Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 2

< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The briefing band

Article seems to fail WP:N as it is not mentioned in reliable, third party sources. Only included links are to Myspace, Youtube, and the band's own site. Was tagged for speedy, but declined. tempodivalse [☎] 23:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 05:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to just be promotional. Ipoellet (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the article asserts notability through allegations of topping a national chart (which passes WP:BAND). However, it provides no verifiable, third-party sources and I could find none through Google. If the author can provide a good reference, I will change my "!vote" to keep!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now referenced, notable musical group from Liepāja Denis Tarasov (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I has a quick look at your references, they're not exactly significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator). I'^mperator 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desire Climax

I don't believe this manga has any reliable critical commentary, which would make it fail the book notability requirements. Malkinann (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Certainly the article (as it stands) presents no information or sources to satisfy any of the conditions of WP:BK. Ipoellet (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article title is misleading and based presumably on a direct translation/fan name, as there seems (at first glance) to be no English language release available or planned. I suggest any searches made for evidence of notability include the japanese title - Yokujō Climax / 欲情(C)MAX Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on that, I went ahead and moved the article to Yokujō Climax - if that was inappropriate in light of its being at AFD at the moment (even though it's looking now like it'll be kept), feel free to rv me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The French and German editions render that (C) as a copyright symbol, and the Japanese cover does indeed show a circled (rather than bracketed) capital C. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep give me some time will you please ;) Ok Desire climax, 7 vol series by Ayane UKYO ANN. It is licensed in France Panini Comics France, Some coverages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. It is licensed in Germany Egmont Manga & Anime anyone (perhaps Quasirandom to check for German coverage) --KrebMarkt 06:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to wrestle some time to do that today, but just based on French coverage we've got enough to pass WP:BK. (I'm surprised given just how much buzz it got in scanlations that there's not even marginally reliable coverage in English.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search finds nothing reliable in German in the first couple screens, but the first volume of the German edition is only just out, so I confess I'm not surprised. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be really exhaustive i should add ratings from Anime Land [11][12][13][14][15] French RS website as it is the counter part of its eponymous paper manga & anime related bi-monthly magazine in France. All coverage concur that the 5 first volumes are below average --KrebMarkt 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on coverage in French, making it pass WP:BK. I suspect there will be German coverage in a month or two as well, as review sites have a chance to review that edition. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on having the necessary amount of coverage in third party sources.kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned above. Need to add links to the French coverage though. Dream Focus 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref to French & German publishers in the article and copied all the French refs in the discussion page of the article. As wrote there don't count on me for translation & summary duty. --KrebMarkt 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per references. Needs English ones too, though. a--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, there is no English licensor that mostly the reason this manga went to Afd. Unfortunately or Fortunately depending of your opinion, people can't pretend to fight WP:BIAS and refuse to accept that a non-English translated work can be notable provided there is enough non-English RELIABLE third party coverage. --KrebMarkt 05:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD - as the original nominator, I would like to withdraw the nomination based on there being critical commentary for the French-language edition of this manga. Thank you to KrebMarkt for finding it. :) --Malkinann (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I salute your good sense, one of the most important quality as an editor :) KrebMarkt 10:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mfield (Oi!) 06:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Muhammad Zakariya

unsourced biographical article on a living person AndrewRT(Talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no news coverage or academic record; google scholar indicates one book, for students of Urdu, with no citations. Granted, there might be coverage in Urdu publications, but in the absence of any evidence of notability and with none apparently available this one should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nomo. Article as it stands does not pass verifiability standards. Wizardman 16:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nomoskedasticity. Not notable. Enigma^msg 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. X clamation point 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gung Ho - ICCIC

This article is confusing, unreferenced and non-notable. Even if the subject is notable (which it is not) the article would require a complete re-write to make it encyclopedic Azviz (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. This article was begun only 2½ weeks ago — I'm inclined to give good-faith contributors somewhat longer than that (a month, maybe?) to insert material to establish notability. In any event, it does include one reference, from the New World Press, that at least gives the appearance of reliability. I'd want to hear why that book isn't a reliable source before agreeing to an AFD. (BTW, no question the article needs a lot of cleanup.) Ipoellet (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator complains that there are no references,but there are and if he/she had even looked he'd know that already. No doubt article needs some clean up, but that's not a reason to delete. DreamGuy (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the 3 references provided: the 1st is unverifiable; the 2nd is contains only a fleeting mention of the name of the subject with no further information; and the 3rd is the self-published propaganda of the subject. I see nothing that supports a notability. Untick (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added ISBN info to the first reference, so it is now verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough coverage in these books to demonstrate notability, including coverage on 13 pages of this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MARK GLADDEN (MG Records)

Page was speedily deleted under A7 (Notability issues). Content cannot be verified through valid, non-trivial reliable sources, google search returns only blogs or self-submitted media sites, google news returns nothing. Last but not least, page author and major contributor appears to have a conflict of interests. MLauba (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meets Sole Representation for City/Region Criteria - Sole record label and act representing misunderstood and marginalized new genre of Folktronica for Southern, New Mexico, specifically, the city of Las Cruces. No dispute of established representation of genre/scene for region; lone editorial argument of No Significant Coverage is a misleading google search intentionally coded to show 90 + entries instead of highly relevant initial search returns (Folktronica genre is by-nature a modern internet-based meme with a valid internet-based medium of distribution; existing hegemonic Compact Disc medium in rapid decline); clear unprovoked bias and marginalization of folktronica genre by public referenced in posting. Mgladden2 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —[reply]
Delete - I previously PRODed this article but was declined by creator. My original assessment still stands: Individual fails the notability criteria for WP:BIO. No significant coverage found. Article, apparently created by Gladden himself, bases notability on the non-notable record label MG Records which has no artists other than Gladden and two self-produced CDs sold on-line. Appears to be self-promotional WP:SPAM. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant Coverage Found - Claim of "No Significant Coverage" is a google search intentionally modified by the editor to show entries after 90 on google instead of more relevant initial pages. Significant Coverage Found here provides true results showing growing presence and sources. Marginalization of folktronica and startup label MG Records soley representing the genre for Las Cruces, New Mexico is apparent by editors. Mgladden2 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —[reply]
Comment: Please Assume Good Faith and sign your comments using four tildes (~). The significant coverage you link to does not provide any sources qualifying as reliable sources. MLauba (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO by a country mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:BIO. I find it funny that the "significant coverage" link is a Google search. Tavix : Chat 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not mentioned in any reliable, third party sources, and is therefore not notable enough for inclusion here. tempodivalse [☎] 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and billboards untenable criteria - Outdated claim that internet memes do not qualify as valid societal indicators. — 98.230.209.189 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 98.230.209.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion by a non-notable musician. The only mentions of this guy I can find are his own website and social networking/user-submitted-content sites like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. I searched the archives for both Las Cruces newspapers and neither had a single mention. The argument that folktronica is somehow inherently Internet-only is both fallacious and irrelevant: there are several well-known acts in the genre who have received offline notice (Beth Orton and Four Tet, to name a couple off the top of my head), and Internet-based sources can be valid...they just have to be reliable third-party sources. (I must admit, having a link in the article titled "reliable sources" leading to a Google search gave me a chuckle) — Gwalla | Talk 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sole representative for city/region undisputed - Above comments nowhere dispute established claim of sole representative of the folktronica genre for southern, New Mexico, specifically the city of Las Cruces; valid criteria for article. 98.230.209.189 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC) —[reply]
- Comment: If I may quote the WP:BAND guidelines: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." (emphasis mine). None of the claims in this article are verifiable. We have no evidence that Mr. Gladden is the most prominent representative of the Las Cruces music scene, or of the folktronica genre, and the complete lack of coverage, local or otherwise, strongly suggests that he isn't. Even if you misinterpret the criterion as meaning "the most prominent representative of a notable style for a local scene", the claim still doesn't fit: if there is a "sole representative" then there isn't a scene at all; you need an actual community of artists to have a scene. BTW, sock puppetry is against the rules. — Gwalla | Talk 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 15:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Weak claims to notability do not meet any point of WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:N with a dash of WP:COI for good measure. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The reason it was nominated no longer applies and it is clearly turning into a WP:SNOW keep decision. Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lourenço da Veiga

