. Cazort (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine for a blog of fan site, but how does a local station writeup make it encyclopedically notable.? -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:51z
  - I tend to want to keep local interests more often than other users. I personally believe that coverage in local sources, for an uncontroversial topic such as this one, is sufficient to establish notability. But I'm aware that this is in conflict with the proposed guidelines on WP:NLI, which incidentally I don't agree with. So, I understand where you're coming from but I must respectfully disagree and still say that I believe we should keep this page (along with other, similar cases). At the very minimum, I would prefer to Merge this article into Pasco, WA rather than delete it. One rationale, however, for keeping this article separate would be that (a) even according to the stricter standards on WP:NLI, reading: "local sources (such as local newspapers) may be used without limit to include and verify information contained within the article", the sources given are enough to establish fairly extensive coverage of this topic, and (b) including all that material on the page for Pasco, WA, would make that page long and unbalanced. Cazort (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I've been reading (and reflecting on) WP:NLI and I think that the situation under "Excessive size of parent article" heading would apply here. Cazort (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable convention. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Snarky Comment I would appreciate it if you, and others, would actually engage in discussion, highlighting the reasons for your view, rather than just making assertions like "non-notable". This is a discussion, not a vote, and the goal is to reach consensus. Cazort (talk) 14:04, 20 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 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to the lack of coverage beyond the local press. I do not think local press alone can be relied on to be the basis of a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article or establish a topics notability per the general notability guideline. Local press covers something because it happens locally, on a slow week (most weeks) almost anything can receive coverage. As they are generally supported and staffed by the local community they report on, I do not think they can be counted on to present the news in a neutral fashion and - whilst this is not the case across the board - their editorial standards often leave a lot to be desired. Guest9999 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is WP:RS. An editorial staff with a reputation for fact-checking, does not set a minimum or maximun limit of circulation or coverage. Rewrite RS and then rewrite WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is I do not believe that most local newspapers have the reputation for fact checking and accuracy that is required by WP:RS for - among others - the reasons I gave above. Most articles like the one's given here are really just a form of advertising for the local community, with accuracy and scrutiny over detail not at the forefront of the staff's mind; circulation has nothing to do with it. WP:N requires significant coverage, the major headline in my local newspaper last week was something along the lines of "cat rescued from tree", whilst it may have been an in-depth account I put it to you that neither the cat nor the rescuer or indeed the incident itself would be deemed worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's safe to assume that local news sources have less integrity than national ones...if anything, when it comes to local events they can sometimes be more reliable because they know the area, know the local events, and often have staff with slightly more time on their hands. Also, I think that the standards of editorial integrity ought to vary for different topics. This topic is highly non-controversial! I think it's good to be skeptical of the integrity of a source when there is good reason to believe that there could be an incentive for the information to be false, or at least, a high likelihood that the information is sloppy. But I don't see any reason this would be the case here. Cazort (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cazort, sources make it notable. Ikip (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about notable genre-specific film festival. Send to WP:CLEANUP for further sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Local sources aren't generally good enough per WP:ORG, which might apply to a Con. But it isn't clear and it meets WP:N just barely. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? I posted the article because RadCon is one of the longest-running conventions in Washington. It isn't as famous as some conventions like DragonCon or GenCon, but it is a pretty good sized convention and it is larger and older than many of the conventions on the sci-fi convention list. I feel the convention is notable because it essentially serves 3 large areas that are very far from any other conventions, namely South Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon and Idaho, and it attracts people from all three states. I believe part of the reason for the lack of sources is the area in which the convention is located. There are no major news outlets in the area, only small local papers and TV stations, all of which are usually too busy writing stories about cow tippers and barn fires to bother doing any actual reporting on the convention. So, I think the convention is notable, and that it's essentially the disadvantages of it's geographical location that are to blame for the lack of sources. PapilioNireus (talk) 21:45, 29 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure hell classic punk

I doubt notability ViperSnake151 Talk 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band is indeed notable - Very early punk pioneer - predates Sex Pistols, Clash, etc. - Note the articles in Swindle, on in the Philly City Paper and Rocktober Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedyhalibut (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC) *Definitely Keep Needs expansion, but band is essential to documentation of the history of the genre.User:rich1451[reply]

Keep Needs sourcing and expansion, but given contributions to the genre, I think notability is assumed. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could probably use some expansion, but the sources mean it meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, 27 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 keep. Nomination reason no longer applies to the current article. The rewrite has been considered good enough to keep by a unanimous decision. Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Star (Book)

Article consists only of an unsalvageable, ungrammatical nonsense plot summary Special-T (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Neutral. No context, no assertion of notability. Pity A9 doesn't apply to books... Tevildo (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, this article in its current form stinks. I've added the author name, which was missing, and flagged it for rescue. This appears to be an award-winning children's book on the holocaust published in 2006, and selected as an ALA notable book in 2007. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my opinion pending sourcing. Tevildo (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the follow up; have a look at it now. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced book. Exceeds all notability guidelines, nice job Jclemens. Ikip (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonably well-referenced article, book seems notable — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I moved the article to Yellow Star (book) (lower case b) in accordance with WP:DISAMBIG and naming conventions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now passes WP:BK with adequate references. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on references. Are the awards notable also? Dream Focus 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the awards are, others are local. I'll go through and Wikilink what I can find. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been completely re-written to satisfactory standards after the AFD nomination was posted. Jwray (talk) 05:51, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Hungary relations

another random combination. no evidence of notable relations. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Both countries far from each other" is about all you can say about this non-notable pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In almost no way are these two countries related at all. Cheers. I'^mperator 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-subject. WillOakland (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and the current addresses of consulates and status of diplomatic relations is better kept up to date via a link from the article about the country to its foreign relations department website, than having thousands of stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which may see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[21]. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. this was heading for WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:25, 27 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 16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Malta relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. one state visit doesn't justify an article. no evidence of any agreements between these countries. non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link in the article Japan Foreign Ministry shows little to write home about-- no investment by Japan in Malta after 1988, three exhibitions in the 1990s, last visit by a Malta President or premier was nearly 20 years ago. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in isolation, a state visit means little, and everyone buys cars and electronics from Japan. No other evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW Yet another one of these ludicrous pairings of completely random articles. Damn shame there isn't a speedy delete like "Delete per similar example". Cheers. I'^mperator 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No active diplomatic relations, not notable. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-subject. WillOakland (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and the current addresses of consulates and status of diplomatic relations is better kept up to date via a link from the article about the country to its foreign relations department website, than having thousands of stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ImperatorExercitus. Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, which is directly related to the issue of notability, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Nomination for deletion is pre-mature and could preempt and poison the discussion which may see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[22]. Wikipedia will not implode if these articles exist while discussion is on going. Martintg (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. heading for WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure it can be considered a valid & reasonable !vote for keep, you may equally reasonably think otherwise, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is one of a series of "Japan-Country X" bilateral relation articles, which is in turn part of a larger "Country X-Country Y" series - all of which aricles could be improved through expansion with history of relations, trade figures, cultural exchange, and referencing. Notability is subjective, and simply because many of these articles are currently stubs is not grounds for deletion. --MChew (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would set a dangerous precedent. Yes, some of these probably could be expanded, but we shouldn't have to sift through all the articles to figure out which. This user was blocked back in February and we're still cleaning up the mess. When someone creates an article effort should be made to make it the best article the creator can possibly make. They should not write half-finished articles and rely others to make them fit the criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they should not have been written this way. It's a very bad example, that has unreasonably made enormous extra work for many people. But having been written, removing them without working on them is an almost equally bad precedent, again making unnecessary work that could have been used to improve them. The authors have a responsibility, and everyone who sees an article after that may not have an individual responsibility to help them, but the community does. What everyone does have is a responsibility not to actively prevent possible improvement. DGG (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no active diplomatic relations to write home about. The history of relations, like the fact that Japanese warships were based in Malta during WW1, or that the Crown Prince spent three days there in 1921, is all in the past. Also Malta put a quota on Japanese textiles in 1934, so relations can't have been that good even back then. HistoryBridge (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of what HistoryBridge mentions--those are exactly the sort of things that make for notability. Historic notability counts, positive or negative. DGG (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: One "keep" vote is clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. Another "keep" vote is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument based on similar articles many of which have already been deleted and are still being deleted. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This could easily be improved into a decent article. As it is, it's nothing impressive, but there is some evidence of a relationship. This is part of a movement, in large part thanks to the nominator, of attempting to eradicate all such articles, regardless of whether the two countries actually have a relationship. Respectfully, the nominator should exercise due diligence before getting trigger happy with the AfD tags. HJMitchell You rang? 15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- having thoroughly searched for sources on this relationship, it appears my assertion that the article could be improved was mistaken. As such, my remarks to that effect are stricken, however, my comment on the wider issue stands. HJMitchell You rang? 15:25, 2 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sims 2 premade characters

Bringing to AfD due to suggestion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Sims 3 premade characters. In-universe fictional material with notability issues. (WP:GAMECRUFT / WP:N). As BryanG pointed out, compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon Sims Characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in the Sims 2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pre-made characters in The Sims Marasmusine (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject of in-universe content that is unsourced.--(NGG) 13:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other TS2 character lists were deleted because of failing notability requirements, Yeah? ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as the older, equally awful lists. How did this not get deleted along with those? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless, non-notable list that mostly revolves around an insignificant game feature. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, in-universe content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't have said it better myself... ;-) BryanG (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete – (edit conflict) I cannot think of anything else to add to the above, except that I wouldn't use the C-word. I would think the Pokemon test applies here fairly well. MuZemike 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no reliable sources on the subject (they're already covered on a sims wiki. To the nominator: Notability is not an issue and whether something is fictional is irrelevant to the debate. First check if something is verifiable. If it is, only then does notability come into play. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the opening statement of the WP:N guideline. That is: is the subject of "Sims 2 premade characters" a noteworthy subject? Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:35, 30 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theatres in Bahrain

