Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 25

< 24 December	26 December >

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nankali Post-system

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

System demonstrated does not appear to meet standards of notability. Article puts forth a concept that is largely if not completely rejected -- restoring teeth that exhibit vertical/oblique fractures that extend onto the root surface. Sources are terrible -- they consist of Dr. Nankali, the inventor and article creator, promoting his own invention, and the few minor awards it has won. Nothing -- not intracoronal nor extracoronal restorations, not endodontic therapy, not implant dentistry -- can claim 100% success; the fact that it states this in the article makes it read more like an infomercial than anything else. Primary intra-article links direct to pages written in a foreign language, dubious support if that's all that can be mustered. Three great diagrams, but they probably come from the patent application/master's thesis, so I'd expect them to be wonderful; the photo, on the other hand, looks like a still shot from a video. Sources are 2/4 from the inventor/article creator and references are 6/10 from him as well, and there is nothing published in a well respected, international journal of endodontics, prosthodontics or general dentistry. Seems like complete self-promotion, not to mention how poorly written it is, suggesting you it was put together as swiftly as possible without much thought. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question can anyone clarify want is the relevant content of the two page cited in , Oxford Handbook of Clinical Dentistry? DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 4 January 2010 (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. In any case, this article is going to be kept. But with the number of outstanding "delete" votes, we can't be sure that they all want to change their opinion, so I'll just say NC to be safe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass Number 3

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

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing but WP:OR - failed {{prod}} after sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently they plan to film this one in 3D. Once it's actually done, feel free to recreate the article with the film's actual name. Pburka (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-quite-yet-ready for primetime. JBsupreme (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film may become notable once it is released, but there is no evidence that the production of it has achieved notability. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to neutral since a number of sources have been added. Some of the coverage is marginal (e.g., MTV, which is not an independent source in this case), but the situation has improved enough to move me away from recommending deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed title is actually Jackass 3D, and we can create it when it actually has more details than the equivalent of 'OMG did you see this Johnny and the gang is back EEEEEE!!' Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Keep As I expected a windfall of sources came out this week and have been added to the article, so the standard of WP:N#FILMS has now been met. Great job on the rescue, Him6969etc... Nate • (chatter) 12:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Jackass 3D. Star of the movie confirmed its production.[1] According to moviefone, Paramount issued a press release that it will be released October 15, 2010.[2] MTV says the movie will be in 3D.[3] The BBC says the director has been doing camera tests.[4] Hence, many sources and confirmation about its production. See:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added this information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with "Him69696969696969". The movie has been confirmed on the official jackass "blog" and by Paramount now. This is one of those cases where the nomination for deletion was valid when it was put forth, but the subject of the article has crossed the threshold for inclusion while the AfD was running. I urge the closing admin to take that into account and either relist this or just disregard earlier comments. Gigs (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update in the last two days more information about its production has been released. I added some information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The article has been expanded with references. However, I am still having problems in deciding whether this makes it notable enough to bypass the CRYSTAL. --Tone 15:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Him69696969696969's expansion. WossOccurring (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was nominated for deletion when it was in really bad shape, but has been expanded to show confirmation of this project with several news stories and coverage. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has reliable sources and meets all the requirements to be an article. Much improved from when it was listed. — Ocatecir ^T 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jackass series. Doesn't meet WP:NFF but clearly being produced at this point. Merge to the series until it meets WP:NFF for a valid split. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of reliable sources on it now. --AW (talk) 06:48, 30 December 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. There is clear consensus that the article should not be deleted, but there is no agreement about whether this list should be merged to another one. Complicating things is a merge opinion that cites with favor an editor who wants to keep the lists separate, and one who wants to merge them. Discussions on a possible merge can of course continue on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch

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

The article is simply a long list of creatures from the Lilo & Stitch franchise, with little encyclopedic value or notability; mainly fancruft, and violates WP:NOT. Additional problems besides that of notability includes a long-standing lack of sources as well as a primarily in-universe writing style. KaySL (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nothing much has changed from the last AFD, so I'll just restate my Keep last time:

I'll more or less repeat what I said two years ago: The television series episode plots center specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft (though I admit that I'm getting rather tired of doing so). Unfortunately, Disney made maintaining the list extremely difficult when they decided it would be fun to list the name of every experiment at the end of the last movie (Leroy & Stitch). So the names are available, but unless Disney produces more cartoons, the descriptions will have to remain blank as no information is available. All the information is from the shows or movies and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: shouldn't the content from this article be migrated and merged with the episode list then, if this article is so integral to the episodes? Granted, it wouldn't be a quick task, but as it stands, the actual content-to-length ratio is very low. KaySL (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't agree with merging the list with either List of Lilo & Stitch characters or List of Lilo & Stitch episodes. Several experiments appear in multiple episodes (though admittedly to differing degrees). Determining how to perform merge will be difficult and there would be a net loss of information. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for merging it into the List of Lilo & Stitch characters, perhaps only the most relevant characters (Sparky, Angel, Reuben and Leroy). --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lord Opeth and the points made by Gogo Dodo. KaySL (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2010 (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 as copyright infringement. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Spice

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

non-notable pirate radio DJ, completely unreferenced Rapido (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't know, but I've definitley heard of this guy before, and I don't even listen to DJs.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where have you looked for this "coverage"?--Lionmadness (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you looked? Answer: "Nowhere". Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Have you got a source that proves that Lionmadness hasn't looked anywhere? Otherwise, don't make comments like that.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mr Chill, I am looking for notable converage as we speak, thank you very much.--Lionmadness (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Chill should really be apologizing for that outburst. It really was unacceptable.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lionmadness did ask Joe Chill a little sarcastically about "coverage", before he stated whether he had looked for any himself! Rapido (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. It just sounds like Lionmadness was interested in knowing where to look and there is nothing wrong with that, especially in an Afd discussion. I see nothing wrong with the edits of Lionmadness.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay AD, you don't need to worry about me, but it WAS quite offensive and is not really acceptable at all, particularly not in a discussion where particiapnts need to not throw stones. So yes, Joe Chill, you owe me an apology. You can apologize to me here.--Lionmadness (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I mis-assumed your comment was sarcastic. However, here should really be for debate about the AFD. Any personal correspondence, apologies or otherwise, should really take place in user talk pages. Rapido (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It did seem like it was meant in a rude way. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted :)--Lionmadness (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see that cleared up. Now can people please respect the WP:AGF policy in future and not accuse others of being sarcastic. That way, these problems wouldn't start in the first place.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google UK Search We are looking pretty good.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources are significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I'm having a very hard time finding any reliable sources about this DJ. I found one that has been clearly plagiarized, a word-for-word copy and paste of paragraph two, which alone would rate a copyvio. The whole article appears to be a crappy cut and paste job. Please delete ASAP and start over, folks. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This quote: "I wanted to learn how the whole thing works from the artist to the label to the whole distribution side of things" seems to WP:OR that has been copied onto three other websites. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is likewise a quote without any attribution, so it must be WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why speedy delete? Let this Afd run its course. There is far more concensus in support of keeping this article anyway.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are based on guidelines so there is more support for deleting this article. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 26 December 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 _{Help review good articles} 18:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Munhall