Unsourced biographical article on a living person. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfectly fine reason has been given! It says it right there, "unsourced biographical article on a living person". coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but was any attempt even made by the nom to seek sources for a formula race driver who has competed professionally and has has 2 wins to his record? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was, it was insufficient. This proves his existence, this details results in 2002, and this summarises the season stats. The search to find this information did not take long at all. As the sole reason given for nomination was a lack of sources, I am interested to see how AndrewRT will reply. Esteffect (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Except for the poor justification for deletion, the individual competed, and was successful in, in a number of notable formula championships. Has also, although not noted in the article, competed in the FIA World Touring Car Championship which almost certainly proves his relevance. Esteffect (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend speedy Keep with no disresrepect to the nom, as there are lots of sources out there... some even in English. I added some I found... and yours as well. A bit interested myself about the nom's comments, as the sources were readily available and adding them was no great chore. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS without problems. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems sufficiently notable; is mentioned in quite a few reliable, third party sources. Passes WP:BIO. tempodivalse [☎] 02:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is why speedy deletion of articles just for being uncited is a poor idea--often the sources can be found--and from the material in the article in this case, it would be clear they would be likely to exist (unless it was a hoax). WP:BEFORE remains a guideline. It should be policy. DGG (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Arriaga

unsourced biography of living person; previous AFD was a suspected hoax that was retained once marginal notability was asserted; this was before the current BLP policy was adopted, so there are grounds to re-submit. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nowhere in the previous AfD is it even suggested that this is a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See here; it was originally listed as part of a group AFD which - from what I can tell - were all suspected of being hoaxes; this one was split out later. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly fluent in Spanish or Puortogese, but these Google News hits might be relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is not notable as it stands, the news articles seem to only be passing mentions, though his movie itself is discussed a bit. Wizardman 15:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wizardman. Does not pass WP:BIO. Enigma^msg 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The debate below is muddied by the history, where a nomination of one article has been turned into a batch listing and then back again. This makes discerning the consensus that much harder, because it's quite clear DGG commented when this was a batch nom, and hasn't been back since. The arguments both draw heavily on WP:ATHLETE, and the debate centres on how to interpret them. Mr Accountable didn't really help us with his comment, and the argument between blackngold29, kelapstick, Kinston eagle and Bogarde over what constitutes a "fully professional level of" baseball is well balanced and needs more discussion elsewhere. The argument put forwards by BRMo and latterly by Wizardman that we need to source from reliable sources are ultimately what swing it. Our policies are built from the position that we need to be able to source our material to verifiable, reliable parties, and that articles should rely on reliable sources. This article cites one source, a website which is capable of being edited by the reader. It is a wiki, and is therefore not a reliable source. Therefore the consensus within our policies is to delete, with no prejudice against a recreation built using reliable sources. Requests for the material to be userfied to help source it will be granted. Hiding T 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Diaz (baseball player)

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts.

WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion request because there's a good faith assertion of importance here, but I'm not convinced this player meets WP:Notability. Gsearch and gnews aren't turning up independent, reliable sources other than stat listings and passing mentions. So it comes down to this: if a player has only had a cup of coffee at AA, has he competed at a "fully professional level" of the sport, as required by WP:ATHLETE? (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says not, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the consensus at the baseball project, unless some recent change of heart comes to pass. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I'd also like to add:~~

Clayton D. Hamilton

Jared Hyatt

Derek Holland

Todd Donovan

Brennan Garr

Adrian Cardenas

John D. Banister

Myron Leslie

Kendy Batista

J.B. Diaz

Tommy Everidge

Alfredo Gonzalez

Jose Diaz

Neftali Feliz

~~and anyone else I missed.~~

None of them are really all that notable, are they? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to a group nom, each should be review individually as you can't review them together. Borgarde (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to boldly unbundle these and list them separately. Based on my conversation with Cobaltbluetony, I don't think this will be a problem.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'd have done it already myself, but I'm slammed at the moment... My apologies, and thanks to Fabrictramp for having the time and will to do this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't meet WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split As for Diaz, certainly not just "having a cup of coffee", for he played 6 seasons at A or higher. I think this needs to be split, as individual reasons may apply to each player. DGG (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- my "cup of coffee" remark only applied to his 8 AA games (13 innings pitched total), not to his single-A time. Sorry I didn't make that clear.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Richardson)There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional baseball player as per WP:ATHLETE. Borgarde (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He has not competed at the "fully professional level of a sport" which is MLB. black ngold29 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - MLB is not the "only" fully professional level of the sport. Borgarde (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has competed at a "fully professional level" and meets WP:ATHLETE. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ATHLETE asks for a fully professional league. In different sports, this means different things, and in minor league baseball, this is under controversy. I would think no one believes that all minor leaguers are notable, as that makes no sense. By that same token, saying minor leaguers are never notable doesn't make sense, since one may have many secondary sources on his career. This means we have to compromise. Most frequently, this compromise has meant either a season at AAA, or a decent all-star appearance. If we were to go by this compromise, then he fails WP:ATHLETE and, consequently, WP:N. Saying solely "keep meets wp:athlete" means nothing if it gives the implication that all minor leaguers are notable, which they are certainly not, and in the case of this one, he isn't. Wizardman 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all minor leaguers are notable since they are all fully professional athletes. WP:ATHLETE is the guideline that should be followed because he is an athlete. If you have a problem with the notability guideline, discuss the merits of it over at its talkpage. A wikiproject does not have the power to override well established Wikipedia policies that have been arrived at through the consensus of thousands of Wikipedians. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Actually, all minor leaguers are notable since they are all fully professional athletes." Is a huge stretch, actually. You're saying someone who played in one game in the rookie league is notable. That's silly. Wizardman 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your opinion. That is what the policy says. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that secondary sources are needed for a biography is definitely not an opinion. ..I'm usually good at seeing both sides but I can't fathom how someone could consider every baseball player who ever played for the Longview Cannibals (a minor league team from the 30s) to be notable. I mean.. I don't want to resort to just saying "you're wrong", since my interpretation isn't exact either, but you are. Wizardman 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the Cannibals, but every team here back to the 1910s. black ngold29 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 21:13, 6 April 2009 Dank55 (talk | contribs) deleted "Arab library" ‎ (G12: copyright infringement of http://www.mbrfoundation.ae/English/Culture/Pages/ArabLibrary.aspx) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab library

Non-notable Web site, failing WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Agree~~ - The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has some third-party references: [16] and [17]. Genius 101^Guestbook 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to .ar.wikipedia.org, per my earlier comments, and LedgendGamer. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to ar.wikipedia.org. The official site listed is in Arabic anyway. —LedgendGamer 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is Transwiki really appropriate, given that the article is in English? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

Comment Lankiveil brings up a valid point. The sources are in Arabic, but the article itself is in English. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is true. I'm relatively new to AfD, so what is the policy here? Is there one? Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What am I missing here? Genius101 has identified two journalistic sources that appear to meet criterion #1 in WP:WEB. I can see where the apparently limited coverage might not satisfy our intuitive idea of notability, but that's cause to gather consensus to modify WP:WEB, not to simply ignore it and delete the article in spite of the guideline. The fact that the web site itself is in Arabic doesn't mean that it has no interest for an English-language encyclopedia; indeed WP:NONENG clearly suggests that the article would be acceptable here even if all of the sources were in Arabic, too, and none in English. Of course, two actions are needed: (a) cleanupcleanupcleanup and (b) creation of a companion article in the Arabic Wikipedia if one isn't there already. Ipoellet (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a Microsoft project, not a free-lance effort. There are two excellent sources in English for it, given above. I havent looked for others, though there probably will be, because that's enough to start with. Articles about notable websites, in Arabic, or any other language, if they are written in English, belong in the English WP. Additionally, if someone cares to translate the article into Arabic, or write one from scratch there, it should of course go in that wp also.. Ditto for other Wikipedias, if they have similar notability rules & someone there wants to do it. the enWp is the WP with the articles written in English. That's the only English-language restriction about it. DGG (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G12. The entire article is copied from http://www.mbrfoundation.ae/English/Culture/Pages/ArabLibrary.aspx. Tagged as such. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G12 per Ritzman, good catch. I've never seen a situation like this before! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Club Universe

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

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

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

Delete: Fails the GNG, they should get a blog if they want a memorial for this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with respects to WP:NTEMP, as a quick search found many articles about the club from 10 years back... Google News... showing continued coverage over an extended period of time in Reliable Sources. Certainly the article needs a good sandblasting, but with respects, that's a subject for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyright violation [19] Untick (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Min Jiayin

unsourced biography of a living person AndrewRT(Talk) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although unreferenced isn't a valid reason to delete, the article doesn't necessarily establish her notability. It might be wise to take a look at WP:PROF and see if she meets the requirements.Inmysolitude (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP: "Unsourced ... material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

you misquote, it reads : " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (my italics) Just what is contentious here? the policy is as it is, not as you would like it to be. DGG (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point you raise! That sentence could be read either way! Either (1) (unsourced) or (poorly sourced contentious) material OR (2) (unsourced) or (poorly sourced) contentious material. I really have no idea which the drafters intended! AndrewRT(Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable position head of a major dept at the Chinese academy of social sciences. Essentially the top of her profession. Her books are firmly sourced in : WorldCat To look in more detail takes knowing some chinese. DGG (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Her academic works have not been widely cited - see here and hence it looks like she is not notable enough to meet WP:PROF AndrewRT(Talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one gets a better picture from gbooks -[20]. Did some checking when prodded, it seems that she is a leading Chinese feminist scholar, most of what's in the article is sourceable from reviews and the like, with the exception of the cultural revolution stuff, which might be mentioned in her Chalice and Blade book.John Z (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Z has posted some strong book cites which establish notability in her field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Louise Amias

I don't believe there are any independent WP:reliable sources which discuss this person in the detail required by WP:N Nerfari (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor roles only [21], no evidence of greater notability. JJL (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no significant coverage found. The sources provided are trivial in mention. MuZemike 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpol

There seem to be no independent reliable sources discussing this language, thus it fails the requirement for notability Nerfari (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the heck this means other than this is some mindless boilerplate speak used as a justification for vandalism in the form of knee-jerk deletion.