Wikipedia is not a directory and 'movie theatres in Bahrain' is not notable. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Not notable. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRUFT and WP:NOT. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:N. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the risk of piling on: Wikipedia is not a directory. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:54, 27 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 default keep, as there's no solid consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Turkey relations

no evidence of notable relationship. only intent which is covered like a news story WP:NOT#NEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an article built of half speculation, half trivia. Barbados and Turkey "may cooperate" on tourism: so? That's hardly indicative there's much of a relationship going on; certainly there aren't any sources studying the relationship as such, only a news item the article creator has decided forms part of a notable relationship, but ends up prioritizing irrelevant trivia and breaching WP:SYNTH by jumping to conclusions about what is and is not notable in the relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - When I say weak keep, full emphasis on the weak. The entire second paragraph is a load of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. However there is quite a lot about tourism which happens to be Barbados key asset, per WP:GNG I have provided some secondary sources, which in my opinion is usually good enough for a keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When there is nothing going on, that fact can be mentioned in Foreign relations of Barbados and Foreign relations of Turkey, where its more likely to be viewed in context. An x-y article should be maintained only in those cases where there's evidence that the two nations each consider the relationship to be notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mandsford.--Moloch09 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It needs expansion. It is an outline of the beginning framework of the political/economic integration deal signed between the EU and CARICOM last year. Refernces from the governments of both nations were provided. So far Caribbean nationals (in the musical and cultural industries) are to be allowed free movement into Europe Union under the terms of EPA.[23] Out of the Caribbean, Africa, and Pacific bloc I believe only the Caribbean signed on to the deal with Europe. [24] Due to that signing the powers of the EU parliament are now supposed to be binding upon the CARICOM bloc of countries (which IMHO they signed that deal in haste).[25] As mentioned, should Turkey join the EU this would provide an additional tie between Turkey and Barbados outside of the current aid provided by Turkey to the region. CaribDigita (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) This too would be a little dubious, but wouldn't a Barbados and the European Union article work better? 2) By all accounts, the Accession of Turkey to the European Union is a long, long way off, and speculating about what might be once that happens (2020 at the earliest) is rather premature. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados and the European Union relations I thought about too. It might be something to consider, however I thought that it sounded like it could be a little misleading. It sounds a bit like Barbados was going to be joining the EU or something and I don't think that's going to happen. It might be better to reverse back up to the main Foreign relations of Barbados and Foreign relations of Turkey. E.g. The part about the Tourism as a form of technical cooperation in the Barbados article. And the part about Turkey being an Observer in the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) and Caribbean Sea Commission in the Turkey article. As Turkey's agenda of covering deeper relations with the LAC region. CaribDigita (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing in the article that has relevancy has nothing in particular to do with Turkey. Dahn (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and the current addresses of consulates and status of diplomatic relations is better kept up to date via a link from the article about the country to its foreign relations department website, than having thousands of stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussions generally have no "outcome". Mandsford (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't preempt the outcome of the discussion. A possible outcome of the discussion is the creation of additional notability criteria. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. The nominator has ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[26]. The nominator's behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And folks can talk all they want to. But as far as I can tell, none of the regulars participating in these AfD discussions here -- BlueSquadron, Biriturol, WilyD, me, etc. --- was ever invited to that discussion when it was started by User:Tone, and it's already out of hand. Let us know what you folks decided, but please don't ask us to stop this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theeconomic relations cited above are substantial enough to warrant an article. DGG (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that WP:N is satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style, as it only consists of random trivia that were apparently unearthed only to create the appearance that this is a proper article. Note to closing admin: Three of the "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the centralised discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be improved. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 13:09, 3 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit's 50th movie

I declined the speedy on this, as crystalballing isn't a valid criteria. However, this seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL. It's just a bit too soon for this article. --Ged UK 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, but should be recreated closer to the date of release, as more info becomes available. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this is the first time I've seen a WP:HAMMER type title applied to something other than an album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, it's not: on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii 2, you said, "I have since annotated WP:HAMMER to include any unverifiable articles of a similar manner." So it isn't the first time the Hammer rule has been used for a non-album. (Plus, I also used it earlier this month - but I can't remember which one.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopeless crystal ballery that fails WP:NFF by a country mile. PC78 (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might have been notable if more was known about the production, but so far we're missing the title, any cast except Ajit and we aren't told any plot. Fails to be informative and fails inclusion guideline about future films. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What if Ajith decided to stop at 49, did the article author consider that? Indeed, a Hammerific title with vague and few sources within the crystal. Nate • (chatter) 09:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've warned this user several times not to create such articles. This definitely isn't the first time. Also he needs to be informed what sort of images are allowed on Wikipedia articles and what are not. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 02:13, 29 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals

AfDs for this article:

Originally deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals; relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_20. I am personally neutral on these deletions. Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the rationales offered at the first AfD, viz: WP:NALBUMS. Eusebeus (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot except the main article original AfD had it right on the money, and it certinally applies to all of them. Itunes originals in it of itself is probabally notable. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the main article, as I opined on the DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as none have been covered in reliable sources. The main project hasn't been covered in sources even. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Keep the main iTunes Originals article as it's now reasonably sourced, delete the individual albums for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete all but the main article; NALBUMS is grey about official but one-retailer releases. Mind you, there is no assertion of any other notability for any of the pages. Maybe merge the main article into iTunes Store, but don't delete. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot except for the main article--I'm sticking to my earlier opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've started to add some sources to the main article; more to come. As for the others, I'm not sure they can be considered en masse in this way. Some are likely notable and some not. For example, iTunes Originals – Sarah McLachlan was the top-selling digital-only album of 2005 (I've added a reference), despite it being available from only a single retailer. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd like to point out that these sources have been added since the previous users have voted, and that the fact that the article was unsourced and now isn't should be given consideration when considering the previous votes. Also The Closing Admin should please note that most of the delete votes indicate "except for the main article" outside the bolding. I believe the last closing admin didn't take this into account, so I hope this admin does. TheHYPO (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main article, Relist subarticles separately. 'itunes originals' gives 140k hits on yahoo. It seems rediculous to suggest that a) something that does so is unnotable and b) that there isn't likely a legitimate source that can cite this article. It's electronic-only format is NOT a factor (in fact, it potentially is an addition to notability as both one of the earliest electronic-only series of albums, AND one of itunes' earliest exclusive release series - itunes being a significantly notable retailer). As to the individual articles, You can't lump them together and say they are all either significant or not. They should be listed separately. They are all separate works by separate artists. TheHYPO (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close and relist each album article separately; keep ITunes Originals - The main article is an easy keep with multiple reliable sources showing notability. As others have mentioned, some of the individual album articles are also notable and need to each be discussed separately. For example, iTunes Originals – Sarah McLachlan has a claim to notability and a reliable source to substantiate that claim. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately Look at the deletion review, it was made perfectly clear by the comments and by the closer that each album is a separate artists' album that should be relisted and assessed for individual notability (from the close, by TheHypo. Aervanath, if you're doing it as a technical relisting, you might want to redo this. DGG (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to iTunes Originals since the individual songs haven't been discussed in third-party sources, which is required by WP:N. (same opinion as before) Them From Space 05:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been finding some sources, though. For example, I just added an article from The Denver Post that does discuss PJ Harvey's album. And I've found several that discuss iTunes Originals – Ulfuls, which, ironically, is currently a red link. I think there's sufficient evidence that these album need to be considered individually. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:32, 28 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite)

A complete absence of reliable, third-party, published sources (failing WP:RS) and no significant coverage and reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability (failing WP:N). Article amounts to WP:ADS if ever such an org does exist. – Shannon Rose (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one paragraph on the Church, while the rest is about Art Bulla. If he is notable, merge the contents about him to a different article but I don't see anything about the Church being notable. Tavix | Talk 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bulla has a show on blogtalkradio, but I don't see any indication that anyone has ever said anything about it in RSs. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't tell if this is an article about Bulla or about his church. In any event, lack of non-trivial secondary sources shows a lack of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:46, 26 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. There is no deadline; the article can be expanded. Also, his stats page shows that he won several notable tournaments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Limeback

Stub about a Canadian speedcuber. The only reference is an official result from a speedcubing association. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google doesn't come up with anything either. Just not seeing the notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedcubers take this very seriously, so I think we should apply WP:ATHLETE. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the highest level of speedcubing would be. Can anyone deduce what the most important tournament would be? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The highest level of speedcubing is the world championships which are held every year. Although I do not beleive Eric Limeback has been to the world championships, he has a number of notable Canadian and North American records. I understand that the article is extremely short as of now, but it can certainly be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bismuth321 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National championships in a reasonably sized country or Championships of a continent are major enough to be considered notable for this determination too. They just concern a different geographical area. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 3 May 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 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree WP:ATHLETE applies here. From that "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". He is a world class competetor, as such notability is there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:29, 3 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath

AfDs for this article:

A complete absence of reliable, third-party, published sources (failing WP:RS) and no significant coverage and reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability (failing WP:N). Previous AfD was full of sockpuppets established by checkuser 1, 2, 3, and 4 –Shannon Rose (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No third-party sources at all, no evidence of notability. Tevildo (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:52, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in the Philippines

The does not seem to meet notability. Unless ten families living away from home is something notable the article does not serve a purpose. The etymology of the name "Phillip" is irrelevant to this article so is the map of the Philipines. Unless WP:Notability can be proven the article should be deleted. PMK1 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages because of failure to establish notability:~~

~~A community of 30 individuals. No notable effect on Cuba or Greece.~~

~~Similar reasons to the above. The majority are migrant workers who come and go. No notable effect upon Ireland and no notability established.~~

~~Again no assertion of notability~~

~~Another article in a series of these. Request deletion per WP:N~~

~~No assertion of notability here either.~~

~~Again, unsourced, unverifiable and fails to establish notability.~~

PMK1 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles have been listed seperately PMK1 (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if 10 families makes an article then that creates a precedent for Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete size and worries about precedent-setting aren't reasons for deletion, but the lack of non-trivial, reliable sources (i.e. something larger than one embassy page and random bits of trivia about individual Greeks who did things in the Philippines) certainly is. cab (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Greeks in Poland, delete the others --- I added multiple non-trivial, reliable sources about Greeks in Poland, which were quite easy to locate. However, I cannot find any such sources about the others. In general, it is not good practice to mass-nominate articles whose notability is determined separately from each other, nor to turn a single nomination into a multi-nomination by adding articles in the middle of the debate after people have already expressed opinions. cab (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I tried to have the articles as close as possible to each other. However I have listed them seperately as per your concerns. Maybe the Poland article is different from the the others? However unless reliable sources can be proved then they should all be deleted. PMK1 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In general it may be the case that one article has reliable sources while all the others lack them; it makes it hard on the closing admin to determine consensus with a bunch of "keep some, delete others" votes. Cheers, cab (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, there used to be some Greek refugees in Poland but they went home, so non-notable. FlyingTonite (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary. If they were written about while they were there, then they're notable, regardless of whether they went home. cab (talk) 01:40, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus-Mongolia relations

another laughable random combination from the obsessive article creator. non resident embassies, 1 minor agreement of 25 years ago [27] LibStar (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another one of those unsourced, trivial pairings that could never pass WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not surprisingly, there is little evidence of common ground between landlocked Mongolia and Mediterranean Sea island Cyprus. Mandsford (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of non-trivial coverage, though the agreement they had 25 years ago makes me believe that there might be some coverage out there concerning their bi-lateral relations. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and the current addresses of consulates and status of diplomatic relations is better kept up to date via a link from the article about the country to its foreign relations department website, than having thousands of stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how in the world does this demonstrate notability? Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone actually finds something, this is too unlikely to keep around. DGG (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. it was heading for WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. And so what if it "was heading for SNOW", proper debate should always be allowed. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:56, 28 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 Villa Arson. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Marot