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

Non-notable career minor leaguer. Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply fails WP:Athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source cited is a statistics site; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the necessary career achievements. Spanneraol (talk) 21:18, 29 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Kaleidoscope

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

non-notable pirate radio station; the references appear to be webpages written by involved parties, not media references Rapido (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is a good one with an external link providing further information so it looks quite notable to me. Due to the nature of pirate radio stations, you can't expect them to shout about their activities from the roof tops can you? Therefore some information regarding them will remain unknown and so cannot be included in an article. --Cexycy (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An external link doesn't automatically make an article notable! Your "shouting from the roof-tops" statement is irrelevent, as that is more a self-promotion issue, nothing to do with notability. Rapido (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You are asking about notability, well here we have an external link (ie nothing to do with Wikipedia, therefore a viable back-up source) to support the contect of the article. The article itself is not very well written, but that can easily be improved at a later date as with any article. My statement about "shouting from the roof-tops" is only to point out that as a criminal activity, these pirate radio broadcasters want to make sure they ae not over exposed. If you look at the website you will see there are no landline 'phone numbers, only mobiles. There is also no postal address. In short if this is a pirate station, then there will obviously be few back up sources than normal, so proving notability will be harder. As this IS a radio station and Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, it would not be fair to delete this article. I'm sure you understand my point. --Cexycy (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to cross verifiability and notability thresholds due to lack of independent reliable sources. That a website exists for this admittedly criminal activity does nothing to prove that there is an actual pirate station nor that it has any notability outside the heads of its involved persons. WP has plenty of articles on notable pirate radio stations but, based on the lack of third-party coverage, this one does not make the grade. - Dravecky (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cexycy makes an argument many do: that if sources don't exist for a subject (or type of subject) that associated articles should be kept anyway, just because it's unfair to ask for sources when there aren't any. This quaint POV has no basis in WP:V, the fundamental policy of the encyclopedia. To quote from it, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. RGTraynor 14:26, 27 December 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) 01:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnose (cigarette)

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

Non notable brand of cigarettes. No reliable sources to support assertion of notability only references to trade magazines. Crafty (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even see the assertion of notability unless you consider being the only wine flavored one in Russia to be notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, as there is no coverage of it in reliable sources. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more reliable sources are forthcoming. Peridon (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP in order to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:18, 6 January 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Lee

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not competed at the highest amateur swimming level which is FINA World Aquatics Championships not FINA World Cup which Felicia has competed in. simply being a member of the US National team squad does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would argue that competing in even the Pan Pacific Swimming Championships would be enough. (NB:Please don't debate this here!) This young lady, however, as only competed in the junior version of the same. I firmly believe we will someday have an article about this young woman- but not yet. Delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LuvFree.com

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

I can't find significant coverage for this dating website. It seems to fail WP:WEB. Tim Song (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plus it seems to be self-promotional. Search engines results don't qualify an inclusion in Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Majorly talk 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just promotional. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 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) 01:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revekka Roussi

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

No notable works.No references.Resembles Fan POV. Adi4094 (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if she is so famous, I think I would have an easier time finding sources. Nothing on Google News, and good old-fashioned Google search is turning up almost exclusively social networking/blog types of sites. Thus, significant reliable 3rd party coverage, as dictated by the notability guidelines, appears to be lacking. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:35, 6 January 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Moore

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

Non-notable XBOX repairman with a YouTube channel. The article probably asserts enough notability to get past speedy, yet actually to my surprise searches like moore "xbox slave" return nothing genuine, and I can't find anything else that could establish his notability. Possible WP:ARTSPAM. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication that this Jimmie Moore is a notable person. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails in all aspects of WP:BIO Pleasantview (talk) 09:17, 25 December 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 Non-admin closure, Jimfbleak speedy deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Salem Baida

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

I speedied this but am voluntarily converting it to an AfD because on reconsideration I guess it plausibly asserts some degree of notability in being a co-CEO of a media company with a notable rapper. However, I can't find any sources for the company "Salem International, Inc.," and am concerned it may be a WP:HOAX (see Google, for instance). There's a company with such a name (see [5]), but it's a Virgin Islands-based subsidiary of Salem Sportswear, Inc. Other searches that should turn up results don't. Searches like this one don't fill me with confidence that he's involved in a significant venture with the rapper Kurupt. There's a Blake Baida whose LinkedIn profile lists him as owning Salem International, and a few more unconvincing results if you search under "Blake Salem," but all in all he's certainly not notable, and I have to say it's possible that this article isn't entirely accurate. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:Autobiography and WP:COI. Also doesn't fully establish WP:N (I think). --Bsa dow ski1 08:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did I not notice the autobiography issue, which, you're right is completely obvious? Good catch. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted. --Bsa dow ski1 08:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I think I put a little too much work into this AfD nom, oh well. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:SouthernNights — æk ^Talk 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehcp for Developers (php and html/css)

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

WP:NOT a guide for how to use a software. This was (according to Coren Search Bot) a transcription from a wiki on EHCP (like all the other random wikia type wikis). No statement of notability. Also included another article by same author that's the same. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:10, 25 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uma stone

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

Porn actress, does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Seems to have done some web stuff, but nothing catalogued at IAFD. Author contested PROD, and its username is the same as her the production company she's apparently affiliated with. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedia worthy.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 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 WP:NOT. The term exists at en.wiktionary as an Indian name, and seems to exist in several of the foreign language projects. If anyone wants a copy of this to add there, I'll be happy to oblige. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi

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

Should be transcluded to wiktionary if not already there. Original author (good faith) was WP:BITE by an anon vandal, so I felt that putting another db tag on this wasn't a good idea. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, exactly. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki / Delete. Might be worthwhile at Wiktionary if it isn't already. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:31, 6 January 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare and Pakistan

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

On one hand, I don't want to delete this article, rather have it rewritten as it is a notable topic. On the other hand, it is clearly a POV fork and not neutral, if it isn't someone's essay or dissertation. At the same time, this new editor published this very same (unchanged) article under "medical quackery in pakistan", which clearly states the point of view of this person. Lastly, the "reference" links to a healthcare providing website (which doesn't really back up the dissertation) riddled with "testimonials", so there's the possible connection of promotion. Either way though, this article's quality is severely atrocious and riddled with original research, and I am nominating it for deletion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons well stated by the nominator; I had tagged this for speedy deletion as needlessly duplicating Health care in Pakistan, and Noian may well be right that that wasn't the best use of the tag (sorry). But to the extent this differs from the existing article, it differs in being (1) unnecessary, (2) unsourced, (3) an apparent POV fork, and (4) in general, "severely atrocious" as stated above. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to health care in Pakistan, of which it's an essay-like duplication (as noted by the above users). I think this could legitimately have been redirected rather than speedied. EALacey (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I've done that in other cases, but I hesitate because it basically amount to me unilaterally deleting the article with no admin oversight, and a ~~n00b~~ new editor may not know how to undo or contest it. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reasonable points. EALacey (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. many problems with reliabilty of this article. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced POV fork of Health care in Pakistan. The editors who created Healthcare and Pakistan and Health Care and Pakistan (an almost identical page, which I have redirected) had previously added the same link to Health care in Pakistan, but it was being reverted. snigbrook (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 26 December 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 the discussion, the theories are not sufficiently notable for an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JM Rights Index