Simpol is obviously a programming language, in development since around 2000.

It is a successor to Suberbase Basic Language (SBL) which was part of the Suberbase database which was the first Windows based database.

Have you taken a look at all of the programming languages.Databaseg (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to click on the blue links and read what the policies are. No, I haven't taken a look at all the programming languages, probably a lot of them should be deleted too. Nerfari (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I know what I'm supposed to click on. But those many many other languages haven't been deleted which means that the test for notability in programming languages is pretty broad. I think mostly you are just interested in being a censor under the purported cloak of "notability". Otherwise you would have deleted about 300 hundred other programming language entries. BTW, in addition to its link to the past with Superbase_database, I think Simpol becomes notable because is is a new language.Databaseg (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also cannot find any reliable independent sources that can establish any notability. Remember that notability is determined through the significant coverage of the article through reliable independent sources, not on "why I think it is". We also try not to judge based on the merits of tangentially-related articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). MuZemike 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation. Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic (2009 film)

Blatant WP:HOAX. There is no film of this name scheduled by Sony Pictures, [22], nor on the schedules of Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, nor rest of the cast that has been copy-pasted from Monsters vs. Aliens, etc. etc. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't appear to be a genuine project, WP:HOAX. JamesBurns (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Albo

Contested speedy deletion. The article does not indicate that this person is at all notable, and he does not appear to be notable either (Google turns up nothing on him besides the article and mirrors). It also fails WP:V since it is unsourced and there are no sources to be found about him. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography of a living person; this breaches WP:BLP and hence is a reason for deletion on its own per WP:DP. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per other three discussers. Wizardman 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4) by CapitalR. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 06:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrier Nation

Contested prod (removed by author). No significant third-party coverage found. High COI as well--author is Terriernation (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nom: This article's been the subject of a previous AfD, but is just different enough from previous versions to avoid a G4. Nonetheless, I recommend salting if this is closed as a delete. Blueboy 96 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - totally non-notable student production. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, recreation. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are lots of possible sources - see Google search] - but not much that's very good. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To either butv10 or Boston University College of Communication. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete while I appreciate the nominator's even handed approach here, the article isn't different enough to avoid G4. The author has been banned for a username violation and still doesn't understand why this article has been deleted in the past (see my talk page).--RadioFan (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SNOW are applicable I'^mperator 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graeae Theatre Company

Unreferenced article on non-notable subject Azviz (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep -- Article had some references (one of which the nominator removed), I've added one that's clearly independent and reliable and so forth, and it's clearly notable as the first theatre company for disabled actors, with press coverage to that end. I also suspect the AFD was created in bad faith by this extremely new editor, who seems to be continuing the work of another editor with limited edits who was warned about such violations in the past (that account also appeared to be a sock of someone else, as it was created and then abandoned after the warning). DreamGuy (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as I, too, have reason to believe that this is one of several bad-faith AFD nominations made by this editor. MuZemike 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the "Keep" arguments above address my concern that this company is not notable. There is nothing "bad faith" about this nomination, and these two editors who make such a false claim have another agenda that they should fess up to. DreamGuy and MuZemike need to be reminded that "assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). DreamGuy's argument that it is "the first theatre company for disabled actors" is not true, and further is not even mentioned in the article; and the unreferenced bold statement claiming "the company has since become the most well-respected group of its kind" is balderdash hype that should be either referenced or removed. Azviz (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to assume good faith on an account that has been created in bad faith. MuZemike 06:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith does not mean "ignore clear bad faith behavior" -- And my claims are both accurate and supported by the references provided. As an FYI, I only made the article after someone mentioned it in the Graeae article and I looked into it at the time and saw it was very legit, so made a stub for it to explain what it was instead of taking up space in an unrelated article. If you'd even attempted a good faith effort to look into it you would have very esaily discovered the same thing. Instead you are targeting specific articles created by editors who crossed the path of earlier newly-created account used to harass people through baseless deletion attempts of their work. Don't expect people to be idiots when you pull crap like that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could do with some work; in particular, it needs bringing up to date, but there's clearly a valid subject here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Needs a a small cleanup, but clearly notable, especially considering the Evening Standard Award Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep--there's nothing here that suggests this article should have been AfD'ed in the first place. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Concerns about the nominator aside, the subject has sufficient 3rd-party references to satisfy notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I see arguments for deletion based on precedent, which includes the various per nom votes by inference. Also took HilaryT's comment to be sarcastic and pointed, though they may correct me if I am mistaken. The keep arguments pleasantly appeal to WP:N and present sources. On the balance of the discussion, the arguments for keeping are stronger, so this could close as either keep or no consensus, really. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand–Ukraine relations

Contested prod. Numerous recent precedents have established that mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable, and as far as I can tell, that's all there is here, so this "article" should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gotta agree with you on this one. Weak Keep Gotta agree with WilyD on this one that there are sources that indicate notability, not surprising in that Thailand and Ukraine are both fairly populous nations. Whether someone will incorporate these into an article is another matter. The persons who sire these articles, and then run off for their next one-night stand, leave it for more responsible persons to do the work. I have no respect for people who want to create "pretty flags" type stubs for every possible permutation from Afghanistan-Andorra relations to Vatuanu-Venezuela relations, without having anything to say. Keep nominating 'em. Mandsford (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I see what's happening here. The reason you are ignoring your own policies and voting to delete stubs without googling to see if they meet WP:N is because you want to punish the people who create them. But presumably those people don't give a damn if one article is deleted, they only need a minute to copy and paste another one. The people you are really punishing are precisely responsible editors like WilyD. He's one's of the guys that does the work and at least looks for sources, and how does he feel about these nominations? Hilary T (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Other than the date of recognition, all info is already covered inDiplomatic missions of / in Ukraine. While I agree that precedent is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable, there do appear to be at least a few articles related to this topic in some newspapers. So if someone can convince me these sources have real content (and better yet: incorporate this content into the article) I'll consider changing to weak keep. But for now, I don't see any point in keeping this article around. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - allow me to one-up that: if someone manages to build a legitimate article on this topic, as opposed to throwing together random snippets of news events, I promise to withdraw the nomination. Over four days are left in the AfD: let's see what keep voters (should any come along, which I'm sure will happen) have to offer. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; yet another article about a bilateral relationship which was mass-produced without any attempt to first establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thailand has no representation in Ukraine, and that's been enough to get rid of other articles (has proven here and here). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks non-trivial content that would establish notability. Merely existing is not enough for an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm coming round to Biruitorul's point of view on these things. We should ignore the policy that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" which will save us the trouble of googling for sources. After all, just because you can have an article, it doesn't mean you should and merely existing is not enough for an article. Furthermore I agree that the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject " is far too low and Wikipedia should delete every article which doesn't prove that it can become a featured article. Hilary T (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On other other hand, if someone can actually turn it into a featured article within the duration of this discussion I'm willing to think about reconsidering my vote. Hilary T (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of Thailand and Template:Foreign relations of Ukraine? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of Thailand and Category:Bilateral relations of Ukraine are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is a very odd argument and I don't know where to begin. Templates are not articles; they are navigation tools. All they need to justify their existence is a set of articles to link to. An article needs to discuss a subject from reliable sources. The extent of the "subject" here, apparently, is the date that relations were established. WillOakland (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The argument seems like a tautology to me. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple: the template is for notable relations about which actual articles can be written - say, France–Thailand relations or Japan–Thailand relations. For information that can be summarised in just a line (ie, the fact that relations exist), we have Diplomatic missions of Thailand. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that any editor can, at any time, create a template. As such, a template does not imply an endorsement of anything, any more so than the creation of a category does. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an apparent non-subject. WillOakland (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:N, and I see no reason to deviate from it. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] and so forth. WilyD 14:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, the two are focused on "strengthening trade and investment". Nice, but that's part of the normal course of international relations and not really at an encyclopedic level. Certainly not enough to create a viable article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It turns out normal bilateral relations are usually notable. Their "routine goings on" are the subject of significant publication by indepedent, reliable parties because their goings on are notable. You haven't advanced any argument why we should ignore longstanding precedent on our inclusion criteria. WilyD 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A three-day visit by a commerce minister? Please. Let's try to remain cognizant of the difference between news (which belongs at WikiNews) and items of more enduring significance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It turns out the actions of the leaders of large nations are often considered more notable than yours or mine (assuming you're not a leader of a large nation, which is just a guess on my part, admittedly). If you're unhappy with this situation, write God or the Big Bang, but our goal at Wikipedia is to reflect the universe as it exists, not as it ought to exist under some moral standard. Wily D 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on the action - we don't, for example, mention all visits of the President of the United States to Britain, and of the British Prime Minister to the US, at United Kingdom – United States relations, even though those are two of the most powerful individuals in the world, unlike the Thai Commerce Minister. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't unconnected to the fact that Anglo-American relations are so substantial it currently takes a few hundred articles to cover the notable bits Category:United_Kingdom–United_States_relations and so forth. WilyD 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet, most of the visits go entirely unmentioned. Of course, the Atlantic Conference is notable, but not, say, George W. Bush's 2008 visit to London. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's one thing to nominate an article that has virtually zero content. However, when someone actually attempts to improve an article, responses like "Oh please" or "That's nice" aren't very constructive. I find WilyD's approach better than the inclusionist nonsense of "this stub that will magically improve on its own". I'm curious about what, if anything, you would consider to be a "notable" example of relations between two nations. You're under no obligation to answer that question, but I am (sincerely) interested in your thoughts about how an article of this type can be improved. Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be nice if I could do that - there was a time when one could improve the articles, rather than just demonstrate the exceed the standard of WP:N for inclusion, but with a handful of editors engaged in a full-on assault, it's hard to find the time. To the best of my recollection, this is the only substantial improvement I've been able to make, having to play goaltender & janitor these days. With these attacks having some (though not much) traction, it's also hard to work up the moral to improve things, expecting someone will want to come along and knock it over. 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Plenty of bilateral relationships are notable: Mongolia–Russia relations, India – United States relations, Franco–German relations, Japan–Netherlands relations, France–Thailand relations, etc. All I ask for (and, more pertinently, all WP:N asks for) is in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable sources documenting a significant relationship. Preferably, that includes close cultural, geographic, historic and/or economic ties. Mere existence of relations plus, say, a ministerial visit and a few symbolic agreements doesn't really cut it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N is pretty clear in what it does, or doesn't ask for. It is, more or less, that professional journalists, authors and scholars find the subject notable enough to study it and disseminate information on it. What you're asking us is to disregard the opinions of professionals and experts on what's notable, and substitute yours. What I don't see is why we should do this. WilyD 12:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm certainly not asking this: merely that a line between news and items of more lasting significance be respected. You'll note that I'm rather careful about what I nominate: for instance, even though Bulgarian-German relations is in as bad a state as the others, I do know an actual article can be constructed out of it, so there's zero chance I'll be nominating it for deletion. That is simply not the case with most of what I nominate, however. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced in the three months since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per WilyD. --can dle •wicke 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is scarcely more than "Thailand-Ukraine relations are the relations between Thailand and the Ukraine." Is this article a joke? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is part of a series of nearly contentless random bilateral relationship articles by Hilary T (talk · contribs), many of which are for nations that don't even have embassies with each other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WilyD. Let the article expand and improve based on those sources, and then reconsider the stance. — Deckill er 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyoaks Community College (HCC)