Non-notable, A Google search shows no reliable sources. I would CSD this, but she's the architect of at least 1 building which has an article on Wikipedia. A v N 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Villa Arson. Article solely writes about this building, so the name of the architect is better mentioned there. If anyone finds any more notable buildings designed by this architect, I'll reconsider. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or merge into Villa Arson. I will not adding infos to this article till the final decision. Greudin (talk)

The article is up here, because it seems there are not enough sources to build an article with. If you disagree, showing they exist and adding the info would help towards a different decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:38, 27 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 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Villa Arson per above. Mainly because the article in question talk primarily about the building. Cheers. I'^mperator 14:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:14, 3 May 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Harold Finney

I believe Finney is not notable as a Google search reveals no verifiable third-party sources. Though the article is sourced, most of the sources seem to be biographies of Lloyd George, which makes me think that Finney was given a trivial mention (though I cannot be sure of this). A v N 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - elected MP (see WP:POLITICIAN), verifiable from sources given in article. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies with the sources themselves. A v N 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because sources cannot be reached on Google does not mean they should be discounted. Also, your linked Google search includes the Hansard record of him taking the oath as an MP. Hansard is the journal of record for parliamentary proceedings in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - MPs are automatically notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability... A v N 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the very first line of WP:POLITICIAN - People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges - MPs are members of a national legislature. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad then. I'll withdraw my nomination. A v N 11:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I knew how to. =/ Could someone please close this? A v N 11:42, 26 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. G4 ~fl 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Musatov

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable screen writer. No significant third-party sources. Also, wrote the script for a film which is being considered for deletion. Also, this article was deleted in a previous AfD, but I'm not sure whether the content was changed or not, so I'm not going to CSD it. A v N 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant third party sources in IMDb as well as Variety magazine. I have also added Mr. Musatov's work as a noted Community Faculty Member at Metropolitan State University. Hey, it may not be a big deal where you are but there are lot of people in the Midwest who really look up to Mr. Musatov and what he has achieved in Los Angeles growing up outside of Hollywood and attending the inaugural of a screen writing program and then going on to write a film that achieved a $5 Million dollar budget and was produced. There are only 200 or less each year of the two million scripts floating around Hollywood. How does the inclusion of this article violate Wikipedia's goals with respect to their purpose and obligation as a 501c(3)? Solsticefan (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing your level 2 heading to improve readability and page structure. I do not know what you mean by 501c(3), so I cannot comment on that. As for your viewpoint, you might be correct. That's what this discussion is for, to see if we can reach a consensus. Meanwhile do not remove the AfD template like you did here, as I will revert. Thank you. A v N 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety magazine makes for a good source, but IMDB isn't. They take user-generated content, post it without providing the sources and although they do have a editorial policy, they regularly post false information. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline G4 speedy. Original AfD was on two grounds: undue self-promotion and lack of reliable sources. Article is no longer promotional but the coverage still amounts to a mention in an article about someone else. If a lot of people in the Midwest look up to Mustov, there ought to be a lot of articles about him by now. Show me those and this article can stay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4. So tagged. Article is not significantly different in content than the version that existed for most of the previous discussion. Article creator is a very likely sockpuppet of Martin.musatov and should be blocked like the previous ones. (In addition, he removed the AfD notice.) He hasn't explicitly been banned, so WP:CSD#G5 doesn't apply. In any case he's no more notable than he was the last time around. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 26 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) 12:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aquastor

This seems little more than a definition - the examples are from someone's personal website. I've left both references although neither qualify as reliable sources. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and no notability is shown for the term, I think it should be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that this term's survived on the order of five hundred years suggests that there are bound to be better sources available. Being unfamiliar with Paracelsus, I'm unable to judge how important the term is in his works, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He only seems to use it once, see [28]. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the source, Paracelsus defines it once and doesn't use it otherwise. Very well, I'm convinced then. Delete. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak keep~~. Gene Wolfe has used these as characters (I've added the link, but I'm not sure how to cite it - would a direct reference to the book be enough?), although I'm not completely convinced that's enough to ensure the term's notability. Tevildo (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unsurprisingly, it's also not an uncommon brand name for water tanks, swimming pools, etc. I've not found anything of that nature which would be an obvious pass of WP:CORP, and anything that did would probably merit its own article. Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is only used twice (once in fiction the other by Paracelsus), and I could only find one other mention which is already cited in the article. I do not see this meeting the notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 15:09, 26 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 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Changing my opinion to reflect consensus. Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 3 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Balamory episodes (Season 4)

Article is a bunch of headings with a lot of missing content (Wikipedia articles are specifically not placeholders) The lead is a bunch of self-references and the article lacks reliable, independent sources -- non exist. Delete (If it is kept for some reason it should be renamed "Series 4" rather than "Season 4" because the programme is British.) Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion Policy does not include placeholders as a valid reason for deletion. Tagging as a stub is more appropriate. Citations have been added, which are more citations than are in the existing articles for series 1-3. Keep (I agree it should be renamed to "Series 4" rather than "Season 4", but "Season" is in keeping with the existing articles for the previous series.) Ectoraige (talk) 12:46, 27 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 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LocateTV and TV.com aren't reliable. The BBC isn't independent. None of them qualify as sources for an independent article. As for the title: Policy (like WP:ENGVAR and naming conventions) count more heavily than current status quo. In other words: we should use UK variant spelling on UK articles whenever we can. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as stub. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What counts as a reliable source for TV listings? Looking at samples from other lists of episodes, I can't find any with sources that, if cited, meet the usual standard for reliable sources - TV.com are the most cited. The List of ER Episodes, for example only cites the episode guides of the programme publishers. Perhaps the editors can figure this out on the Noticeboard. Ectoraige (talk) 10:24, 9 May 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 City of Melbourne election, 2008. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Fowles (was Fowles - A Fresh Vision)

Falls well short of the rule against promotional material. Would need an entire rewrite to be encyclopedic. I'm bringing it here instead of using G11 because it's about a politician rather than a business. Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsuccessful political candidate. I've moved the article to a more appropriate title, just in case Mr Fowles' notability is established during this discussion. Tevildo (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WWGB. Basically the candidate's manifesto and reads like it was written by his campaign director. I would suggest redirecting the article on the 2009 MCC election but I can't seem to find one. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was looking at the wrong year. Redirect "Will Fowles" and "Fowles - A Fresh Vision" to City of Melbourne election, 2008 -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Matt Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 30 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. G3 Nja²⁴⁷ 10:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Mariah Carey DVD)

This DVD doesn't exist. And it has no sources to prove otherwise. Max24 (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find evidence of a DVD anywhere on the internet. Malinaccier (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most likely a WP:HOAX, a Google search shows nothing related to the subject. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:20, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Creasy and Pasquotank Lake

Appears to be made up—article has no references, and I was not able to find any. Given that article seems to mostly be based around mentions of "Daniel Creasy and his family" and that the sole editor is User:Daniel Creasy, I think it's deletable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Judging from what the article says, these are local names for waterfilled gravel pits; there are no sources for this, so it could very well be made-up, and even if it's correct, it isn't encyclopedic information. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability and notability. Edison (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consists entirely of original research in addition to the reasons given above. Drawn Some (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:V and WP:N. As well, I'm not really sure how you can find a brand new lake in the '50s by "the kids that chill at the lake". Renaissancee (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! I can assure you that these lakes do exsist and alot of people in the area use them for different things such as swimming, fishing, and just hanging out. I'm trying to find a picture or something I could put as a reference but its not working out since to my knowledge they have no name except the one me and about 15 other people call them. If you don't believe they exsist you can see them yourself. Go to google maps type in Ulster Drive Elizabeth City and go to the very back of the street towards the field then go all the way to the back of the field and you will see two lakes. Oh and my dad did'nt "find a lake in the 50's" He was a kid back then and they were building Sand Pits when he was REALLY young near the swamps by his house and after a few years the big sand pits turned to rainwater and swamp water lakes. When he got about 10 or 11 him and his friends went to the sand pits that were popular back then and there were lakes, sands pits, swamps. Everything a kid with no video games or anything to do would want back then.

Also just because these lakes are'nt important to you they mean something to some people. Did'nt you people ever have a childhood hangout that meant alot to you? Also to the guy who called them water filled gravel pits actually the bottom is basically mud and the shallow ends and even quick sand in the deep ends.-Daniel Creasy —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
— Note to closing admin: Daniel Creasy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it isn't a solid argument, and a topic's importance to you isn't sufficient to make it notable. If you can find verifiable reliable sources that mention the lakes by name, that would be another thing altogether. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT

Well I know at some point they must have had names but now they are only used by a few people to fish and swim at. I'll try to find something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Creasy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 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.

Michelle Leslie

The result was no consensus, default to keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view 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 result was let's see. We know that AfD is not a vote; if one looks at the vote counts, it's pretty much split down the middle, a clear no consensus. But let's look at the arguments. Those that wanted the article kept stated that she has been covered in multiple secondary sources, had been on the front page of news in Australia for months, whereas those who wanted it deleted stated privacy concerns, with both sides arguing that BLP1E was valid/invalid. However, there is one significant fact that takes the main piece in this article. Rewriting began late on the 28th and ended on May 1st, well after most of the discussion on here has taken place. However, those that stated their opinions after the rewrite still had the same opinions as those beforehand, and there were some that still wanted deletion. This makes for a very, very tough closure.

If one looks at each source used, there are some tabloids (The Advertiser, The Sunday Telegraph) but also some non-tabloids (The Age, Sydney Morning Herald). Also, does the islamic conversion combined with the arrest count as more than one event, dissuading that argument? It's tough to say. As for the rewrite, it occurred a couple days ago, so is it acceptable to say that those on both sides could have changed their vote if they wanted to? I imagine they had no plans to check back on this, so perhaps not. It is true that WP is not news, and it is something many forget. It may be easy to "relist" this discussion, yet it would just be more of the same and leaving this for another admin to handle. That being said, because this was rewritten and sourced completely during and after most discussion, I don't feel that the comments can properly reflect the article's current state, yet I do not feel comfortable restarting or relisting the AfD, as it was still somewhat split even after the parts of the rewrite took place. In the end, it's firmly a no consensus decision. The thing is, what does a 'no consensus' mean for a BLP(1E?) who is primarily known for something negative? That is the real debate issue here, and one there really isn't much on.