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

Two non-notable theories created by a non-notable scholar (see Google, for instance). Only source appears to be Meng's book itself, which according to the articles' creator was just published this month. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book is actually a doctoral thesis, and it's not clear that it has been published except through Google Books. I would not imagine that most rating scales are notable. EALacey (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep. The work does get some positive comments on this blog. The blog seems to be by an emeritus professor, so I guess that is quite important. If we do keep something, I would suggest it is an article on the work as a whole. i.e. Both of the indices and the thesis which used the indices. Having two separate articles, one on each index, seems pointless. I would suggest naming the article after the thesis. However, "Origins of attitudes to animals" sounds like a general article title, rather than a piece about a specific work. Perhaps the article should be called "JM animal attitude indices". Yaris678 (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could find no coverage in Google News. Google Scholar only showed the author of the thesis the Index is based on. Regarding a Google search, the following results [6] show either Wikipedia – Wikipedia mirror sites or self-interest web/blog sites for the author. Without any additional coverage from independent sources it does not meet any of our notability guidelines for inclusion. JAAG^Talk 00:51, 2 January 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daiu International

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

Does not state notability. Google news gives no hits. Listed to AfD instead of CSD because I'm not an expert on Japanese/International sites. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 6 google hits suggest this "international company" hasn't got very far yet. Polarpanda (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this information on Daiu International, LLC is very useful to users who are interested in learning about the company. This international entity is fairly new and new information will be added as the website expands. I believe the content is suitable and a wonderful beginning for an elongated article with the years to come.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny3005 (talk • contribs) 2009/12/26 01:21:04
Delete. I don't see any notability per WP standards here. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising: an American-based e-company with diverse cultural and linguistic services... the company incorporated a detailed forum and informative subpages... offers great linguistic tools to students of the Japanese language. The company also promotes cultural diversity and environmental sustainability..... becomes one step closer to providing the most detailed and user-friendly package.... "E-company"??? Give me a break. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the three preceding !votes are from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daiu International, LLC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, non-notable, reads like an ad. Google search finds only their own website and this Wikipedia page. The company is only a year and a half old. If it grows and becomes more notable (i.e. recognized by outside sources) in the future it could be recreated then. But for now it doesn't meet WP standards. (BTW the article says it is an American-based company but the only category listed is "Companies of Japan"; what's up with that?) --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[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. or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insufflation (medicine)

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

The word 'insufflation' means 'to blow'. This article is about the intranasal administration of drugs, which is something different. I believe that because this article purports to be about a medical concept, it should be held to strict standards of verifiability. I cannot find the word 'insufflate' being used in this way in any online dictionary. The cited sources do not uphold the purported definition of the term. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (a trained doctor)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to withdraw my nomination because my nomination and the 'keep' replies don't actually conflict with each other. I support the idea of an article at insufflation (medicine) - I just hope that someone is able to improve on what's there currently. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives as its second definition of Insufflation a medical use:

2. The blowing or breathing (of something) in; in Med. the blowing of air, etc. into the lungs, or of gas, vapour, or powder into or on some part of the body. 1823 CRABB Technol. Dict., Insufflation (Med.), the blowing into any cavity. 1849-52 TODD Cycl. Anat. IV. 1046/2 Insufflation in the dead body is not the movement of inspiration in the living subject. 1876 BARTHOLOW Mat. Med. (1879) 4 By the method of insufflation solid medicinal agents in a finely-divided state are applied to various parts of the respiratory tract. 1887 J. W. BURGON in Fortn. Rev. Apr. 593 With the insufflation of his soul, Adam received also the grace of the Holy Spirit. 1897 Allbutt's Syst. Med. IV. 681 The insufflation of iodoform..has given good results. 1898 Ibid. V. 198 Violent inspiratory efforts..and..consequent insufflation of infective secretion into healthy lung.

Also the third definition is medical.

3. The condition of being inflated or distended with air. 1866 A. FLINT Princ. Med. (1880) 244 The names acute emphysema and insufflation are given to a dilatation of the air-cells frequently met with in the lungs of those who have suffered from severe dyspn{oe}a during the last days or hours of life. 1877 ROBERTS Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 171 The lungs are in many cases the seat of acute insufflation.

The definition given for insufflator is also relevant:

A contrivance for insufflating. a. An instrument for blowing air into the lungs or for injecting powders into a cavity, a wound, etc. b. A kind of injector for blowing air into a furnace. 1872 COHEN Dis. Throat 192 Astringent powders may be propelled upon the parts..from the insufflator of Rauchfuss. 1886 Syd. Soc. Lex., Ribemont-Dessaigne's Insufflator, an instrument for inflating the lungs in an asphyxiated newborn child. 1897 Allbutt's Syst. Med. IV. 682 To insufflate the nose with iodoform by means of Kabierski's insufflator.

LittleHow (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED appears to confirm that I am right - insufflation is about blowing, not sniffing. I don't have a problem with us having an article on insufflation as a medical procedure, but all of your references from the late 1800s describe obsolete medical therapies. The present article is about modern intranasal drug administration. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is editing work to do but it does not require deletion. Our dab page snort leads here and we should not allow such a common term to dead-end. The term insufflation is sometimes used to mean snorting by sources such as this but it would be better to have it under the common name of snorting. Insufflation is properly blowing rather than snorting. This has medical uses and so we should split the article so that it blows rather than sucks. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though insufflate from the Latin means to blow it also covers the meaning to breath in. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following explanation of its etymology:

[f. L. insuffl{amac}t-, ppl. stem of insuffl{amac}re (post-cl.), f. in- (IN-2) + suffl{amac}re to blow upon. Cf. F. insuffler (14-15th c.).] 1. trans. To blow or breathe in.

The word was originally used in a religious context--"Blowing or breathing upon a person or thing to symbolize the influence of the Holy Spirit and the expulsion of evil spirits; a rite of exorcism used in the Roman, Greek, and some other churches". It has since become adopted for a medical and psychoactive drug self-administrative one. Other words have made this passage such as "placebo".