This article contains no detail whatsoever; it consists simply of a table containing names of past and present Hollyoaks characters, and doesn't even have references or external links. Therefore, what reason is there for it to exist? Sylar07 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional educational institution with no real world notability (no coverage by reliable third parties). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters from Hollyoaks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real world notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protected Redirect to Hollyoaks. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should be merged into the show's Wikipage. Quistisffviii (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States

Article does not cite any reliable sources and seems to merely be a directory for advertising one's music ensembles; The creator of the article continually adds "spammy" external links to the article and claims they are references. Probably also borderlining on WP:LINKFARM, but I'm not entirely sure. Eugene2x►^talk 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What? We can't even put together and source a decent list of music ensembles now? Certainly an encyclopedic, sourceable topic, no matter what the current state of the article. A quick glance at the article history gives off the strong smell of content dispute/edit war/personal acrimony. Assuming all due good faith and all. Dekkappai (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per WP:NOTDIR. List of non-notable entries without independent, reliable sources. I've yet to go through all the links in the article. So far, the majority are to official web sites of the ensembles. I've found one that's has a passing mention of an ensemble. There's also a book reference that requires a questia account to determine what it actually verifies, if anything. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I see are the ones that link to the ensemble's own website. I didn't even mention notability; but now that you point that out I see there's trouble with that issue too. By the way, don't you use that same phrase on every article of yours that gets nominated for deletion? Just pointing something out... :) Eugene2x►^talk 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do aim to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article about this subject possible, and the references removed without consensus do verify the existence of the various Chinese ensembles, their current directors, the the date the ensemble was established, etc. As such, they are the best references available, and are certainly not prohibited under our very reasonable WP guidelines regarding references. Let's work together to make this the best article possible. Summarily removing references and attempting to delete an article entirely does not enhance our encyclopedia for our users. Badagnani (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which sources are reliable, and what aspects of WP:N have been met. This is not a WP:VOTE. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you removed, then removed, again, then removed again, then removed again without prior discussion (isn't that called edit warring?), are reliable and the best available (verifying the existence of each ensemble, its current director, date of establishment, etc.), and all aspects of notability have been met. Badagnani (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? Sites that are made by the ensemble itself are not reliable sources, none of them can establish any notability, and it's basically a directory or linkfarm with a bit of extra information. Almost every editor here agrees there are numerous problems with the article. Eugene2x►^talk 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKFARM. If a good number of the ensembles had Wikipedia articles there might be some point to this but they do not. A (very few) of the directors have articles but none of the ensembles. The article appears to be mainly a vehicle for links to the ensemble's websites. This is not appropriate. A link to the official site of a group is acceptable in the group's article, but here is it is a breach of WP:LIST. The article fails WP:SAL Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group since the entries neither have articles nor are verified with a reference to a reliable source (ie something other than their own website). SpinningSpark 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = Spinningspark appears to have the right of it. Only one ensemble even has a Wikipedia article, Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York, and that article is itself completely unreferenced and possibly non-notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd part coverage, WP:LINKFARM, WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clear linkfarm. MuZemike 06:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Flopsy Mopsy and/or Cottonmouth, but I will change my opinion if anyone can demonstrate there are 3 or more notable Chinese music ensembles in the US. Then I would replace this content with the list of 3+. Nerfari (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a notable list of this type could be created, but it needs to establish the notability of each item included, which the present article does not.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G3, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Curtis

This has no references, and is clearly a spurious article. Alice (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Fritz

Although asserts significance, it is insufficiently referenced, and I'm not convinced of the notability of Portland Council members. Dloh cierekim 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable officeholder. My reading of WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN is that they don't stretch to every member of a city council, not even for a middle-sized city like Portland (or my own Milwaukee). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No help from WP:POLITICIAN here, so we fall back on significant coverage in reliable sources, and I don't see any. No particular coverage in Portland other than the election, and none outside the area. Lots of blog chatter, but that doesn't count, of course. Rklear (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep, since sources to meet WP:N have been found and added. Rklear (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What kind of search did the nominator run before nominating this for deletion? I haven't (but then again only the nominator is supposed to per the deletion policy), but most city council people for top 50 (if not top 100) cities in the US usually have the requisite media coverage required by the WP:POLITICIAN portion of WP:BIO (which the second sentence of POLITICIAN explictly covers). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are news article that discuss the subject [38], but none that I can find that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way such that a biography can be written about the subject that satisfies WP:V. For example, this article establishes that she was a candidate for city council, she was a community activist, and her platform has shifted from being anti-business. And this covers an election night in 2006, but nothing substantial about herself or her political position. -Atmoz (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article, and I concur that in its present form, it does not sufficiently assert notability, or provide sufficient sources. I will try to add these myself; as a Portlander, I have certainly seen sufficiently deep coverage of her in the media, but it will take me a little while to gather the info. I'll refrain from !voting until I've added the sources. -Pete (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Pete (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have substantially expanded the article, including citations spanning nearly a decade. The first three citations in the article, I believe, are enough to decisively establish notability; they are full profiles from two major Portland and Oregon publications, from both the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. (Unfortunately, the Oregonian does not maintain publicly-accessible archives. I accessed these using my library card.) The other citations generally do not principally concern Fritz, but they demonstrate that she is included in the coverage of a number of news items. Fritz's notability rests on many factors: she was arguably Portland's best-known community activist over the last decade, she was an outspoken member of the influential Portland Planning Commission, an outspoken critic of City Hall, and the most prominent participant in Portland's public financing program.