Anyway, to read from WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In this article, we have tabloid sources, and originally were not using basic human dignity. In the end, I am not confident in this closure, primarily because I'd probably be DRV'd whichever way I closed it. That's fine though, if you guys want to fight about it a second time, you can. This is not a Ginger Jolie Part II situation where the subject requested it, nor is it a non-BLP, else this close would be easier. I could care less whether or not she has a bio on here. But, it is written with reliable sources mostly, and there are arguments beyond. As I said, if someone wants to DRV me, go ahead, I have no problems with that. It is no consensus, the question was just what does it default to.

Close: no consensus, default to... keep. Wizardman 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Groupware

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Any editor is welcome to prove me wrong, though! Khalfani Khaldun 05:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software, absolutely no showing of importance; Google news search yields mostly a collection of letters to the editor and false friends. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an open source software project under active development for more than 5 years. It's listed side-by-side with Oracle products, Notes, etc. DiplomaGuide.com lists Simple Groupware as something you might need to know to be a "Groupware Specialist", along with "Microsoft NetMeeting, Microsoft Exchange, IBM Lotus Domino Server and Lotus Notes". They didn't pick a very good name, so searches for "simple groupware" can easily find lots of irrelevant junk, but we shouldn't hold that against them. RoyLeban (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But you don't know if there is relevant sources. Iowateen (talk) 03:02, 9 May 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 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software. Iowateen (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are more than letters to the editor sources on google news, it's just that they're not especially recent. It's an enterprise level open source suite that's been developed and commented on by a number of WP:RS ([29], for one). This isn't advertising and the suite's notable. I'm fine if you say the showing isn't enough, but to say "no showing of importance" suggests there hasn't been any research done. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

GROUP DYNAMICS: exploring web-based groupware tools, Linux Magazine, September 2007.

DIY document management system with Simple Groupware, Linux.com, September 2006.

PHP, WAMP and XAMPP, oh my, Network World , 09/18/2007. — Rankiri (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted Keep above the line. Responding to Iowateen. I get really tired of Deletionists. You didn't say why you think it's non-notable, whereas my previous response listed 3 reasons why I thought it was notable. We should be thinking about what we CAN put on Wikipedia, not looking for excuses to remove things (or, rather, not looking, and using that as an excuse to remove things). The sources listed by Rankiri above are certainly sufficient (I just added those to the article). RoyLeban (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read the discussion until now since it doesn't matter when I post a comment because the AFD lasts for a week. Iowateen (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to keep: per Rankiri. Iowateen (talk) 00:26, 11 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPier

AfDs for this article:

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Any editor is welcome to prove me wrong, though! Khalfani Khaldun 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional page. WillOakland (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not seem to be a promotional page, generally written with NPOV. Seems like a quite popular open source program with a basic google search. Also seems like there is some commercial activity around it too. See [[30]] and [[31]]. Also is notable enough for dmoz and quite a few blog/news posts (usually reviews). [[32]] [[33]] [[34]]. Is there something that has significantly changed since the last nomination to make this less notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.166.23 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the previous nomination and had to go find the WP:DRV link [35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.166.23 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i was looking for good open source project management systems and found this article to be very helpful. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.121.209 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable advertisement. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FOSS software, commonly used. T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 18:58, 1 May 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 04:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users

See also: List of Craigslist killers (AfD discussion) and Internet killer (AfD discussion).

Title too cumbersome. (Note that AfD guidelines advocate review of related titles in tandem, when possible; and if one generalizes the Internet component of this list-type/quasi list-type article and focusing its conduct component, one gets the recently-listed-at-AfD title Internet killer and there is appreciable overlap between the two articles' subject matter. "Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users" is a compound list, containing issues involving the practices of the website along with a compendium of the crimes commited by parties using the website, whereas the defining rationale of the article Internet killer is a better focus and with therefore more inciseful brevity in its title.) ↜Just me, here, now … 05:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please clarify your reasons for nominating this article for deletion? Cumbersome article titles can be easily fixed by renaming the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point's exactly mine, Nick-D. The Internet killer article, an omnibus for Internet-related murderers, was already in existence when a user listed it for deletion. Which would be fine except then this same user then created this article, whose content overlaps with the article he'd listed for deletion. If the content of an existing article is encyclopedic, the article should be at most renamed, not deleted, no? ↜Just me, here, now … 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact isn't one purpose of the anti-fork rule to guard against just this type of three card monte? ↜Just me, here, now … 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion provided by nominator. This article has been existence for years as a subsection in Craigslist called Craigslist#Controversies_and_illegal_activities_by_users and was recently split out into its own article.[36] The content has not changed at all. The current article is supported by the community (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers). The other article, Internet killer, was recently created and is 100% original research; Not a single reliable source exists to support it. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas's coin -- eg "supported by the community," "entirely," "not a single," &c -- is wildly inflated in value. Makings for a Greenspan bubble? ↜Just me, here, now … 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed for years as a subsection of Craigslist and is supported by the community per the above linked debate. The least you could do is actually try to provide a deletion rationale. I have faith you can come up with one if you try hard enough. Put some effort into it. Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ~~WP:Fork~~. [Edited: WP:CFORK.] Every article's section can stand alone as an article in its own right without review? Really? I'm sorry -- I missed that at the WP:Help "getting started" link. If somebody creates the article Obama family, I can nominate it for deletion, then go to the Barack Obama article and cut'n'paste its "Family" section, then create my own article? Why, because the creator of the original "Obama Family" article is lame and I'm not? Text book ~~WP:Fork~~! (An aside to Viriditas): How's that...? {smiles} ↜Just me, here, now … 11:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops -- WP:CFORK. ↜Just me, here, now … 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, please familiar yourself with Wikipedia:Splitting. Nothing has been "forked". It's not a content fork. Look, do you understand that the content in this article has been around before Internet killer and has nothing to do with that article? The article was split out recently, but that has nothing to do with its content. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A content fork is an, I quote, creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject, the end of quote. Since the article you'd nominated for deletion with the same info already existed, the article you then created with duplicate information was a content fork. An oversight. (...However ya DID ping my talkpage with the message that you're one step ahead of the supporters of the existing article -- so, I should, "Watch and learn" And maybe you're right about that? that is, that we'll find out true application and meaning of the content forking policy here through the review process? One can hope.) ↜Just me, here, now … 12:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No content fork has occurred. Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users was split from Craigslist. It has nothing to do with Internet killer, a new article that is on AfD because it is composed of 100% original research. I believe I have already explained this to you several times. If you still don't understand what you are reading, please ask someone to explain it to you. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are making a bad faith deletion rationale. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable content to Craigslist. This will cut out the content fork but keep the important information. Malinaccier (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable content to Craigslist: This "three card monte" mess deserves to be unscrabled and cleaned up soon . My suggestion is to fold the material about lawsuits by and against Craigslist back into the Craigslist article and to link the several (six so far) homicides commited via the modus operandi of Craigslist advertisements to the Internet homicide article, which, rather lamely, Viriditas has put on AfD (but that's another issue...). cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Viriditas put Internet killer up for AFD, which was not lame at all, as it made unsourced claims that the term was a journalistic term, along with other original research. That article has since been renamed to internet homicide and sources provided supporting the phenomenon, along with other improvements, so hopefully a positive outcome there. --MPerel 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the new sources added to internet homicide. They don't support the subject and the sources are being misused to claim that they do. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is simply an expanded subsection that outgrew its parent article so that standard Wikipedia:Summary style was implemented. This nomination appears to be a reaction to other current AFD proposals to delete recent new articles that duplicate the same material in a more novel synthesis/original research way: List of Craigslist killers and Internet killer. --MPerel 18:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook POV fork which has an insurmountable NPOV problem because its title discourages any discussion about any good aspects of the website. It is literally impossible that there is any subject for which there is entirely a negative point of view, not even Satan or (hello, Mike!) Adolf Hitler. As such, this violates UNDUE for giving an article solely dedicated to the negative. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please actually read WP:POVFORK, Sceptre. The article was spun out as a subtopic and all it needs is a summary style paragraph. I hardly think that a random, 13 bullet point section is acceptable in any article. Care to show me a GA-class Doctor Who article that has one? You can't. There's no requirement for a large list to be placed in any article. In fact, most lists like this end up tacked into the see also section as a link. If you plan on converting it to prose, then by all means, have at it, but right now it is a random list of incidents that doesn't really fit any article and deserves to standalone. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, please. Don't pull the "summary style" argument. I know full well what a POV fork is, and this is one. That only applies when a section is too large enough to be in an article. This is not large enough. Prose wise, it's about the same size as the "Description" and "Background" sections. The main article only has 6KB of prose, way below the "may need to be divided" rule of WP:SIZERULE. The correct way to deal with this content is to minimise it and talk about it in prose, not spin it out into another article to put it away from the other content; that is the very definition of POV fork (or one of them). Sceptre ^(talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That isn't the only requirement. The bulleted list was out of proportion to the rest of the article and per Wikipedia:Splitting it was spun out into a stand alone list. All within policy and nothing POV or forkish about it. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Way out of proportion"? It had the same amount of content as the other two sections! Hell, I could argue it's more out of proportion now seeing as you've cut and pasted it into a new article. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Viriditas. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all 3 articles into one Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users or Craigslist killers or such. Notable, not just one news item, not just one incident. Plenty of news sources are out there to show notability. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the editor who cut content from "Craigslist" to paste here, parallel to "List of Craigslist killers," would have done better to suggest a page move and bit of expansion of scope at List of Craigslist killers -- would supporters of the iteration in this title be satisfied, say, if the closing administrator belatedly moved on of the other two articles' contents/history here? ↜Just me, here, now … 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to one of the Craig's list articles which is WP:N. I am an uninvolved editor in all three articles in discussion at AFD's and there seems to be a lot POV going on and WP:Synthesis and WP:OR happening in some. The AFD's I have looked at so far it seems the same editors are debating the same thing on all three AFD's. Craigs's list would have no problems with WP:RS either since it has been well publised in the media. Just my opinion of course, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not merge. However, some thought should go into the name and focus of the article. The Craigslist article, as is, is self contained and there is easily enough information to make a full, long article. The subject of crimes that use Craigslit as a modality or medium of communication is notable on its own. This might have once been called merely a media sensation to stir public unease at a new social technology - there is no particular nexus other than some tabloid journalism. Why, for instance, no "crime on the phone" article, "crime via Fedex" or "crime in hotel lobbies" article? And indeed there isn't much to distinguish Craigslit from Facebook, Myspace, Beebo, Twitter, or any other web service. However, the media sensation has a life of its own, and has caused law enforcement and craigslist personnel to meet directly and make arrangements. So the subject of Craigslist's response to crime is distinct and notable. For example, we have a Hotel Detective article and presumably could have a "hotel security" article because that is a subject - it would make no sense to merge that into Hotel. The question of illegal activities (and their public perception and response) is a distinct subject very different than Craigslist as a company, site, and web service. I don't think we could give it good treatment within the main Craigslist article without it having undue weight there, and creating a misleading focus to suggest that the crimes there are a significant issue that sets it apart from other services. Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 2 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studiotraffic