There is an important difference which needs to be distinguished with the administration of psychoactive but also toxic drugs between those procedures over which a person has no control and those over which they can control and so "titrate". A procedure under the control of a person and which they can monitor (since it goes straight to the brain as with snorting and "smoking") allows the intake of the substance so that it is self-administered to maximum psychoactive effect but also near but not over the point of its toxicity. For this reason I would argue against the alternative of a delete of a merge with Nasal administration. --LittleHow (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nasal administration. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insufflation is not just about the nose. For example, perirenal insufflation was a common process for diagnosis of kidney complaints. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Keep. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had split this article from Insufflation because the latter mostly described the religious context (though most of the links to that article were in the medical context). It did not make sense to have them together in the same article (at least, not as it was written). I can't otherwise vouch for Insufflation (medicine) as I split it pretty much as-was. (See also Talk:Insufflation (medicine)#Split or Talk:Insufflation#Merger proposal) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pubmed shows that Insufflation is a widely and diversely used word in medicine with it appearing in 1301 medical article titles and 4378 article abstracts. Some of these usages are already in wikipedia though not mentioned in the article such as Artificial_respiration#Insufflations. --LittleHow (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Benjamin Raubinsons

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

Procedural nomination. Contested prod, rationale was Makes a claim of notability, but no real evidence thereof. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google doesn't return much, and the second hit from the top is Wikipedia's copyright violations noticeboard, when it was dealing with a previous incarnation of this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their Myspace page calls them the "self proclaimed founders of the 'attic rock' scene," and from my searching they're the only ones who do. In fact, it doesn't seems like anyone is really talking about this group at all, certainly not in "multiple non-trivial published works." No other notable achievements. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the two editors above; no real notability is asserted, and their only claim is to be a music band. I can think of plenty other small amateur small rock bands that have likewise failed Wikipedia:Notability (music) in this manner before. KaySL (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the prodder. LadyofShalott 14:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no touring or other evidence this passes WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 26 December 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 close. One of these articles is already having an AfD, thus it is inappropriate to raise another. This seems to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee and related articles

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

These 3 articles are about assasination plots and scares of the Obamas. I see that there is growing support for deletion of the Hawaii article, therefore I will agree with the possible consensus and call for equal treatment of all 3 articles, which would be delete. They are all minor plots where no shots were fired so I can kind of see why some want deletion. All involved the alleged assasin travelling, but in the Hawaii case, the person travelled all the was from Boston. This is not a pointy request but an attempt for uniformity in Wikipedia. Hopefully, someone will help lengthen the Hawaii article to change opinions about retention/deletion.

The Tennessee and Denver articles are very long but the police admit that these were just early failures, early cases that don't even resemble a real assassination or attempts (like JFK or that guy in the Republic of Georgia) but just some evil clowns with stupid ideas (which is still punishable by jail so don't copy them. Standard TV warning: Kids, don't do this at home)

Maybe some may support merging all 3 articles together. JB50000 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denver/Tenneesse. Defer Hawaii debate to that AFD. I am the primary author of the Denver and Tennessee articles; I've played no part in the Hawaii one. I think JB500000 means well here, but this isn't the answer. First of all, there is already an AFD for the Hawaii article ongoing, even as we speak. It's downright nonsensical to start another AFD for it in the meantime. Secondly, it seems as if JB50k is advocating a merge of these articles into one Obama assassination article. Such a discussion should happen on talk pages, not AFD. I think there is some merit to the idea of a Barack Obama assassination plots article, or something of the same name. There have been numerous other assassination scares regarding President Obama (see here for a few). However, even if an article like that were to be made, deleting the Denver and Tennessee articles would not be the right answer. Contrary to what JB50k said, those two plots were more serious and more advanced than the Hawaii one, or any of those others that have popped up along the way, like this or this. The Denver/Tennessee plots should of course be included in a round-up page about all the Obama threats, but the fact is that the Denver/Tennessee plots received far more coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which of course is a big part of the general notability guidelines. The Denver/Tennessee articles could be summarized on an overall threats page, with a link to the main articles. To simply merge them into the Obama threats article would outweigh everything else, and raise problems as far as WP:TOOLONG. And, finally, as I've already stated, the Denver and Tennessee articles satisfy WP:Notability, and so a deletion or merge is not appropriate. Furthermore, both are well-written, well-sourced articles, for which their notability has already been thoroughly discussed and vetted. Both are good articles (see Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/GA1 and Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/GA1). The Denver article has already survived a deletion attempt within this last month, which makes its nomination particularly inappropriate. And the Denver article is a featured article candidate, although I'm saddened to suspect its FAC is going to get derailed by these constant, unfair deletion attempts. Sorry for the long-winded nature of this post, but the Denver/Tennessee should not be deleted... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: JB500000, I also disagree with your claims that there should be "uniformity" among these three articles. If the consensus (which is still not determined) dictates the Hawaii article should be deleted, that in no way indicates the other two should be as well, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. They should be treated as individual articles, not lumped together... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - The notability of each of these events is separate from the notability of the other ones, so I don't think they should have been nominated together. Regardless, the Denver article should not have been nominated for deletion again so soon, as it was already speedy kept this month. Since the Hawaii article is already in the middle of an AfD, it doesn't make sense to me to be discussing it in two places. Furthermore, there aren't AfD tags on the Tennessee and Denver articles, and the tag on the Hawaii article leads to the other discussion, so this AfD is malformed. For all those reasons, I think this discussion should be speedy closed. Calathan (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close & Admonish/Warn nominator Completely frivolous off-the-charts nomination: nominator pissed off that "his" article got nominated for being a badly written stub, and already tried to disrupt it by fiddling with it and changing my conttributions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been nominated for deletion?—nothing wrong with it at all, seems a bit POINTy. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Railways steam locomotives as of 31 December 1967

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

Too arcane and dated. I admit that I am pretty ignorant of British railway systems, but this seems like it is too Byzantine of a topic for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article makes perfect sense in the context of Steam locomotives of British Railways, from which it serves as a useful adjunct; the alternative is to merge it back in with that one, but I'm content that they were separated with good cause. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering something obscure is not an adequate reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits with the level of detail on rail-oriented articles and is not just an arbitrary date. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important part of Steam locomotives of British Railways.--MaximilianT (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm no expert with railways, at all, but I know that Britain is important in the history of rail. If I'm reading this right it's details of the locomotives still in operation right at the end of steam's usage on mainline British railways. Whether or not this is the level of detail needed and whether a separate article is needed is one thing, but I seriously doubt this is the kind of material which should be deleted outright. Someone another 13:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Clearly, I'm missing something here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before it closes, I think that someone should consider any alternative to the silly name of the article, which I think prompted the nomination in the first place. I don't believe that an article should be deleted merely for having an odd title, but nothing says "obscure" like throwing a phrase like "as of 31 December 1967" into the name of an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyland Coughlin