I should note that I'm not the ideal person to be working on the article -- the main reason I made such an incomplete stub to begin with. I consider Fritz a personal friend (though not a very close one), and I serve on Portland's Citizen Campaign Commission; I'd imagine some might consider these factors to constitute a conflict of interest. Hopefully, others will work on the article, and any bias that I may have inadvertently introduced will be negated. Thanks to Tedder (talk · contribs) for lending a hand in this latest round. -Pete (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other note -- the Newsbank system lists 30 Oregonian articles (including some duplicates) as including "Amanda Fritz" in the article lead or first paragraph. Many more that include her name in the article. Here's a Google News search with results from a number of publications. -Pete (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amanda Fritz is the first "outsider" to win a seat on the Council in a long time (ever?) Her election has proven the worth of the Voter-Owned Elections system. I think the fact that she is the first to win election to the City Council with public money - in and of itelf - makes her notable and worthy of a WP entry. Frank1ray (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the additions of sources it now passes WP:BIO as there is amble coverage in sufficient depth in the online articles and in several of the articles from The Oregonian I checked. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:POLITICIAN says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Fritz meets these criteria with flying colors, obviously. Steven Walling (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Even discounting Mr Accountable's "comment", consensus seems clear Fritzpoll (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Saltzman

Although asserts significance, it is insufficiently referenced, and I'm not convinced of the notability of Portland Council members. Dloh cierekim 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable officeholder. My reading of WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN is that they don't stretch to every member of a city council, not even for a middle-sized city like Portland (or my own Milwaukee). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Pete (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article clearly needs some expansion and citations if it's going to pass AfD. However, since we've had several Portland City Commissioner articles go to AfD recently, I'd like to make a general point about them. There are two points that those outside Portland may not be aware of:

The Mayor of Portland is often referred to as the "second most powerful person in the state." This is mainly because Oregon has no Lieutenant Governor, concentrating the statewide executive power with the Governor. And the Portland metro area comprises about half the population of the state.
The Mayor of Portland is one of the least powerful mayor positions in the country, due to Portland's "weak mayor" form of government. City bureau assignments are distributed among all 5 members of City Council, and the mayor has only one of five votes on legislative matters.

Considering those two points, I think it stands to reason that most City Commissioners in Portland would be more notable than their counterparts in similarly-sized cities. To be clear, I'm not saying that they should be granted a "free notability pass" through something like WP:POLITICIAN, but merely that they will generally be found to have generated sufficient media coverage to pass WP:BIO. It's fine that they're being brought up for AfD, but I think that with a little research and writing that any Portland City Council member will pass the notability test. -Pete (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close the debate. The reasons given by the nominator again show a lack of understanding of why articles are to be deleted. The stated reason of "insufficiently referenced" is not a reason to delete, and there is no indication here or elsewhere in the other mass nominations that the nominator did any search for sources as is required by the deletion policy. Until that requirement is met, there should not be a debate. Instead tag with the notability tag or a references needed tag or any other clean-up tag, do not nominate for deletion. This is especially important where WP:POLITICIAN tells you that these people are likely notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close the debate Aboutmovies makes a compelling case, above. There are important steps that were bypassed here, as in other similar recent AfD's. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:POLITICIAN says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Saltzman meets these criteria with flying colors, obviously. Steven Walling (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus, but can I point out that the number of google hits a subject has is not any indicator of notability whatsoever Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hunnicutt

No reliable sources support the notability of the subject. Self promotion and COI issues exist as well. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEY MUFKA

Just because you don't agree with my importance in the paranormal community, why don't you do a google search? Or is it easier to destroy someone's work in a field of endeavor that is important to some. Does it go against your religious belief or something? Then delete every ghost hunter in the thing You are UNFAIR because I'm white and a ghost hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaghostsociety (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just done a google search. I only find 1500 hits. That's really not very many. Setwisohi (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many do you have? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnengrmh (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search on "Robert Hunnicutt" and also came up with 1500 or so. Interesting thing was that most of the top listings were for an orthopedist in Fort Worth, not this guy. Rklear (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the position of Google hits? I have nominated an article for deletion - the subject of which has just 100 google hits - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Mihaly) To my mind that is sure fire certainty that he can't be notable. And yet some editors are claiming that he is notable. On that basis this guy must be ok surely? Setwisohi (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment = There is no evidence that this insulting person (Gaghostsociety) is the person listed in this article. I suspect that the real Hunnicutt would be more gracious than this and would know not to make borderline racist comments like "You are UNFAIR because I'm white". Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggest SALT. No notability established, Google search did not return any reliable sources. Suggesting SALT because user has stated "I will have my secretary or other in my organization edit it in the future" here. Chzz ► 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure that's not a fair representation of his words. He actually said "If it would be better [than editing it myself], I will have my secretary or other in my organization edit it in the future, I meant no disrepect or intentional rule breaking." AndrewRT(Talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the editor appeared to be acting in good faith at that point, just understandable ignorance of WP:COI. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that Hunnicutt has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. In fact, I can find no evidence in any secondary sources that this person exists at all. Fails WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deleted the snarky rationale I posted here, but I still think it's a delete. There seem to be only trivial mentions in the external links (in a section mislabeled "references"), although there were more extensive mentions in earlier ELs, albeit from the Georgia Ghost society's own site. However some of them seem to be copy/pastes from independent publications. I'll copy/paste the links here for perusal by other editors and the closing admin.
Delete Just about fails every bit of WP:BIO and the general Notability guidelines. Own seems to be a big deal in this, as well... Cheers. I'^mperator 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread at ANI Cheers. I'^mperator 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Silly arguments on both sides were discounted. Suggest talkpage discussion before we wind up here again. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mihaly

Article about an artist. Claims are made that subject is notable in his own right. But I get only 100+ g-hits - (see [39]). There is no reason to suspect anything other than good faith on the part of the article creator, and work has clearly been put into the piece, but it also looks a little like a possible WP:CONFLICT.

On the plus side there is some limited local reportage (university press etc..) and two disputes appear to have stirred some brief press interest (see talk page for details). But as an artist he has had no major exhibitions (national or otherwise), there are no national press reviews of the artist or of his artwork, no coverage on major art websites, no auction history etc.. I think the question for here is whether or not Milhay is notable in his own right? Setwisohi (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For me as not-notable. (Should I put this or not as nominating party? If not, please remove). Setwisohi (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough news coverage to be notable, the story about the gargoyles with the donors' faces was widely covered, and artist in residence at Washington National Cathedralis certainly a notable honor (to say nothing of the lawsuit). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

1) Agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above.

2) Wiki Criteria for Notability of Creative Professionals: Additional Possible qualifying criteria for creative professionals: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument. Wade's Angel, Castle Mont Rouge, and perhaps even a mausoleum may qualify this artist under this criterion.

Carolinequarrier (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier[reply]