AfDs for this article:

Article about a web company with very suspicious business practices, that currently cites no real sources. I tried as best I could to find any kind of reliable source for this company, but nothing turned up. The google hits, although at about ~70,000, contain nothing suitable. Many of the hits aren't about the website, and those that are all seem to be one or another kind of self-published source. It's very true that the company is presently under investigation by the US department of justice, but even that has only been mentioned in blogs and forums. So in conclusion, this company has done nothing but get some customers to complain about it on the internet, and get itself placed under an investigation that hasn't even generated a press release. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google news search yields mostly false friends and blog / message board posts. Does not appear to be a notable crime. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added 4 reliable links to show what the original page looked like on the last day it was up (Mar 29, 2006). I did this for both Studiotraffic and Studiopay. In addition I provided a link to the legal action taken by the Oklahoma Department of Securities back in 2006. Also, I have been providing information to a Syracuse, NY newspaper which is about to publish an article on the DOJ prosecution of one of Studiotraffic/Studiopay's manager's for wire fraud. Once the article is published I will link this also. This should happen within the next few days. I am continuing to add new sources/references/links. I should mention that one major reason for the lack of "proof" of this being a scam is the long time it has taken to (1) locate the responsible parties, (2) collect the evidence, (3) keep the investigation "private" inside the DOJ/FBI/NY Police. The authorities are very reluctant to release any information on their ongoing investigation even if it takes years as is the case here. This prosecution of a Studiotraffic/StudioPay manager in New York will be the 1st legal case brought to an end. Of course the "big guy" in this is still out there "John Horan". Berkeleyman (talk) 18:14, 1 May 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive

1. Article does not demonstrate subject's notability. See article talk page. 2. Article appears to be edited mostly by a user very involved in the subject organization/project. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3. There are no or not enough sources of info independant of the article subject to demonstrate widespread notability. All reference sources are based on the work of the principal investigator. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 15:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. See this Google Books result and this Google Scholars result. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book/paper appears to be cowritten by the main contributor of the article, DavidLevinson. It is a primary source since he appears to be the chief researcher. 1. This doesn't seem to be "significant" coverage, and 2. the whole article could be considered self promotion. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 13:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You're right. Since both links are not third-party sources and I can find no other sources for this article, this travel survey archive is non-notable. ~~Delete~~. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the google book link is a collection of papers edited by Peter Stopher, a professor at the University of Sydney and someone who has earned a PhD. This probably means that the publication meets the criteria to be considered (Wikipedia:Reliable#Scholarship) scholarly material by the guideline of WP:Reliable Sources. If it is scholarly, then the WP:Policy of WP:Verifiability says that this source trumps all others. The fact that the same person wrote the scholarly paper as wrote the content in WikiPedia is irrelevant to me. It is not like he is making any red flag claims. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper by User:DavidLevinson is a reliable source, but it doesn't appear to be a third-party source. Levinson is affilicated with the Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive, since he was one of the people who was "helpful in building this resource". I can't make up my mind whether this article should be kept or not, so I will remain neutral. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the paper can be used as a reliable source. It's his project, and he authored the reference. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Keep Yes I am the Principal Investigator on the project. The article is verifiable, hence the independent Urban Transport Monitor link, which was provided. I wish it were popular enough for the New York Times, but clearly it is too technical. The archive has been used by other researchers and is important infrastructure in travel behavior research, but itself is not going to be the subject of too many articles. It is really disappointing wikipedia no longer lives up to the goal "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. dml (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, thank you for acknowledging your possible conflict of interest up front. I have been involved before in drawn out discussions with other editors where they never admit as such. To me, the simple admission goes a long way to reducing the WP:COI and achieving the suggestion on WP:COI to "exercise great caution". Now anyone who wants to comment (including Pesco) can make his own choice to consider or discount any remarks you make in this discussion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his contributions to the article and to this discussion I have listed it at WP:COIN. His admission, while appreciated, only happened after I already noted his involvement. How has "great caution" been exercised? He created an article about the project he is the director of, he wrote or heavily contributed to all references that could be used, and he's voted to keep the article in this discussion. Jimmy Whales also said "This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty." How can you be neutral if all the research is your own? On top of it, an admin should go above and beyond to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was hardly a secret, my user name is my real name (sans a space, due to the fact that in the early days of wikipedia everything was CamelCase) unlike most people here. That said, I am not the primary source or author of the Urban Transportation Monitor article. Also COI policies came about well after (1) the article was written, and (2) I was an admin. Finally, so long as the COI is noted, (and I think my user name discloses everything anyone wants to know), and the article is unbiased (judge for yourself) COI (in the real world) does not necessarily require recusal, just disclosure. dml (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on your user page or talk page that says your are the Principal Investigator of the Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive. I only connected your name with the project after looking through things for a while. "It was hardly a secret" is not the same as disclosing a relationship. I admit the COI may have been implemented/modified after the article was created, but it exists now, and so I think that should determine whether you cast votes on anything regarding this article. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly remind you about WP:COI since you are the Principal Investigator. That includes comments on article deletion. You're a Wikipedia admin, so I'm surprised COI has to be brought up. Also, the reference you mention is an article in a trade publication that heavily quotes you, almost making it a primary source. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "trade" publication is (1) currently credited to an editor with a PhD and a P.E., and (2) has been published for 22 years. I would have to consider that a WP:RELIABLE source. The only negative is that the article is not directly credited to an author. However, it is more of a "newsletter" format, and crediting each article is not always done in that format. Based on the editors qualifications and the publishing record of this "trade" publication, it cannot be considered a "self-published source." To me, these two factors (reliable and not self-published) mean that there is no way it could be considered a primary source. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the trade article, my impression is that most/all of the info of note was obtained from the Principal Investigator. If the subject were actually notable there would be plenty of reliable sources that are truly independant of DavidLevinson. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Srong Keep. I find the sources to be reliable per my comments above; there are two separate PhD's that have found the material contained in this article to be worthy of publication and have backed it up as "editor".
Even though it is admitted that the creator of the article has a conflict of interest, there are no extraordinary claims made therein. The article is kept short and factual. The subject of "data abandonment" will become more of an issue in the future, and this article covers that subject (and efforts to prevent it) for one small technical area. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did these two seperate PhD's independantly verify anything about the project? While I still question whether they are "reliable sources", notability is the big issue, I think, and the COI makes this all very messy. If David did not create the article himself, do you think it would exist right now? There doesn't appear to be any independant analysis/commentary of the project. It all seems to be generated by him, one way or the other. Based on this, I don't think its notability is demonstrated. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 06:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the book lists 21 references used in writing the article. Written by a PhD, edited by a PhD, the publisher [37] has been in business for 40 years and specializes in acedemic publishing. To me, it is of a quality that a doctoral student could use as a reference for his own thesis. I would certainly accept it as a reference for any traffic engineer working on one of my projects. The newsletter would work too, but probably not for a thesis paper reference. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be a chapter in this book about the archive in addition to the other references. This seems to be one of those situations where something is notable but still not well-known outside of a specialized field. There would probably be no article without someone with a conflict of interest writing it in the first place but that is not a reason to delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is the same book that is discussed above. Just found on Amazon versus Google. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same book, and that chapter is the same one that is written by David Levinson. If the only references are based on the paid professional in charge of the project, is it really that notable? I don't think there are any sources that are independent enough of David. I'm sure his work is good for his field, and I would want to tell other people about my work, also, but notability is established when other people write about the work. Not when those involved in project get their own work widely disseminated.~Pesco^{So say•we all} 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the convincing arguments above.Ikip (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obvious COI issues but as has been pointed out the article is not promotional and just states that there is such an archive. I can't see why it should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting the accuracy of what's said, but Wikipedia articles have to prove notability. I wish someone would address how this article meets notability, considering all of the references are David's work being disseminated. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted above that Urban Transportation Montitor article is not written by the same David Levinson. This makes it a WP:SECONDARY source as required by the WP:Notability guideline. "Quoting" the primary source is exactly what a reliable secondary source is supposed to do. Also as noted above, this publication is currently edited by a person with a PhD and a professional engineering license. It has been published for 22 years. If that does not qualify it as a WP:RELIABLE source then I don't why I bother looking for sources at all. If it is still in business after 22 years, they must be doing something right about reaching their target audience. (Yes, this presumes market penetration. However it seems to me to be a resonable presumption.)
Since traffic surveys are a specialized field in the subject of traffic engineering (which is a specialized sub-field of civil engineering), one cannot expect Time (magazine) or the New York Times to cover this issue. People will always be more interest in Britney's latest antics or what kind of dog is living in the White House.
This is why the notability guideline says notability sources SHOULD be secondary. Because there are numerous technical fields where one has to accept primary sources. The TWO primary sources written by David Levinson (and currently listed in the article) are third-party published. This increases their reliability. Under the WP:NPOV policy, it is clear that these sources may be used. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
The source I added to the article from the USDOT website is another primary source (they are funding the project), but it is self-published. However, in the fields of traffic and transportation engineering, the USDOT is widely accepted as an authoritative, reliable source.
These sufficiently combine to establish notability to me. It is clear that they will not be enough for you. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This subject of the article is federally funded as shown by one of the references. This is not in itself enough for notability but I believe it contributes to notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 3 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël (JavaScript Library)