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

A quick scan through Google hits produces nothing but the Wikipedia page itself and the artist's MySpace page, leading me to believe it was self-promotional. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom, can find no third party coverage, fails WP:GNG. J04n(talk page)
Keep. His band is notable enough for the Cleveland Plain Dealer to keep tabs on, which should be enough for a start. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Regardless of how big the paper is, this is a case of the local paper covering a local act. I bet they talked about the quarterback from the local high school too. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 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 redirect to Xplanet. Nobody argued this should be kept, so I'm turning it into a redirect to Xplanet, where it's already mentioned as a derivative. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OSXplanet

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

The only WP:SECONDARY ref I found for this the macosxhints.com one, which I've added to the article. Now, that site accepts user submissions, but they are filtered by a professional journalist who also works for MacWorld. This entry was actually submitted (and approved) by himself. So, it's a self-published source, albeit by a professional. This nomination should be considered a weak delete !vote. Pcap ping 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:21, 25 December 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. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Cochran

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

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

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

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

Keep. Author of half a dozen books, now emeritus faculty at UBC; evidence that he has been influential over some extended period of time in a particular area. The article needs help in copy editing it to wiki standards, but I'd prefer to see it WP:BETTER than deleted. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. PsycINFO finds 36 publications by this author and 7 reviews of his books (representing a wide range of attitudes). His book The Sense of Vocation is cited 19 times in Web of Science and 46 times in Google Scholar. Library holdings of his books are respectable given their relatively specialised topics. All this probably qualifies as "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). EALacey (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeval locations

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

Unnotable list of unnotable fictional locations of the Primeval series. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. The locations have no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and such a list is not an appropriate component of any television series article. Deprodded by User:DGG with note of "sorry, meant to deprod"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence is offered for the claims made by the nomination. A brief search soon indicates that the locations for this work are, in fact, notable. See here, for example. No discussion was made at the article's talk page and so the nomination fails WP:BEFORE in several ways. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant series, and the best way of handling the material. The individual locations are perhaps notable, perhaps not, but the individual parts of an article do not have to be. (FWIW, I would oppose making separate articles for them even if they were, as excessive fragmentation). They are sourced by the work itself, which is not only acceptable but preferred for factual description of fiction. It could in principle be merged into the main article, and it might appear basically a question of arrangement,--even so, for major series, dividing it up rather than having one monster article is appropriate. However, it is a much more than just a question of arrangement, when we combine too far, the material often gets removed. The nom apparently intends to do just that, saying "Such a list is not an appropriate component of every fiction series article for major fiction". I do not see on what basis information about the locations and setting is not an appropriate component of the coverage of fiction. I challenge the nom to say why they think otherwise. It is nominations like this which show why we have not been able to reach a compromise: those who would prefer separate articles will compromise on combination ones, but the fiction minimalists refuse even that--and apparently refuse even coverage in the main articles. It is true we would not include this information if we were an encyclopedia designed for 19th century scholars, but that's the opposite type of encyclopedia from Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because extensive minute coverage of the fictional locations of a little 23 episode series are NOT necessary to understanding the basics of the series. Who the hell needs a one paragraph description of what a "home office" is to understand that they have an office they work out of? Most of the locations are one episode locations, and not even "major" locations within the series. The locations are properly mentioned, in context, within the episode and plot descriptions. A list of them is beyond pointless and excessive. People wanting to keep stuff like this is why we can't reach a compromise. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. A major series may warrant a single character list split, or an episode list. But not a list of every freaking fictional element it may possibly contain because the fans want to wax on and on with their personal interpretations and beliefs about a series. The main article is just plain out damn pathetic, and barely above a stub, but yes, lets have 15 subarticles anyway because OMG don't you dare take away my right to randomly guess and conduct OR on Wikipedia because its just fiction and who cares. The material is also not appropriate in the main article per the guidelines for a quality television article set out by consensus of those who actually bother to work on them, rather than the "fiction overcoveragers" (if you want to throw around derogatory terms) who just run around screaming keep at every little fiction item that they themselves will never actually improve or deal with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have different ideas about the amount of information we think necessary to understanding. I consider this an encyclopedia , not an abridged encyclopedia. (That said, I agree some of the descriptions can be shortened; a great many articles of this sort would benefit from it--but that's just a question of editing. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While neutral about the article's existence, I find the title of the article highly ambiguous and misleading. Would strongly prefer a title such as "List of Primeval (TV series) locations". I honestly thought the article had something to do with other articles such as Primeval forest. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if kept rename per Aladdin Sane, as "Primeval" in this context is highly ambiguous, and List of Primeval (TV series) locations is a much better title. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's cool that the series has great locations, but that is not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. The purpose of an article is for people who don't know about something to get the basic information, and in this case maybe watch the program. One article is enough to do this. No need for articles on the locations, etc. which are no interest except to people who are already fans ~~and they shouldn't be reading about their program in an encyclopedia anyway~~. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete rationale seems to be mostly IDONTLIKEIT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to be the only delete vote and I do like it, just not in an encyclopedia for the general public.Northwestgnome (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or if kept, rename). The locations just don't come anywhere near notability. There are a bajillion TV, book, movie series. There are bajillion^N fictional locations. Listing them all is a lovely (if sysyphean) idea for a project... somewhere else. Not on this site. If this particular series is special in some way that others are not, such that its locations are somehow notable in themselves, then at least the name of this page needs to be clearer. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the individual locations do not come anywhere near notability, and we should not have individual articles on them. That's in fact the whole point of having an article like this, to cover them appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scope of this article fails WP:N, as well as WP:WAF as there is no significant out-of-universe coverage of this material. Just as we don't need to create an article on my hand just because each of the fingers on it aren't notable, we don't need to have an article on a nonnotable grouping of locations just because each of them aren't notable by themselves. Them From Space 03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Also fails WP:WAF. Relevent locations already appear to be discussed within the episode descriptions. Sarilox (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I'm ignoring Schmucky's comment because software can't be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BoycottAdvance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Competition 10

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[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) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netty Leek

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

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

Delete. Books appear to be self published, although I did find one article about the subject from a local newspaper[7]. Pburka (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 25 December 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) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyscarnate

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither can I. They've had two unreleased demos and an EP released on a tiny indie label. Does not meet WP:BAND. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the best I can find is this trivial mention. J04n(talk page) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Dyscarnate/77280 RDV (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dorman (broadcaster)

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

Unsourced BLP, does not indicate encyclopedic notability, spammy, possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-18t14:09z 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are definitely sources out there for this man, ~~for example as bassist in Iron Butterfly LA Times here and~~ his book here He has had several marginally notable roles as a DJ so he may just make it as an article. Polargeo (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Tried hard to find proper coverage of this guy and his book. His book exists and is for sale- but i couldnt find any reviews, sales figures etc- just sellers sites. Subject doesnt appear to be notable. If good references and links are included in the article at some poitn msg me and i might change my vote. --Brunk500 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENT. Take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 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) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy S. Wilkinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete -- All of this seems to be original research devoted to publicizing self-published materials Vartanza (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 26 December 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plascore Incorporated