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

As article creator you should feel that the subject is notable enough. But I cant see where Mihaly has produced a "significant monument"? Can you show us where/how he has done so? Setwisohi (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment by Setwisohi above 09:30, 3 April 2009: I am not the article creator. That is a question best addressed by that individual, Michaelangeloh. Carolinequarrier (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete -- the article is much better now than when first added, and keeping it would be defensible. But WP:CREATIVE sets a high standard for artists (significant monuments, permanent collections of several notable galleries, etc. -- coverage in newspaper articles doesn't seem to be sufficient), and I don't think this one gets there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary criterion is WP:N. If it meets that (which you seem to indicate it does with newspaper articles) it should be kept. WP:CREATIVE provides some additional points which may substantiate an article, but does not invalidate WP:N. Ty 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to indicate either way as to the sufficiency of newspaper coverage -- but when we have a guideline about a certain type of article then it seems to me a deletion discussion ought to take that guideline as its main referent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely not notable with only 100 Google hits. I get more than that myself! There are many other artists etc whose life/work is more notable who are not - nor would be allowed to be - included in WP. JaneVannin (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of google hits should not form the basis of deletion. You need to address the sources given. Ty 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, Ty. Trouble is the signifcant sources indicate only that i. Mihaly sued a cathedral for wrongful dismissal and ii. he had some artwork removed from a private dwelling. Which is not much to go on. So a google search is a good indicator of how notable those news stories made him and 100 g-hits gives us the answer. ie not very. Setwisohi (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setwisohi, are you really going to completely discount the 2009 March News and Observer newspaper reference (a source appraised and awarded national honors for its coverage), which focussed several columns on the subject and his art? How about the 'Our State' and 'Metro Magazine' references which also focussed on the subject's art? I think this G-hits argument is completely invalid. Since you want to debate wikipedian criteria, show me where that by itself, it is a pivotal argument. You can not choose a criterion in isolation and base your decision on that. The WP-N for Creative Professionals state that as I point out in my initial entry above on Additional Criteria. Your adherance to this point is telling!Carolinequarrier (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JaneVannin, we have to keep the focus on the criteria set forth in Wikipedia. The idea that other artists may have "more notable" work and are not in WP is irrelevent as is the idea that you get more google hits! Can we please focus on the criteria in WP. Your arguments (Setwihosi and JaneVannin) are not tied back into the criteria set forth and established by WP-N.Carolinequarrier (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Process question addressed by Setwihosi above: Should the user nominating the article for deletion also vote on it's deletion?Carolinequarrier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's not a vote, don't worry about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about this article. I think it seems to meet notability, but many of the online articles only discuss Milhaly in reference to something else that happens, like the Duke donors rejecting his gargoyles, or the lawsuit with the Catholic Church. I think that a notable artist should have had several exhibitions with galleries and museums owning several works, but that is not the case here. So, it seems that this article is borderline notable.--Ducio1234 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received non-trivial coverage in secondary, reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and I understand the concerns listed above. But he does meet WP:N, which sets a lower standard. He may not be a notable artist, but he's a notable subject for a WP article, which is a somewhat different thing.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wall Street Journal Press: I have uncovered another WSJ article of interest and learned that the subject won $10,000 in 1988 from a college entrepreneur contest for a business proposal to design and sell architechtural ornamentation. This sounds like a pretty strong source of national (even international) recognition. I've actually included this detail in the article since it was neither referenced nor described. This is some further evidence of notability as an artist and individual. Publication title:Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Feb 23, 1988. pg. 1.Carolinequarrier (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning toward keep...how about changing that picture? Modernist (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:N, regardless of exactly what that coverage is for. See comment above by Ethicoaestheticist. Ty 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the input everyone. It looks like it is going to be a keeper. And I'm certainly not here to run against consensus. But... can someone who considers him notable please re-write the article to cover whatever it is that he is notable for? Because I just can't see it. This is a puff piece (see the first version in the edit history!) by a guy has had no major exhibitions. In fact he has barely had any exhibitions at all! He's won no major prize. Never been nominated for one. He's had no artistic write-ups. He's no piece in any major gallery. What is he notable for? Come on, folks, spill the beans and put me out of my misery! Is it because he tried to sue the cathedral for wrongful dismissal? (Way to go! All non-notable artists take note; get yourself on Wikipedia by sueing your last employer!). Seriously though, thanks for the input. Give the article a good rinse out though. It's making my monitor hurt. Setwisohi (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chime on this -- the article sure reads as if he's a notable artist, and I agree that it should be edited to better reflect what he is notable for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is simply to determine whether he is or is not notable enough to merit an article, as determined by quantity and quality of coverage in valid sources. It does not have to determine specifically what he is notable for, nor to determine article content, which is something to be worked out by editing and on the article talk page. See also WP:NNC. Ty 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the monuments have received good media coverage, a sufficient criteria under WP:CREATIVE. The article has been improved significantly with the addition of and elaboration on several credible sources such as adding the 1988 WSJ cover story to the 1997 WSJ cover story, sufficiently addressing WP:N as well.Michelangeloh (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Michelangeloh (talk · contribs) and Carolinequarrier (talk · contribs) have used the same computer to edit.[40]. Ty 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new picture...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dave the Barbarian. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Udrogoth

The main setting for a popular — albeit short-lived (21 episodes) — Disney Channel show, Dave the Barbarian. Article comprises of mostly unreferenced trivia, and the subject does not need its own article. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave the Barbarian, as it would be a plausible search term. I do not feel that it should be merged, however, because, as the nominator said, it is completely unreferenced and comprised almost entirely of trivia.--Unscented (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave the Barbarian. Unscented already used the reasoning I wanted to use. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Charles Royal

Non-notable individual per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References indicate that he's been the subject of significant press coverage. He's got enough small claims to notability (acting credits, published music, subject of a documentary, TV personality) that they add up to being notable. Apparently he's also suing Sarah Palin over Juneteenth, but there's nothing about that in the article. Pburka (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: asserts notability through WP:BIO. Needs footnotes to verify claims.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Serbia–Venezuela relations

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

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

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

Delete — The relation between the two countries is not significant enough to warrant an article. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: To the foreign relations section of the Venezuela article. South Bay (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Venezuela. The decision to not accept Kosovo's independence is obviously an important bit of information that needs to be covered in a better context. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the relationship's patent lack of notability (no embassies, tiny trade flow, very far apart from one another); Kosovo bit is entirely covered at International recognition of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - usual notable bilateral relations - [41][42][43][44] and so forth, usual stuff. WilyD 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link says nought about Venezuela; the second and third are amply covered at International recognition of Kosovo; the fourth involves four students - students! - travelling to Belgrade to learn more about protest techniques: not exactly a reflection, one way or another, of bilateral relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You still haven't addressed why you feel that bilateral relations should be held to a much higher standard for inclusion than any other type of article. Redicule is also not an effective argument (though since you have no meaningful arguments at all, I suppose you need to go with what you have). Not sure what happened on the first one, I may go back andfigure out what I meant to link to. WilyD 16:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Students don't work for their government; they have no official capacity; they were little more than tourists. So yes, claiming that as a basis for notability in this relationship should be subject to mild ridicule. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I sympathise with the difficulty in making good arguments to delete notable articles, leaving you with nothing but misdirection and ad hominems. Bilateral relations do consist of a lot more than just the official dealings at the federal level. Public opinion, acts of private citizens, whatever, all impact the relationship between the two countries (as noted by professional information providers) Wily D 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a leap of logic bordering on a WP:SYNTH breach. Just because four politically-motivated tourists (with whom, by the way, I have total sympathy) spent a few days in Belgrade does not constitute evidence of a significant relationship, unless so presented in an overview of Serbian-Venezuelan relations (which of course doesn't exist, since reliable, scholarly sources don't consider this a notable relationship). - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. yandman 12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahavard Quarterly

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? per personal initiative and the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?: Make the Grade

The article contains no information whatsoever besides an infobox, except for a unsourced paragraph saying that the answer to a question in the game isn't factually correct. Megaman en m (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't even say that any more - I just deleted it as WP:OR. We are now considering deleting an article with literally zero text, which makes it a candidate for speedy deletion A3 if the infobox information can be considered trivial. SpinningSpark 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader#Video Game, where much of the information in the infobox (there is no actual text) is already found. Perhaps someday someone will write a proper article about this videogame, in which case they can replace the redirect with such an article, but it's been 5 months since this page was created, and so far nobody has done much to accomplish that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader#Video Game as a plausible redirect and also make one at Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? Make the Grade. People can and will search for the video game by name, so pointing them to the actual content we have is a good idea. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect plausible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Little more to say on this stub. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 (repeated recreation of articles without reliable sources without addressing points raised in previous AFDs) Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Album (Rihanna)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fourth Album

Articles for deletion/Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album

Articles for deletion/Hotness (album)

Articles for deletion/Sexuality (Rihanna song)

Articles for deletion/Dark Angel (Rihanna album)

Untitled future album, per WP:CRYSTAL an WP:HAMMER Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without looking, this one isn't substantially identical to any of the myriad of deleted versions. However, none of the issues from the prior AfDs have been adressed, I still know of no confirmation for the album, it obviously still has no name, and the article is full of rumors. Delete, per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. --Amalthea 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. The article has no references and is full of unattributed "it is thought" statements. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) and salt all instances of this article. This has been WP:HAMMER'd so many times there is barely dust left. I am also wary of the article's creator but cannot check any deleted contribs that might provide any evidence of possible disruption. MuZemike 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nothing new has been addressed to take it out of WP:HAMMER territory; still packed with rumors and more like a press release with unconfirmed infomation about the fallout from the February incident than anything about this still unconfirmed album. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) and salt, salt and salt again. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't have said it any better my self. Points to you, sir! Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD#G4 - We've been through this before several times. It still fails the Wp:HAMMER test. Also, please apply a serving of salt when deleting. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject meets WP:ATHLETE. The question the nominator is asking is "should we make an exception in this case?". After all, he only played in one game. Consensus (at least in this debate) appears to be that we shouldn't. There's a discussion concerning changing WP:ATHLETE here. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Schelle