Article was PRODed, but I felt it better discussed first. It is pretty highly linked on Google, but it is difficult to find RS do to the generic name of the software. The fact that it is used on a couple major websites at least indicates the possibility that it is notable. I'm neutral for now. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable web application which has been written about in multiple reliable sources. Here are two sources from ZDNet Asia. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly notable and only received mostly trivial coverage from one news source. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only has ONE (not two) reliable source mentions and that one was trivial and thus does not support notability. 16x9 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although this library is relatively nascent, it's been featured here on SitePoint, twice on ZDNet Asia (as mentioned above) and on the Ajaxian web developer blog. It was also demoed at WebJam 08 and is used on the websites of two national newspapers (as mentioned in the article). Richyfp (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources and there is only 1 (one) ZDNet Asia article, the two linked are the same (one is just a print version). Also, just because a product is used does not establish notability. 16x9 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Fair enough then, delete it. I'm not too fussed to be honest, just thought it was a noteworthy, although clearly not "notable", bit of technology.Richyfp (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two major newspapers use it. That makes it notable. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. Read WP:NOTLAW if you don't haven't already. Dream Focus 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-consumer software with no showing of notability. Being used on notable websites does not equate with independent sources that confirm this programming library's notability outside of the programming trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 1 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin barrick

Declined CSD. (In fact, I deleted it myself under A7 and then placed a tag to get another admin's opinion; it was declined.) I don't see notability asserted in this article (senior VP of a company on the INC 500 doesn't cut it; other claims are grasping). Even so, whether it's asserted or not, the speedy has now been declined, so we move to determination of consensus on whether or not the subject is notable. I've looked for indications of such and cannot find any. (As always, I can be convinced.) Frank | talk 03:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that notability is not inherited. There are at least two references in the article which merely mention the company Mr. Barrick works for but don't include any content that refers to him at all. Not being mentioned in an article about a company that doesn't have an article in Wikipedia (and doesn't appear notable enough for same) is not a means of gaining notability sufficient for inclusion in the project. Frank | talk 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checking the references in the article, either the subject is not mentioned at all, is mentioned in passing, or the references are themselves not from a reliable source. There does not appear to be any extensive, reliable, independent coverage as required by WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the admin who declined the Speedy, the article makes claims to importance/significance thus is not a speedy candidate, but in the current form, I don't see it meeting WP:N. I am willing to reconsider if new information/coverage is provided.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in third-party sources as required by WP:BIO. Most of the references cited do not mention the subject or give very trivial coverage, and I was not able to find any better ones. Hut 8.5 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wouldn't be surprised if this the same person as User:Benbarrick, who was one of a few users that attempted to astroturf articles about DVS in the past (see a related AfD). Still no notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mayfield

Assertion of notability exists ("pioneer in....") but is not supported with citations in reliable sources. Search turns up very little; mostly applying to a different person of the same name. Frank | talk 03:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable station manager. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local radio manager/administrator, fails WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -A7 Yourname (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/SNOW – per Bfigura. TheAE talk/sign 05:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - notability not established by article. Plastikspork (talk)
Delete. This is another instance where an article is essentially just a recitation of what jobs an individual has held – in this case, mostly a string of management positions at local radio stations. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 30 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Jesus

Appears to be on the edge of notability, references seem pretty weak, fails people notability guidelines and being only notable for one event IMHO ~fl 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the Cotteridge Growler [38] should have an article. :) He has a Facebook too, and a unique conversational style. Sticky Parkin 02:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly fails to establish notability in any way, shape or form. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as local neologisms with questionable citing don't really meet the definition of notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Coverage too local and incidental to be worth an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every local character known for unusual garb needs an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from the author: yeah ok - I guess the fact that thousands of people from many generations know him doesn't make him "worthy of note". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.171.133 (talk) 21:22, 28 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cassidy

This is a person who, if if he were alive, would not be notable enough for an article. A person who was never written about in any newspaper or other reliable source prior to his death. A person who, but for the manner of his death, would not get a second glance from us. Creating an article that only uses articles about his death and whose content is 40% about his death has problems of undue weight and BLP violations. His loved ones should not have to face the prospect of Wikipedia enshrining his death for all time. I have removed evidence of his death and deleted all prior revisions, although admins can see them. Judge the article as it is. Is this person notable enough for an article? If not, then the fact that he suffered an embarrassing death does not make him notable. Thatcher 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ATren (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. He lived a life of quiet desperation, like 99.99% of us... Eddie.willers (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Eddie.willers (for the applicable standard), and Thatcher (for the content policy and the compassion). Risker (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Once you throw out the WP:BLP1E articles written about him, the remainder fail WP:ENTERTAINER / WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:B(L)P1E. Rd232 ^talk 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above, especially Thatcher's nomination and WP:BLP1E; this isn't why we're here. (Became aware of this issue on WP:BLP/N). MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, as this appears to be a remnants of a near-libellous article. However, the number of awards he received as a comedian may qualify as notability. So I'm happy with an article being reposted, as long as it is notable for how he lived rather than how he died. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't violate the biographies of living people guideline/policy when the person in question is dead. I personally think the same should apply to dead people, but as long as the policy is not renamed, it doesn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Once you get rid of the freak context of his death completely fails wp:bio. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my comment and others on BLP/N. Nathan^T ^{(formerly Avruch)} 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thatcher and my comments at BLP/N FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with comment. I won't quarrel with removal of details regarding the person's death, and agree that including those details on the main page was in poor taste. However, the article has now been modified to eliminate those details, and I think the article in its present state is fine. I don't think we should delete his entire biography simply because he died in an embarrassing way. There are several reliable sourcesa covering him, independent of the circustances surrounding his death. See, e.g., City Life story from 2002 on his being named "Comedian of the Year" and 2008 article about his sketch comedy show. Also while his death may be titillating, his obituary was published in major publications, including The Sun and Lancashire Telegraph. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the comment above by Chris Neville-Smith: "by the number of awards he received as a comedian may qualify as notability. So I'm happy with an article being reposted, as long as it is notable for how he lived rather than how he died." That's exactly what has now been done, and the article as it now stands meets notability standards. We can't eliminate an article on a notable person simply because the circumstances of his death are embarrassing. That would be a horrible precedent of content-based deletion that has nothing whatsoever to do with policies on BLP or libel. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form as 1E. If we can find concrete notability for his life, okay then. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while technically not a BLP, I think the principles of 1E should still apply particularly given the obvious potential harm to his living relatives preserving this article risks. Presuming there's still new articles about him 3-5 years from now then fine, but until then (and I think it's fair to say it's unlikely). There are of course many people who die in odd ways (or do other things) who get some minor coverage in major publications, we don't and shouldn't have articles on them. If there were evidence he were notable then fine but as demonstrated by the current version he wasn't. We only have one minor RS about him prior to his death and one minor award (not that awards are enough to demonstrate notability in the clear absence of RS). If he continued in his career, he may have been notable one day, sadly that never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is the only honorable course of action. Whatever404 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes, quite reliably, a locally-active part-time standup comic who was a finalist (not a winner) of a local contest and had a show at the Edinburgh Fringe (one of around 650 comedy shows there, albeit a relatively successful one). I'm really not sure that's the sort of material we usually consider significant - the guidelines for this sort of article talk about "significant roles in multiple notable ... stage performances", or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions", which doesn't seem to be borne out by the sources. Shimgray | talk | 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my analysis of the article. Per the nominator's comments, without the death related information, he does not meet our usual inclusion criteria. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting notability requirements per Shimgray. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 30 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Calixto

Article on a likely non-notable individual with no sources. I could not find any information relating to the subject's participation within Thug Line Records. The "Web Development" section discusses a website that he built on a free webhost as well as his participation on a couple of online forums... _scootey ^talk 05:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only 123 ghits and most of these are wiki mirrors and blogs, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Matty (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most likely a self-published work of fiction. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:39, 21 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 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established, and the info given suggests that if that's as notable as he gets he's not notable enough for our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 26 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 The Shys. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cupito

Non-notable drummer. Articles makes no assertion to notability. Unverifiable claims. No awards. No solo releases. JamesBurns (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I concur with nominator. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Shys along with any other members/former members who have not participated in other notable projects. JulesH (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of two notable bands. Merging to either one would result in losing info on the other one. (The Shys did two albums with a notable label) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've misread the article; the only band it says he's a member of is The Shys. It mentions another band, but that's because their drummer sometimes guests at Shys shows. JulesH (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case a redirect would still be better than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria of WP:Creative. Member of notable bands. Untick (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Shys. No indication that he is a member of another notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:17, 24 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 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin – Untick (talk · contribs), who has !voted above, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:44, 26 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 The Shys. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wulff

Non-notable guitar player. Articles makes no assertion to notability. No awards. No solo releases. JamesBurns (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and given the total lack of notability, stated or even suggested, this could have been speedied, no? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Shys along with any other members/former members who have not participated in other notable projects. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge whatever is appropriate per my reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kweskin (member of same band). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 20 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 02:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JulesH ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no notability outside band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:21, 27 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Eating Sprouted Baking

I declined the speedy deletion because db-notability doesn't apply to books. A Google news archive search gives 39 hits for Janie Quinn, but none mentioned this book in the visible summaries, and the standard to meet at the notability guideline for books is very high. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional. Related articles have been or will be deleted, usually by speedy. DGG (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the book itself isn't notable why not just merge or redirect to author? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe book does not get any news or book hits and no serious coverage anywhere else. The author's notability is probably valid, as I found an article on her in Vegetarian Times, but almost no coverage on the bookMrathel (talk)

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 Speedily deleted by Vianello per G3.. Tabercil (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRH PRINCE PETER OSEI-TUTU

No mention of Peter Osei-Tutu to be found via Google other than this Wikipedia article. I suspect this might be a hoax. Tabercil (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G3 per nom. Obvious hoax. As these are being G3'd these days, I've added the appropriate tag. Tevildo (talk) 02:23, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional trios

There are few on this list which could even remotely be called "trios".

The following are grouped that way in their articles' names:

The Three Musketeers, The Three Stooges, The Ghostly Trio, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Huey, Dewey and Louie, and Snap, Crackle, and Pop.

The rest seem to be simply groupings of three characters. And often such "trios" are either "three adventurers" or a romantic triangle - or both. (Fairly common due to the influences of The Three Musketeers.)

Are there sources establishing that these are "trios"? And further, how would we establish that? Any grouping of individuals in which there are at any given time, three?

And consider that this is a case where we are listing groups based on the quantity of members. Look at the Charlie's Angels listings to see why this itself is a bad idea.

And do we start adding List of fictional quartets? Everyone from The Four Musketeers (and note the irony there), to the Fantastic Four (and consider how that group's membership has also changed periodically over time).

And are the Avengers a fictional sextet, based on their past bylaws?

This just seems to be rampant WP:OR gone wild.