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

No references listed outside of industry publications. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~Weak keep 1 hit in gnews [8]. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you do a Google search, it's generally best to omit "Inc." and "Incorporated" from the company name. This Google News archive search (omitting "Incorporated") brings up about 38 hits. As well, the article already includes some references. I was impressed by this one: Plascore receives awards from CERN. If CERN likes you, you're cool. - Eastmain (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this meets WP:CORP. 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Media

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

Non-notable neologisms. Participatory Media is badly named (capitalization), but it cannot be renamed except by a sysop since Participatory media already exists as a redirect to Citizen media (being nominated for deletion too). The fact that this situation has existed for over three years may be an indication of something, that these terms are not generally accepted, that they are vague and confusing and not of encyclopedic interest, or whatever. Though I don't see any urgent need to keep them, I really don't give a damn if one or both are deleted, if they are merged, or if both stay with renaming of the badly named one and cross-linking between the two. If anybody does care, explain how you think this problem should be fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these neologisms are related through the redirect as noted above:

Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also Citizen journalism and User-generated content, and some others. Both those two are perhaps more widely used terms. At the very least merge the two under discussion. Sussexonian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also Democratic media, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand why this page is marked for deletion. "Participatory media" is a term that is used quite extensively at MIT and even Stanford, e.g. in courses such as "4.330/4.331 Introduction to Networked Cultures and Participatory Media: Media City" and "Participatory Media: Radical Networks, Tactics, Breakdowns", projects such as "Participatory Media for Youth and Community Development", theses such as "Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement" (by Howard Rheingold, Stanford University) and "Participatory Media and Collaborative Facilitation", etc.

Can "Participatory media" be redirected to here? Alternatively, if capitalization is a problem, can "Participatory Media" be redirected to "Participatory media" (a new page with the contents from "Participatory Media")?

Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Don't see how this meets WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

Academics do use and papers/books do have the term "participatory media". As mentioned above, "participatory media" is a term that is used at MIT and Stanford.

btw, how do you add the timing here?

From the Citizen Media page: "Many people prefer the term 'participatory media' to 'citizen media' as citizen has a necessary relation to a concept of the nation-state. The fact that many millions of people are considered stateless and often without citizenship limits the concept to those recognised only by governments. Additionally the very global nature of many participatory media initiatives, such as the Independent Media Center, makes talking of journalism in relation to a particular nation-state largely redundant as its production and dissemination do not recognise national boundaries."

Personally, I think the terms "social media" is inadequate. Participatory media are "social media whose value and power derives from the active participation of many people" - not only to read/sample, befriend, chitchat, etc. but also to create, publish, critique, remix, recreate, collaborate, etc.

See also Levels of Participation: The SocialTechnographic Ladder developed by Forrester to indicate levels of participation among users of social media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see new updates that I've made to the "participatory media" entry - adding references to certain things said on "participatory media" by notable people such as Dan Gilmor, Jay Rosen, David Sifry, and Weinberger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So, how does it relate to citizen media? What is to be done to fix the redirects mess? Has anybody done anything about that? Obviously not. The what links here pages for the two articles don't show any connections between them.

Participatory media still goes to citizen media and not to Participatory Media, which remains improperly capitalized.

Delete. I still say delete them both, unless somebody cares enough about them to salvage one article from them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you salvage one article. How about removing the redirect, putting the content in Participatory Media into Participatory media, then deleting Participatory Media? Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is a properly done request for multiple articles; it includes Citizen media as well. Read the bit below the initial reasons; that's the text WP:AfD tells me to put there for multiple articles.

Keep after a bit of searching I think that the term is notable, but I've read the article and I can't really say that I know anymore about what participatory media is. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My inclination is also to keep both articles at this time, per WP:PRESERVE, with an eye to possibly merging in the future. An admin will be needed to move Participatory Media to Participatory media, over the existing redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping both, with no cross-linking and coordination between them, is not a reasonable option. Better to delete both, and if in the future somebody want's to start over again, fine. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal 'See alsos' and a merge tag do allow a certain amount of cross-linking and coordination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable enough as a stopgap measure. If nothing gets done in a reasonable time it should be reviewed again. Part of the problem with these neologisms is that while there may indeed be some usage as presented in the articles, others might call it by different names, or use the same terminology with different meanings. Just be sure that the closing admin moves Participatory Media to Participatory media over the redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should have articles about concepts, not jargon. There seems to be salvageable material in this one, even though it badly overlaps with other articles as indicated above. Deciding how to divide a topic between multiple articles is generally a hopeless task at AfD. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Journalism can help organize this mess? Pcap ping 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for now - I agree with Pcap above that this is not really an issue to be solved by AfD. Both these phrases ('citizen media' and 'participatory media') have been fairly widely used and probably deserve articles - even if they are neologisms, they're notable ones. I agree that they cover very similar topics, and the articles are largely unreferenced, but those are issues to be solved by improving and merging them (if necessary), not deletion. Robofish (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Robert) Bolger

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

Non-notable horse breeder. The last paragraph is copied from what appears to be his death notice -- the article doesn't mention it, but he died this past November 2. My condolences, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and I can't find anything that would indicate he passes WP:BIO. Speedy was declined and PROD removed, so it's here now. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC). Edited to add: the [version] of the article did mention his death and funeral.[reply]

Keep - Bolger was one of ten people profiled in the book A Way With Horses - which is sufficient to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Point taken, but on balance I don't believe that a profile in a book about people "who have spent their lives working with horses in County Galway" constitutes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which WP:GNG looks for. And I note that the publisher, Ardcru Books, seems to be a tiny outfit that only publishes books about Connemara ponies; I can find out almost nothing about it. In fact, if you click the link for the "Ardcru weblog" on the left-hand side of their page, it turns out to be "Niamh's Weblog," the site of the author of "A Way With Horses." I think that pretty much means this is a self-published book. And I don't know how many people there can be in County Galway who are fanatics about Connemara pony breeding, so I'd have to think Niamh O'Dochartaigh and Bobby Bolger knew each other. Just adding this perspective to the discussion. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases where a biographer writes about a living person, the author gets to know the subject. I agree that the secondary source should be independent of the subject, but the jury is still out on whether this source qualifies or not. Racepacket (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable horse breeder as evidenced by the existence of a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the book would cut it as a RS, it seems too limited in scope to be considered significant coverage. If I published a book about people who live in my house, they'd be in a published book, but would that make them notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 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. Wow, a FL gets deleted through AFD, first time I see that. Anyway, the list of works is summarized in the author's article, if anyone is interested in adding more, let me know. Tone 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by William Monahan

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

There's something suspicious going on with this article. First, there was the article credited to Mr. Monahan but actually written by myself. Second, I'm pretty sure "Vanity Plates" was written by Christopher Caldwell. I'd like someone to look into this. Your help pages indicate that "All Encyclopedia content must be verifiable." Well, can we have that? --unsigned by User:Yuck_I_says