Baseball player who only played in one professional game and does not appear to be notable. Declined prod because this one game technically makes him meet WP:ATHLETE. But we must remember that WP:ATHLETE is just a guideline, nothing more, and we also need to use our heads and exercise some judgment—there are cases such as this where someone might fit the specific criteria set aside in the notability guideline but there is no intuitive reason to consider the person notable. In other words, I am asking if this article should be an exception to the usual guideline. I would like to hear more input from the community about this particular article, rather than just repeating the criteria from WP:ATHLETE. Thanks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I declined the PROD, and while I think Rjanag makes a reasonable argument, I also think there is room for an article on this fully professional player, even though he only played one game. It is obvious that there are varying degrees of notability for professional sports players, but I think we can and should have an article on every professional sports player. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this article fully well expecting that it would be deprodded, because, as noted by the nom, Schelle's one game technically makes him meet WP:ATHLETE. However, besides a mention on baseball-reference.com, no other sources exist and it is likely that we'll never find any other sources, meaning that all we can ever have in this stub is the info copied (and reworded - I am not implying copyvio here) from baseball-reference.com. I gingerly suggest that having literally thousands of such stub articles around is not very encyclopedic and not very informative either. At best, an article like this should be redirected to the article about the team or to a list of former players for this team. --Crusio (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other sources exist, or no other sources on the internet exist? These are two very different things, especially when talking about a player from 1939. In this case it is not even true to say the latter, however: Google News and Google Books provide several sources. Strikehold (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access most of these, but the majority of the Google News sources appear to be write-ups of college games in which he played, so they don't really have any bearing on his "notability" as a professional player. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if he has coverage in multiple, reliable sources that means he meets WP:N which can confer notability on any subject regardless of whether they meet the additional subject-specific guidelines. The fact that he was notable for his college play means he is, in fact, notable. The fact that he played professionally only increases his notability, it doesn't negate his notability as a college player. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell how much of that coverage is "of" him. Granted, I don't have access to the full articles right now, but as far as I can tell they're just boilerplate-style rundowns of typical games, and happen to mention him; there certainly aren't entire NYT or Chicago Tribune articles about Mr. Schelle. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator acknowledges he fits the notability criteria, which exist written as they are for the reason of being used in that way, not to be interpreted anyway someone pleases. It is a simple matter of having an objective rather than subjective manner to deal with notability. Strikehold (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledged that he fits the notability guideline, but what I specifically said in my statement is that we should not always simply follow the guideline like robots. Notability is never going to be 100% objective. As clearly stated in {{guideline}} at the top of every guideline page, "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". That's the very reason I brought it here: to see if it's an exception. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly, I understand what you said, and I dissent. The "guideline" is to give a concrete line in the sand. WP:ATH exists for this very reason: the presumption that all highest-level professional players are notable, regardless of sources available on them, because in the distant past these sources can be difficult to find. Those articles are a mix of college, minor, and major league coverage, but it's really irrelevant of what level, because it is from the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Strikehold (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons in my comment above. Basically, meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, and I see no compelling reason to ignore the guidelines in this case and delete the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lord if there was ever a reason to not follow the guideline, it's this. One game almost 70 years ago? Are there any other sources on this fellow's life? What else could be said besides "he played one game"? I would think this a case where the main notability guidelines take precedence (extensive coverage in secondary sources). He doesn't really merit an article based on the sports guidelines, so let it fall under the primary guidelines (which he doesn't pass). Perhaps my standards are too high, but the news and books sources are basically "he played baseball" (once). The page has reached the limit of what it can say (actually it's past, his death date is uncited). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is permanent, so playing 70 years ago is wholly irrelevant. The sources are not basically saying "he played baseball (once)", they are from many different games he played in. Albeit not all at the highest professional level, but this is not required under WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think of it this way: if a pitcher played one game in the Major League today, there would be virtually no question of his notability. Even casual baseball enthusiasts would probably know his name, and he would have widespread coverage in the media easily accesible on the internet. Now remember that notability is not temporary; this is the reason WP:Athlete exists written as it does. There would likely be no question of that same athlete's notablity today, but since it was so long ago, sources are hard to find, and most people don't know his name firsthand since they were not alive at the time. Strikehold (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people know someone's name doesn't establish notability. We have already deleted scores of articles on popular icons, memes, etc., for not meeting notability even though thousands of people know about them. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy. In that case, the topic was well-known among one demographic, internet meme followers/immature people/whatever you want to call it; in example you give above, the demographic is baseball fans. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing an "internet meme" to a person is a false analogy. The fact is, if he played last season, he would have received widespread media coverage that is readily accessible on the internet. The only reason there is any question at all is because he played 70 years ago, and that line of thought violates "notability is not temporary". Strikehold (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in my nomination statement did I complain about the fact that his game was 70 years ago. If he had played only one game and it was just last year, I still would have AfDed him (assuming there was no chance he would be playing another game this season). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Schelle played a game for the Philadelphia Athletics, he must have played multiple seasons at the professional minor league level of the Athletics or other farm organizations. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is perfectly possible that that one game might be of great interest to some readers. If you are not interested in sport or baseball then even Babe Ruth may be of no interest. This is why we cannot use our personal judgement in deciding notability, we have to look at what the world at large considers notable. That is why objective thresholds are needed rather than subjective opinion. SpinningSpark 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there are pretty convincing objective arguments that Babe Ruth is notable, things like multiple reliable, independent sources (despite him dating from well before the Internet age, too). We don't see anything like that here, just the assertion "it's 70 years ago, certainly there must be something, I just can't find it right now". --Crusio (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You first comment that there is nothing on the internet about him. I then do a ten-second cursory search and find multiple instances to disprove that assertion. No one ever said anything like what you have in quotes. The only reason I said anything about "70 years ago" is to explain why WP:ATH is written the way it is. It is to reduce subjectivity by making all top-tier professional athletes notable, regardless of meeting WP:N. As shown by the results of my cursory search, Schelle may meet WP:ATH and WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are attributing to me things I have not said. I made no argument that Jim Schelle is as notable as Babe Ruth. Merely that he is notable enough for some readers to find interesting. Nor did I say "it's 70 years ago, certainly there must be something, I just can't find it right now" or anything remotely like it. My position is that there is enough verified material in the article already. If more can be found, all well and good, but my keep was not dependant on the possibility that it will be found. SpinningSpark 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article in conjunction with my List of athletes from Maryland project. I only included persons on that list who met the WP:ATHLETE criteria. I understand the comments for removing the article, but must disagree. The history of baseball is replete with players who may have played limited games as the highest level of the sport. These players are significant not only from the shear joy of having such a complete history of the game but also for statistical analysis and sabermetrics.--dashiellx (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close. The notability guideline is clear. There's no clear-cut alternative. If this goes through, we'll have another round of deletion warring that will make the fiction battles look tame. This is a disastrously bad idea, and ignores the clear consensus to leave well enough alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to re-read my nomination statement, and the various comments above. This is not a discussion of whether Schelle meets WP:ATHLETE (we all know he does), but of whether an exception should be made in this case. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we delete this article, we set a precedent to delete thousands of others. Zagalejo^^^ 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING. And, as for setting a precedent...that's fine with me, that's why I opened this up for discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't be all or nothing. It would be interminable debates over how many games played are enough (1 start as a pitcher is the same as how many games for an outfielder, isn't playing in one of 12 or 14 or 16 football games in a season the same as how many hockey games or basketball games. If you thought the TV episode wars made wikipedia a better place (and you might just be the first), you'll love this idea. But when the dust settled in about five years you'd be proven wrong. Now can we drop this and get some help over on BLPs? Take a look at what I just took out of Priscilla Presley, realize there are thousands and thousands and thousands more bios that haven't been adequately checked, and put this bad idea on hold until BLP clean is finished. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could use better sourcing, he clearly meets the notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt we'll ever be able to say that much about him, but we might as well keep his article for the sake of completion. All of the basic facts are verifiable, so the article doesn't violate any policies. Zagalejo^^^ 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator You accept he meets WP:ATHLETE. In your view, does he meet WP:N? AndrewRT(Talk) 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Analysis Hoping that this will allow us to discuss the specifics of the notability criteria where there is dispute.

Per WP:GNG

Significant coverage - Subject of article is covered directly in detail from the source.
Reliable - Source of coverage has been deemed reliable
Sources - Source of coverage is a secondary source and no original research was done.
Independent of the subject - source of coverage is independent of the subject.
Presumed - coverage in source establishes a presumption of notability