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. Discuss individual cases on the talk p. (The universal, correct, response for when a list article is nominated on the basis that some of the content does not belong). 6 are given by the nom as valid. That's a start. DGG (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too much original research involved in determining which characters to classify within a trio. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 characters doing something together is found in a great many fictional works. There is no real point in listing them. Write an article on the concept itself if sources can be found.Borock (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that some entries don't belong can be solved through editing. Other than that, the nominator gave no valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What content does belong? This list doesn't have any sort of topic; right now, it's "List of three characters chosen more or less arbitrarily." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete x 3 In this case, a trio can be any three things that you want it to be, and the article is little more than a bulletin board. Nothing gets taken off, for fear that someone's feelings will be hurt. However, when you have twenty consecutive mentions of "Charlies Angels", you've lost your bearings. There are some famous trios out there which, as the nominator points out, are so famous that their name reflects their threesomeness-- the Three Musketeers, the Three Fates, the Three Stooges, etc. And there are a few that aren't billed as trios but have adventures as a group of three-- Huey, Dewey and Louie; Alvin, Simon & Theodore; Snap, Crackle, Pop; the Powerpuff Girls; etc. But most of these seem to be on here because someone noticed that they were on the TV screen at the same moment. Even someone who watches nothing else but Nickelodeon would not say that Spongebob, Patrick and Squidward are a team of some sort. Or that Mickey, Donald and Goofy are a trio; or that a duo like "Mario and Luigi" becomes a trio when you add someone else. This is the type of list that you can't maintain without offending someone, so I don't think that it's ever going to be viable. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE unless and until reliable sources treating the concept "fictional trios" in a scholarly manner are cited. See also WP:SALAT. Deor (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, the topic is way too broad for this list to become non-indiscriminate (discriminate)? JIP | Talk 17:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to strong delete. After reading the article again, I have become convinced that it does not even properly define what constitutes a "trio". It appears that it accepts any three characters appearing in the same continuum. Some, like the three little pigs, or the three musketeers, or the girls in Totally Spies! I can accept, but what about "Mickey, Donald, and Goofy"? What about Daisy? Or Gladstone? Or Scrooge? Or Horace? What about "Kirk, Spock, and McCoy"? Where's Scotty? Where's Chekov? Where's Uhura? There are too many cases where "these three constitute a trio" is basically the author's own original research. JIP | Talk 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, remove, and excise. This is completely rudderless and topicless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very vague topic that can cover a very wide variety of subjects, and there's nothing particularly useful about a list of trios. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course the article's content is ridiculous (the Charlie's Angels permutations), but also this topic is really listcruft. I'll believe it when I see a couple of academic books about fictional trios. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:IINFO. And how come Yippy, Yappy and Yahooey are not on the list? :) Pastor Theo (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Useful start that can be expanded. Ties works together in interesting ways and is a notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a notable subject, what, would you say, is the article that this list illustrates? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three little bears, the three amigos, the three stooges, three's company, ... This list of triumverates or trios of characters can be sorted by subject: literature, film, television, comedy. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that the symbolism, psychology and sexuality involved in the subject of threesomes is loaded and important. If wikipedia chooses not to include it that will certainly not be the first time a useful and important subject is lost. Grouping the examples together serves as a useful resource for those wanting to compare the use of three lead characters in literature or comedy, to give two example. The subject can most certainly be expanded into an article, but as it's been determined that it's useless listcruft, I will divert my energies elsewhere. Three's a crowd. Here's a source [39]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what the topic? Those are random things that there are three of. How is this different from "List of fictional things which are blue"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the subject of fictional accounts with three lead characters isn't as worthwhile as Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow or the 17th place finisher in the 400 meter bean twirling at the 1984 Olympic's, but I thought it might be nice to include anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question, you just compared it unfavorably to other things. This is a list of "Things which share a coincidental attribute". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You set up a straw man comparison, so I gave you one in return. I don't think there's anything coincidental about choosing to have three lead characters instead of the usual one or two (a duo). I'm not aware of any writer, screenwriter or comedian that employs an infinite number of monkeys typing away until they come up with something. So I have to believe their decisions on character development are conscious and that the use of three people involves various symbolisms and psychological concepts and social issues that are significant and interesting. This makes the subject notable and substantial. That it needs to be cleaned up and cited is obvious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can believe whatever you like. Do you have any reliable sources to back your theory, or is it just original research? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Here's the source I already gave you [40]. It discusses some of the symbolism and some of the notable trios and compares them to the use of three leads in Charmed. There are also lots of sources on googlebooks discussing the history of trios and the notable ones, unfortunately many aren't available online. One of them discusses how the Three Musketeers influenced a term to refer to trios of adventurers in common language usage. One of them discusses Rudyard Kipling's use of trios. Many of them compare trios to more famous literary trios, for example here [41]. Here's a source discussing Harry Potter and comparing it to other literary trios [42]. So clearly this is a notable subject and there's plenty of sourced content for an article. You asked for examples and assuming good faith I've provided them. So I'm confident you'll change your vote and I hope you'll put some effort into improving the article, after putting quite a bit of effort into arguing extensively for its deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link you gave was rambling and speculative and more about the number three than any sort of insight on sets of three characters in fiction. (It's a TOTALLY UNAUTHORIZED readers' guide to a syndicated primetime soap opera, so we do need to take it for what it's worth.) The Harry Potter link mentions trios and duos as part of a discussion of equal or unequal roles of female protagonists in stories with multiple protagonists. Interesting stuff, but the only factual claim here is that there are three main characters in the Harry Potter novels and that this is the same number of characters as in Three Musketeers. I have no idea if the second source has anything, but the article you seem to imply would not be this one and would not need this list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely useless listcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of name-checks about non-notable subject of fictional trios, 50% of which comprises of variations of the Charlie's Angels roster. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make into a category per WP:CLT. This list cannot ever be complete, and has no good intrusion criteria. No prejudice against writing a better sourced article in place of this. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dreck per WP:LISTCRUFT; what, every wikt:Tom, Dick or Harry gets a list entry? We discriminate per WP:IINFO. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose it is possible that there is a reason why trios are prevalent in fiction. There may even be some literary criticism somewhere that documents this, and if there were a relevant Wikipedia article, then this list could form a part of it. Until then it's just an pointless list. pablo_hablo. 13:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Charie's Angels, another indication of the crapness of this list is the permutations of characters from "Zoey 101". There are 20 permutations of the 6 main characters from Friends, and if this article is kept, they are all going in! pablo_hablo. 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, no viable inclusion criteria. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate collections of groups of 3. Surprised it doesn't include combinations of 3 from larger groups. Anyhow, no concrete inclusion criteria; it's list cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate, fuzzy criteria for inclusion, etc etc. Basically everything that has been said above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 1 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy waitress

Apparently a name used in various individual restaurants for different sandwiches. Not in common use for any one sadnwich. No encyclopaedic value. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Too vague to be meaningful and at best would belong on Wiktionary, not here. JBsupreme (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition of questionable validity. Sandwiche definitions aren't inherently notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. No substantial coverage in reliable sources and what mentions there are conflict with each other. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:18, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose "Pepe" Ortega

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jose "Pepe" Ortega

Vanity page. Some cleanup tags have been removed without explanation. No valid references can be found on Google. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unsourced and hard to verify; is it this person [43]? Also appears as a character in movies (e.g. [44]). Unable to verify WP:N as it now stands. JJL (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 26 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 A7. The article does not establish notability, and as Dan D. Ric pointed out, the author removed an earlier speedy tag. Malinaccier (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hipple Patel

Non-notable journalist MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity/ad page; no evidence of notability. WP is for when you are notable, not for when you wish to become notable. JJL (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobio, non notable. JCutter^{{ talk to me}} 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Not notable and article creator removed speedy tag. Dan D. Ric (talk) 02:04, 26 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 The Shys. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Walker (musician)

Non-notable musician, generating no independent, in-depth coverage, no solo projects, etc. He has a daughter, which is nice, but that's not enough for inclusion on WP. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Shys, along with any other members/former members who have not participated in any notable projects outside of that band. JulesH (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable drummer. Articles makes no assertion to notability. Unverifiable claims. No awards. No solo releases. JamesBurns (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect and merge whatever is appropriate per my reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kweskin (member of same band). (The Shys released two albums with a notable label) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MGM, you have a point. I'll gladly retract the AfD--but what's the procedure? The AfD is withdrawn and then someone (say, whoever proposed this redirect? nudge nudge) makes the redirect? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd consider redirecting and leaving a note for the local editors to pick and merge the right info the correct course of action. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 26 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 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS AfD HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN FAVOR OF A REDIRECT ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone other than the nominator has recommended deletion, a speedy keep based on a withdrawn nomination is not appropriate. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shys, no individual notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Gunn O'Connor

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marianne gunn o'connor

One-line article about a literary agent with two sources - one small article about her in an Irish newspaper, mentioned in another article in the same paper. Whether these mentions are enough to assert notability is another question. Black Kite 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Google search turns up several more sources, most quite trivial in nature. I'd like to observe that while the article creator seems quite keen on creating several new Irish chick lit articles, (s)he seems also to be quite content to ignore all admonishments to create these already properly sourced. Would advocate a merge and redirect to some Irish litterature article except I'm at loss to suggest an appropriate one. MLauba (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:39, 13 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) 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete on the basis that nobody who can't be bothered to properly capitalize the name of a biography subject can be bothered to properly document her notability. <eleland/talkedits> 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more tha 400 hits in randomly consulted webpages. Hard to conclude it is not notable!Rirunmot (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you found any non-trivial ones other than the one from the independent, feel free to add these to the article. Notability isn't the same as fame or importance. MLauba (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leading member of her profession, with a lot of name recognition within the publishing industry. Enough sources to justify a short article. JulesH (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize the name and I regularly hang around literary circles. What do you base the idea on that there's a lot of name recognition? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because I recognised it, despite the fact that any connections I have to publishing are in an entirely different country to the one she operates in. This may be a biased sample issue, though, so forget I said it. I still stand by the sources being adequate, though. JulesH (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable in any way. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 13:11, 19 April 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An agent (not even a writer) with very few sources does not meet notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either expand the article or delete it. This is next to useless, because anyone likely to have heard the name is likely to know what the article tesll them. Yes, Wikipedia is a wok in progress, but that doesn't mean we get to sit around endlessly debating ideologies, it means we have to work to improve it. So either expand the article or delete it. Don't look at me, I'm too busy elsewhere, which is why I'm suggesting delete. There's no point turning up all these brilliant sources if they just sit in an afd. If people don;t have the time to improve this article, it suggests the database is currently too vast and that we're all tied up elsewhere. Cut back on the database, and we can better regroup for another period of expansion. Delete as stands. Hiding T 12:20, 28 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. Wizardman 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Dao