Delete This is alleged to be a hoax by David Myers and a quick search revealed no RSes. Arhus denizen (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The Lighthouse books are on Amazon and he has an entry on IMDB but most of the page is a list of unverifiable and probably unimportant articles. Sussexonian (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with someof it merged back to the main article. A few may be wrong, but it is not a hoax in general, but just an overly expansive listing of extremely minor works (book reviews, newspaper columns, etc.) by a relatively minor author with one famous screenplay. The details belong on a fansite. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to being created by a user with a self-stated intent to fill the encyclopedia with disinformation, it's an absurdly detailed list for a minor figure. Basically, this author has about 5 notable works (screenplays, i think a novel, one or two other odds and ends) which all get a mention in the text of his biographical article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Wagner

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

Non-notable member of a barely notable group. No non-trivial coverage found. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not independently notable, and to the extent her membership in Shut Up Stella is used to assert her notability, it's not enough because the relevant WP:MUSICBIO guideline only applies to "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles," which she has not. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cabrera

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

Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability presented. GregorB (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown in the article. Edward321 (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for his extensive work on filariasis, a parasitic disease; I'm looking for a good reference, but there's 62 references in Google Scholar for that alone. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the man is indeed notable for his work in parasitology. The little content in the article appears to have been lifted from WikiPilipinas, whose content is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. I'm therefore going to splice the rest of that articles content into the Wikipedia one, along with its two references. KaySL (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites not high but has done important work on parasitology in the Phillipines. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 28 December 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. basically with the lack of signifiant coverage which hurts his case for notability JForget 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Scott McFadden

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

Non-notable voice actor. Probably enough to pass db-a7, so I've listed him here, but I can find nothing significant about him and his thin IMDb listing, as Brian McFadden (III), is here. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources. No evidence he meets notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've searched for info on him, it seems his main claim to notability is his letterman appearance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hql_8lPuNJA. So i guess it comes down to whether that makes him notable --Brunk500 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hey, thanks for finding the video, that was fairly funny. I hope for his sake he becomes more notable, but I don't believe a 5 1/2 minute Letterman appearance meets WP:ENT's standard of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable comedian. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything more to say about what makes him notable, or is this WP:JUSTAVOTE? Glenfarclas (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. One appearence on any show isn't going to cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GB Fan. It should be noted that there is a Washington Post article being cited within this biographical article. ...only it's not really about Brian Scott McFadden at all. It's a passing mention of one of his shows. I am endorsing deletion based on the lack of non-trivial coverage about this individual from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Dispatch

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

Small software company, only external references are to industry newsletters. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Notice confined to media of limited interest and circulation does not feed the weasel. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how press releases and listings in reference databases meets WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 31 December 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. No specific sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shipleys of Maryland

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

WP:NN club Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Near to a textbook case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL; this organization seems only to plump up this particular family. No independent sources, fails WP:ORG. There are a handful of Google News hits, most in obituaries, and none about the organization. Article created by a SPA who hasn't been active for over a year, and no other editors have made substantive improvements since; it's carried maintenance tags for a year. Article is orphaned as well. RGTraynor 09:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief search establishes that this organisation is, in fact, quite notable. The nomination does not mention or discuss these numerous sources and the matter has not been discussed at the article's talk page. The nomination thus fails our basic deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just out of curiosity, have you looked at any of those links to ascertain that they are about the organization instead of the family? Even a casual glance reveals that almost without exception, they have "GENEALOGICAL STUDY" all over the titles and text; they are obviously about the family and not about this organization. (This common false positive might have been avoided had you used "Shipleys of Maryland" in your search parameters rather than "Shipleys" + "Maryland;" the former parameter returns zero Google Books hits.) Beyond that, leaving aside that no one genuinely claims that talk page discussions are prerequisites to AfD, this article hasn't had a non-maintenance edit in thirteen months, the SPA creator's long gone from Wikipedia, and surely anyone who would notice a talk page discussion on this article would notice a AfD filed, and would have responded before a relisting. RGTraynor 11:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked at those links and, yes, some of them do discuss the organisation. As for the pre-requisites, these are clearly described at WP:BEFORE, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors.". This process follows the general consensus of our dispute resolution procedure which requires efforts to discuss with parties locally before going to a central forum such as this, "Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Some of those links do discuss the organization in detail? Terrific; that would suffice, if it was true. Which ones, specifically? RGTraynor 21:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a WP:COATRACK for genealogy on the Shipley family. There's no evidence that this organization has any real notability (total lack of Gnews hits, for example). Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are numerous hits for the organisation in Google news and so your statement is false. It's curious that RG Traynor assets that there are zero Google Books hits when I see dozens in that link too. I wonder if there's some regional filter which is stopping you seeing the hits for some reason. Colonel Warden (talk)

I have asked you more than once now to provide links to reliable sources discussing this organization in "significant detail." There are none from Google News in the last month [9]. The archive search returns 21 hits [10], of which most are obituaries of officers or titles included in CVs. Not a single one discusses the organization in detail. I'll ask you once more: provide links to such sources. RGTraynor 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe and nom, Wikipedia is not a memorial. JBsupreme (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a definite coatrack article, using the group as a pretext for a lengthy article about this generally non-notable family. The article says virtually nothing about the group itself, which is not surprising since the group is not notable either. Most hits relate to its self-published book, and the Google Books hits are passing mentions of the book or newsletter in genealogical discussions, etc. Just not a notable organization, sorry. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:24, 31 December 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. AfD withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo Česen

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

The article is on a non-notable and virtually unknown mountaineer. No sources and only one obscure reference. KaySL (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an inaccurate characterisation - Tomo Cesen is notable for making (or controversially claiming to have made) many groundbreaking achievements in alpinism. I personally do not know much about him, but he is mentioned on several existing pages on wikipedia. I followed a link from one of them and saw there was not yet an article about him so added what I knew. Keithalexander (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, but what detail can be gathered is insufficient to justify a dedicated article on him, and the 'controversial' qualification to his claims seems to indicate even more of a lack of credibility. In any case, so far as I can tell, Česen fails to meet any of the standards laid down in WP:BIO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. KaySL (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clicking on the spoon-fed Google Books and News search links above shows obvious notability. Here a just the first few that I checked of those hundreds of sources:[11][12][13]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These sources merely show that the subject is guilty of perpetrating a hoax. This doesn't qualify him as notable under WP:BIO. KaySL (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sounds like he is notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Enough coverage from third party sources [14] to count as significant. I do not believe we require only coverage testifying to a man/womens outstanding character to be counted for inclusion. Only that it be significant coverage. If we were only suppose to use references that showed the individual in good-standing, I guess Jack The Ripper piece would have to be deleted. Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD retraction; the above points are perfectly valid, though I feel you misinterpreted my comments; I wasn't saying that the article shouldn't exist merely because he's not in good ethical standing, but that all he seems notable for is the one act of perpetrating a hoax, which doesn't appear to be that notable in its own right. However, as the consensus appears to be to keep the article, I see no reason to further prolong the AfD process, and am perfectly happy to withdraw my AfD nomination. Happy New Year to you too. KaySL (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (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. Blatant hoax; how are results from January 2010 known already? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket 2002 VG World Cup