Notability issues, all material relating to this style seems to be by a single author and no third party sources seem to exist. Salix (talk): 06:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Salix (talk): 07:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I asked around about this and other listed "Tibetan martial arts" on the Wikiproject Tibet and Wikiproject Martial Arts discussion pages- no one there had ever heard of them, or seen them listed in any reputable source. I've not found anything online or in books about Tibetan topics that would verify this allegedly Tibetan martial art, or validate its notability. Tibet tends to be a magnet for drawing tenuous claims of exotic origin. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If other martial artists are not aware of any particular style, it doe not mean that the information about that style should not be in Wikipedia. On the contrary, this would allow those and other martial artists to find out about that style. In particular, Qi Dao may be of Tibetan origin but was mostly practiced in Russia. If it came to the West now, it should be given an opportunity to have its page in Wikipedia no less than Boabom or Kum Nye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantrapa (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be one of sources. All the material found seems to be by Lama Tantrapa with no third party sources to verify his claims. The article would stand a much better chance if such sources could be found. There is a specific guideline for martial arts articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability which give indication of what is required. --Salix (talk): 20:07, 21 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 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. Tantrapa, are there any sources for any of this other than yours truly? Bossk-Office (talk) 02:18, 26 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 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be a great many reliable resources and thousands of other mentions on the internet. Are these references to "Qi Dao" referring to something else? I'm confused. Drawn Some (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there are many things which have Qi and Dao in the name, including a magazine, a movie, a mediation practice. There are also quite a number of sites with material on this particular practice, however all the ones I can find are written by the same person. If you could find a source not written by Tantrapa that would great.--Salix (talk): 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of reliable third party sources Rirunmot (talk) 21:23, 3 May 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 Redirected by User:Jeandré du Toit Malinaccier (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurovision Dance Contest presenters

The Presenters are already listed here so there is no need for this article. Afkatk (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unsourced non notable list to article where it's at. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:09z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:25, 26 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 00:01, 3 May 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 Nouns (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Creeps 7"

AfDs for this article:

Still fails WP:NSONGS, no information worth merging to non existent album article or band article. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t13:26z 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is an article for the album. The creator of the article simply linked to it wrong. Because of that, I suggest a Merge to the article on the album. the band is indeed notable, but this non-charting single is not. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang-on explanation

This article should not be deleted because it fits into the following criteria:

This article relies on more that one source and includes in-text citations.
It is sufficiently Wikified as it includes an infobox as well as several sections.
It is quality-equivalent to many other singles-articles on Wikipedia.

ل داد (Ldud) (talk) 04:40, 20 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 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no particular opinion as to whether this article should stay or go, but if it is kept it should be moved to Teen Creeps. Wikipedia normally has articles about songs, not the singles they appear on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I have no opinion on whether it should be kept separate or merged with the album, but it definitely needs to be renamed. I oppose deletion because WP:NSONGS does not supersede WP:GNG - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nouns (album). Non-notable song on a notable album. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 1 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Who We Are (DVD)

Fails wp:music, prod rv without sourcing. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:39z 14:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be verified with As I Lay Dying (band). The band itself is notable, but without proper sourcing this shouldn't stand on its own. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:59, 19 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 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Album apears to be Notable however it needs References.
Strong Keep The album itself is notable, the article just needs to be redone. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 28 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 My Parents Are Aliens. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Johnson (Alien)

Notability concerns; consists solely of in-universe fiction with excessive detail; will probably not be referenceable SynergyBlades (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable television character. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:33, 19 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Parents Are Aliens. It's one of the main characters that appeared in all the series. Without sufficient references, a separate article shouldn't exist, but redirects are cheap. (Needs to be renamed to "alien" without the capital letter, or mentioned on the related dab page if deleted.) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mgml's sensible suggestion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 26 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. All, including the creator, are agreed that this is an inappropriate list for the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs in Egypt

Indiscriminate list of mainly redline social organizations, listed without rhyme or reason. Notability for the function of these clubs in any given country seems to me to be impossible to establish; how would one get reliable information and how would one measure importance? Currently under discussion is a similar list, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of clubs in Bahrain. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of this list, agree that it is quite a useless page. It would be nice to have around, if it was to be modified a bit, but right now it serves no purpose. I have no arguments for keeping this page. A elalaily (talk) 21:52, 19 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and creator. :-). Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Malinaccier. JIP | Talk 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BUT substantially limit in scope. Many of these clubs are among the top football (soccer) clubs in the Egyptian League (indeed among the top in Africa). Limit and rename to a list of Egyptian football clubs and chop out what doesnt meet that. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, since we already have List of football clubs in Egypt, Delete Nableezy (talk) 23:58, 26 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. No need to keep this charade going. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Boys

This page meets Wikipedia’s criteria for deletion as an article that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject Oo7565 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I've already issued a final warning to the nominator, who despite repeated warnings is continuing to apparently go through Special:Allpages tagging articles for deletion for spurious reasons. – iride scent 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think nominating a three-sentence article of which two sentences are plot summary as not asserting notability is a spurious reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:31, 19 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep — Jake Wartenberg 01:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious to who? Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:NOTFILM, as it is an episode of a major Television series; Nominator seems to have not put any thought into this...Cheers. I'^mperator 17:28, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veloso (artist)

AfDs for this article:

Internet artist notable for one event, which runs contrary to WP:ONEEVENT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in 3+ years, only one event notability if at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The animation on which his sole documented claim to notability rests no longer has its own article. Tevildo (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say WP:ONEEVENT, but I'm not even convinced that one event makes him notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:06, 1 May 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, there is clearly little support for deleting this article, and there should be prejudice against a merge if a consensus can be found to do so on the talk page or another venue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Pittsburgh Gladiators season

BUC (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for deletion here? Drmies (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator wanted to nominate all articles for all individual teams single seasons in the Arena Football League as explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Tampa Bay Storm season. Calathan (talk) 17:14, 20 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1987 Arena Football League season. This was apparently one of four articles in what was once envisioned as 20 parts of a project on Tampa Bay Storm seasons, the Gladiators having moved to Tampa Bay after a few years. Although the Gladiators played in the first Arena Football League game and in the first championship, the league had only four teams in the 1987 season. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [[1987 Arena Football League season per Mandsford.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see "there were only four teams" as being a valid reason to merge. It seems highly likely that much room for expansion exists, both to this article and its parent. Reso lute 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute. Grsz¹¹ 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - single season articles for professional sports seasons can generally be expanded and well sourced. matt91486 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1987 Arena Football League season, I see no reason for spilt. Secret ^account 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. Individual seasons are notable and it is common practice in numerous sports, from college football to association football. If it were to be merged, no doubt most of the information would be lost. Strikehold (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only information that will be lost are the players stats, which can easily be found elsewhere. Secret ^account 12:35, 28 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean-Shinto

Unsourced and possible original research on an obscure religious group with no assertion of notability (article explicitly states that there are probably less than 100 followers.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any reliable sources for the religion, probably not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly a hoax and fails notability guidelines. At best it should be merged with Shinto. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BS by the cartload, can't believe it survived two and a half years. There really was forced Shinto practise (State Shinto) in Korea during the latter part of the Japanese colonial era, which may be an encyclopedic topic, but that article would have to be written from scratch, as this piece of junk has nothing factual to add to that topic. cab (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. I couldn't find anything after a brief search. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure how I missed the nature of the article when I was disambiguating... but then, it was a few years back. Dekimasuよ! 14:35, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Station

It was a proposed LRT station, but is currently not planned to be built. Canuck85 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps the article should mention the fact that it is not currently planned to be built. Zoo Fari 06:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the station isn't gonna be built, it's not notable enough for an article. I'd suggest merging to Evergreen Line (Vancouver) but there really isn't anything to merge. BryanG (talk) 06:41, 19 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) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was never built, and there are no sources to confirm even that... let alone any kind of notability it might have had as a project. --Chiliad22 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it will not be built, then it is most likely not notable. When there are few sources to say even this, then it is definitely not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonexistent. WillOakland (talk) 17:02, 26 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatka

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not thrilled about an article being nominated 1 day after creation, especially when it's going to require translation to verify. She appeared on Geobar4, which was the Georgian franchise of Big Brother [45].I can confirm she was a Playmate prior to appearing on the show [46]. That theoretically means she passes the additional criteria by virtue of being a Playmate. When Playboy sends someone to discuss your behavior so it doesn't threaten their brand, I'm going to guess there's a few newspaper articles about you in the local press.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the sources above, there seems to be a fair amount written about this person in the Georgian language too ([47]). I think it's best to err on the side of caution here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 1 May 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 01:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Adam

WP:BIO, an article about someone who writes for two non-notable blogs. Whilst there is a source from TechCrunch, I would cast that off as "over-hyped" as it merely seems to say that "a kid created a website". Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TechCrunch still wrote about it though, and it did not say that at all. It satisfies guidelines by linking to a news article. You can't dismiss that just because of your interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitterboy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is this: a single article about you saying that you "created a website" does not make you notable. Find me criteria on WP:BIO that make Nathan Adam notable. No awards or honours; no recognised and sustainable contributions; no new concepts; not cited by peers; the list goes on. I see no argument for keep. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:04, 23 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all indications seem to be at this point that he doesn't yet meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 1 May 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abjol Miah

Contested prod. Subject is a city councillor in a borough of London, and a candidate for an obscure party in the upcoming general election. Of the five sources cited, none actually help establish his notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is the candidate for the Respect party for the Bethnal Green and Bow seat in the upcoming general election. Although a small party, Respect won this seat in the last election and thus is the incumbent party defending it in the next. Abjol Miah therefore stands a real chance of becoming an MP at the next election. Do Not Delete. --Jackd88 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To this, I would reply that the incumbent candidate would be inherently notable, not the one taking his place. If Miah ends up being an "also ran", then he is not notable unleess there is another reason to consider him notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Hasn't even been elected yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ChildofMidnight. Broccoli (talk) 23:39, 26 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov solution

Music group that fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Although, they are signed to metal blade records, they have not released any material while signed. Also this search reveals coverage in blabbermouth and metal archives, these are generally not considered reliable by themselves. Only other references/sources are Myspace and blogs. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Short allmusic bio [48] Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we could conjoin that with something else - but on its own, or with the other trivial mentions, that short bio doesn't really hold much water. I'm going to dig around some more later. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. If they become more established and get some coverage, okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 25 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) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more refs found, needs multiple refs. Delete and recreate when/if more good refs are found. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 30 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.