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

If there was ever a reason for a CSD category for "stuff me and my friends are doing", this is it. It appears to be the results of a video game competition played over the past few days by some friends. So it isn't a hoax, it isn't gibberish, it does have context, it doesn't fit into the A7 cats but it has no notability and no place in an encylopedia. Also applies to Cricket 2002 VG and Cricket 2002 World Rankings. Looking at the contributors talk page, 3 other variations of this page have been CSDd already, but I can't see how the criteria can be applied. Please snow delete. The-Pope (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is plain garbage and lacks any form of notability. KaySL (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. First, any video game tournament is gonna have a hard time proving notability. This one appears to be nothing more than some friends playing a 7 year old game (the most this could possibly be is a local thing since the game came out before the system had online play). TJ Spyke 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is absolutely no place for stuff made up one day on Wikipedia. It should also be noted that the game being used doesn't have an article. (Side note - unless it's like that in the game, they love it so much that they don't know that Nottingham's cricket ground is called Trent Bridge.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just came across this article myself and was going to AfD, someone had saved me the hassle! Harrias (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Although I vehemently disagree with the interpretation of GNG that is being applied here, I can't see continuing this AfD much longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Cashville Prince

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article. Speedy was declined. Has been tagged for notability for over a year. Simply, the artists fails WP:MUSICBIO. He's never had a charting song and lacks coverage in the media. The authors provides a one off article in the NYT, but I don't believe that is enough. The article was from nearly 2 years ago, talking about how this artist is hoping be the "next big thing". 2 years later, he still hasn't charted. The rest of the sources fail WP:RS. Aside from the one article, there isn't really coverage by the media. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is written as if it is a press release. Artist pretty easily fails WP:MUSIC. Sure, there's a New York Times article, but it only discusses the subject's inability to become notable. As the nom mentioned, the rest of the sources are not reliable ones. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well ironically, in trying to point out his non-notability, they established the opposite. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that. Can you explain how a one time piece in the NYT, 2 years ago, about how the guy has not become successful yet make him notable? Particularly when we see that 2 years later, he still hasn't don't anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant enough coverage to meet the GNG. "Notable" is not the same as "successful," otherwise we should delete Detroit Lions, Ned Lamont, and Ishtar (irony alert). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did One article in a reliable source become sufficient coverage to meet GNG? As for lack of success, for musicians, they need some success. He're released no albums (let alone charted). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One article by a reliable source giving significant coverage has always been sufficient coverage to meet GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'd love to say Delete on the grounds that the article is a load of rubbish, unfortunately it does seem that the subject is moderately notable, therefore I have to say Keep. Deb (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I fail to see where one article about how he hasn't been successful equals notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The New York Times article is very significant coverage, thus satisfying WP:GNG. As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said, "notable" and "successful" are not the same thing. Someone can be "unsuccessful" and still be "notable."--Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says reliable sources. It points out that multiple sources are preferred. You folks are saying that a single article, just one article, in a RS is sufficient to make a person notable. Doesn't that strike anyone besides me as not being the intent of GNG? I can't believe that the intent of GNG was to say that everyone who is the subject of an article in any newspaper is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of GNG is that a topic has received significant coverage from reliable sources. As to your erroneous requirement that sources must be "multiple," WP:GNG states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources" and as you admitted, "Multiple sources are generally preferred," not "required." The quality of the source The New York Times is undeniable and the depth of coverage is sufficient. Of course it uses the plural "sources", so as not to confuse editors to seem coverage is restricted to one source. If more than one source was required, it would explicitly state "multiple sources."--Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, did you even read what I wrote? I very clearly said "It points out that multiple sources are preferred". For you to claim that I stated an "erroneous requirement" can only be explained by lack of attention or knowingly making a false accusation. I'll leave it to you to decide which it was. I never made the claim that multiple sources was a requirement. I said PREFERRED (maybe in caps you'll see it this time) very clearly. So let me ask those voting keep a very direct question: Are you stating that in your view a single article in a newspaper always makes someone notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd say a featured profile in what's arguably the most significant newspaper in the United States at the very least gives rise to a presumption of notability (as would a similar article in the leading newspaper in other major national markets); and in the absence of any substantive arguments otherwise, the presumption should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd what HW said. --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been what you meant Oakshade (I'll AGF), but it is not what you said in your keep !vote. You said "One article by a reliable source giving significant coverage has always been sufficient coverage to meet GNG". If we apply what you said, anyone covered in an article by any reliable source newspaper, which almost every local newspaper passes, would pass GNG and be notable enough for an article. For both of you, the talk about which paper it is in is really a smokescreen. Either a source is reliable or it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshade mentioned this on my talk page. Though not my subject, I think Niteshade is partially right: one article is not normally enough for WP:GNG; however, it is if it is in a exceptionally reliable source--reliable not just for accuracy, but for responsible editorial policies about covering what is important. I would think the NYT is an example of one such--and most especially when they devote a full feature article to the subject as they did here. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Niteshift....lol. Anyway, I'll share what I just said on your page here before I close what appears to be a keep. First, let's use WP:MUSICBIO as an example. Criteria #1 is that the artist be the subject of multiple published works. That criteria seems totally illogical if we are to follow the idea that a single published work is sufficient under GNG. Second, the idea of a single work being sufficient under GNG in this case seems to be at odds with WP:BLP1E. If 10 different reporters, from 10 different papers write about someone doing something, we delete it under BLP1E (a policy I support). In the case of the Cash Prince, the article is about no event, yet you feel it falls under GNG. If we apply GNG in the same manner to regular bios, most should never be deleted because they were covered in a reliable source. The fact that it is one event shouldn't matter because they get in under GNG. Lastly, as I also said, this appears to be WP:ILIKEIT once removed. The fact that just one reporter (from which paper should have no bearing on it, reliable is reliable) from one paper decided he/she has enough interest in the artist, the person automatically becomes notable under this application of GNG. I find it very difficult to believe this was what was intended when GNG was written. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Chuckee

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

No evidence of notability. Previously tagged as A7 by another editor but declined. HJMitchell You rang? 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable rapper, fails to meet even one criteria of WP:MUSIC (merely being signed to a record label, assuming he really is, does not make someone notable). TJ Spyke 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally unnotable BIO. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No albums, performances, awards, or anything. Certainly nothing even approaching any of the WP:BAND criteria. — Gwalla | Talk 22:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to just be self-promotion. The only assertion of notability, that he's signed to something called Young Money Entertainment is unsourced and is likely a lie. Fails WP:MUSIC splendidly. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a lie, I've added the source to the article. --Cyfal (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO miserably. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 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.