Per WP:ATHLETE

competed at the fully professional level of a sport

Please comment on which item(s) the article does not meet. --dashiellx (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 5 are the ones I do not believe are met, and I just feel that he does not meet subjective, unwritten notability standards. Again, I stand by my argument (from my nom statement) that these are only guidelines and we need to take them with a grain of salt. A guideline might cover 99.9% of articles, but there will still be a few that require human judgment to evaluate. To be perfectly frank, I'm getting a little annoyed at the number of people who are ignoring my clear request for that sort of discussion, and instead just parroting WP:ATHLETE back at me. If I wanted to know whether this article meets WP:ATHLETE, I could have looked up WP:ATHLETE and then gone and eaten ice cream. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come across as rude, etc... or annoy you I apologize if I am coming across in that manner. However, I do disagree. In WP:N, it stats: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines." Which in this case it does meet in WP:ATHLETE. I can see your point concerning Significant coverage, but the word significant is open to interpretation. As far as presumption of notability, I think that is by default presumed since it has coverage from a third party source. --dashiellx (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous are the articles that got deleted at AfD despite coverage from third party sources. The coverage needs to be substantial, not circumstantial. I think that the latter applies in this case. --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you're not one of the people who is annoying me. Anyway, my point is just that, yes, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE claim this person is notable; my question, though, is whether there is any reason to follow them in this situation. Too many people here are just saying "meets _____, so he's notable" without actually answering my question (my question is not about the first half of that statement, but the second—not about whether he meets WP:ATHLETE, but about whether that means we should keep him). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are really not entitled to be annoyed with people for being guided by the guidelines. You can if you want, and have done, ask them to be guided instead by your views, but there is no reason why anyone should comply. The relevant guideline is WP:ATHLETE and it should not surprise anyone that people are using it for its intended purpose. SpinningSpark 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the problem with this article? He passes this notability criterion, and the existence of "write-ups of college games in which he played" enables us to expand his article. There easily could be more sources: someone might check Baltimore or Philadelphia or Weymouth newspapers, and Villanova's sports archives might well contain information as well. Since by definition one who meets WP:ATHLETE meets WP:N, the possibility of other sources existing isn't a crystal ball argument: it's only saying "this notable person might well have much more written about him". Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions This is the first time I've ever had an article go into this process or being involved in the process. How long do these discussions remain open before the AfDM tag is removed from the article. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually 5 days, unless it snows. --Crusio (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --dashiellx (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person clearly meets WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. It's a well-written article and all of the facts are independently verified from reliable sources. He is referenced in multiple independent sources; although he only played in one game, this kind of article can be very useful for the encyclopedia as a whole, particularly when used via something like DB-pedia and there are no problems here. I can see no reason or purpose in departing from these guidelines in this case. In fact, there are significant risks if articles like this are deleted or even AFD'd that the kind of editors who regularly add content will feel demotivated; it's not fair on them to establish guidelines, encourage them to add content, only for us to whimsically decide later to change the rules and throw their work in the bin. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anyone see this? It probably wouldn't count as a RS itself, but it does suggest that there is more information available "out there". And FWIW, here is the guy's Find-a-Grave profile. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general consensus is that people who are verifiable professional sportsplayers who played in a professional game. The guideline does not mention more than one game needs to be played, so there's no good reason to make an exception. If we were to delete someone because they played only one game, soon we could have an arbitrary line 4 games higher. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The (less subjective) line should not be the number of games, but the amount of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an obvious keep (see WP:ATHLETE). Playing in one Major League game makes him de facto notable. Unionsoap (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collective (Ayn Rand)

Reason the page should be deleted": Fails to meet Wikipedia standard for [Notability]. "The Collective" is a name used by Ayn Rand for a group of her friends, as an "in joke" (per Greenspan, The War on Turbulence page 40), also referred to by Peikoff as something which "amused" Rand. Scholarly and other third party sources do not use this term: compare "the George Circle" (group around poet Stefan George), not only the group's own name but standard in scholarly studies of George - but doesn't merit a separate page. An in-joke, cited in only three references (in two of those as a joke) is not the basis for an article, and given the absence of the term from reliable third party literature generally, the article can be neither expanded nor improved.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Merge with Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism- There seems to be enough info thats verified/verifiable, that putting it somewhere would be a good idea, but I agree with the nom that it doesn't really deserve its own seperate article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism- Agree with Umbra, while the content is verifiable, its not notable enough to have its own article. Idag (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known term for the group, used by many third party sources.. Many gbooks hits (Of course some false pos, but many true usages of this term.)John Z (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Peter Damian (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no pressing need to merge this article, and while it is short, it is more than a stub. I do not find the argument that the name originated as a joke a valid reason for deletion either, the group existed, that is what they were called, and it is the common name so complies with Wikipedia naming conventions. Nor does the joke origin mean that it fails WP:N, it is substantially covered in several books [45][46][47][48] and in any case I am dubious that the claim it is not used in academic sources is true having found this. I suspect that many more academic mentions can be found on the other side of paywalls. The extent and variety of the sources I think put the lie to the claim that the article could never be expanded. The involvement of such notables as Alan Greenspan and Leonard Peikoff show that the group, although undoubtedly Rand's group, went beyond her and can stand as an article in its own right. SpinningSpark 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above --Snowded (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep the ayn rand page is a mess enough without people merging stuff into it.Brushcherry (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry[reply]
Comment The merge target ought to be Objectivist movement. There's no point merging into the Rand article, as the same info would then be needed in the articles of all the participants, and the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is meant to detail philosophy, not personalities. Skomorokh 07:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (1) I don't think we can proceed on the basis that there might be academic references to the Collective if only we could find them. (2) The parent article, Ayn Rand, might well be a mess, but this doesn't argue for allowing the mess to spread through a series of sub-articles too. (3) I glanced through the first ten pages of the Google search results. Yes, there are maybe twenty or so positive hits, mostly biographies of Greenspan regurgitating the same material. I also see the term described as "facetious" and "tongue-in-cheek" - but the majority of hits are references to the (political) collective.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Merge either to Rand or the movement, but in any case not a separate article. DGG (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independently notable per guidelines. The Ayn Rand article is long enough without trying to merge in new material. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Objectivist movement, where much of this content already seems to exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Smith (English footballer)

Footballer who fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. --Jimbo^[online] 15:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has played professional football (R&D are a professional club) but has not played in a fully-professional league (Conference National is semi-professional). Article fails the WP:ATHLETE guideline, and seems to fail notability. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Smith has, admitedly, not played in a fully-professional league. Apologies - I was not aware of that necessity. However, "notability" is subjective - he has had a succesful start to his career (7 goals thus far in his first full professional season) including a goal in the Rushden-Kettering derby (all the more notable seeing as Smith is - supposedly - a Kettering fan). However, on the whole, as the author of this article, I'm probably in the wrong. That'sWhatIWould'veDone (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He wouldn't have to meet WP:ATHLETE if he meets WP:N. Do these sources add up the notability? (rather trivial) [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]; (photo caption) [54]; (more than trivial, less than exclusive) [55] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conference National level (5th tier) is far too low down in the league system for a player to gain notability. Some local press mentions from sports matches are generated as pointed out by LinguistAtLarge, but it is not the kind of thing which can generate notability by virtue of the coverage alone. If there were an article profiling Mr. Smith the case may have been different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I agree with your reasoning. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator might want to consider saying how guidelines/policies are not met when citing them in future AfD work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lee (basketball)

Fails WP:Athlete. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Much as I hate to endorse shrines to ballplayers, if it's confirmed that he did play in the Israeli professional league, then he would qualify under WP:ATHLETE. Mandsford (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He received a decent amount of coverage during his college days ([56], [57], [58], etc). He played in the Israeli league, ([59], [60]) which is one of the better leagues outside the US. And he's now playing for one of the better teams in Germany ([61], [62]). I'll try to work on the article later, unless someone else wants to. Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cult and Ritual Abuse

Fails WP:BK - has won no major awards, has not contributed to any motion pictures, arts, political or religious movements, not the subject of any educational courses, nor is the author notable. The book could still be considered to pass criteria 1 (The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.) bar the final point - all reviews are in peer-reviewed journals, none of which are for general audiences - all are scholarly and for specialized interest only. In addition, the page was almost certainly created by a sockpuppet of the community-banned, arbcom sanctioned User:ResearchEditor (an investigation is ongoing). Published initially in 1995 and revised in 2000, the book has since failed to make any impact and the satanic ritual abuse moral panic has subsequently burned out except for a minority of POV-pushing cranks. There is no substantive reason to have an article about this book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, not even significant or notable as a horrid example of biased literature in the field.Weak and reluctant keep --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 3 significant reviews in major sources. Peer-reviewed journals are appropriate for a book of this sort, published by a reputable academic publisher--the rule is meant to include minor publications of local or cult importance. That the topic is less newsworthy now than it used to be is irrelevant to notability. DGG (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews in scholarly sources. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahadada Books

No reliable, independent, nontrivial sources establishing notability given. Wording at the end clearly indicates either copyright infringement or COI editing. No results for "Ahadada Books" on a Google News search. Same search on Google Books shows some titles released and trivial mentions in other sources. Regular web search doesn't show any sources that would meet all criteria to establish notability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publishing notable literary authors is how a small literary press can be notable. This one is. DGG (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you should well know, notability is not transferable and needs to be demonstrated on its own. Instead of just insisting it's notable, if you think it really is then you ought to be able to easily prove it. Are there even any reliable sources showing that they contracted with these authors to publish their work (no that that in itself would get them their own rticle, as compared to a brief mention in some other article with notability actually established). DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be the same as equating it to WP:School's "by virtue of such factors as notable alumni" ? The mentioned Authors are, in effect, Alumni of the same publishing house? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some gnews hits [63], as one would expect, and it is easy enough to verify that they publish these notable people. But I think we should treat publishers more like we treat authors and academics, as seeing their notability as transferred from their works. One can always think of notability as being transferred from something else. We write guidelines to say how this should be done in particular cases. There are far fewer publishers out there than authors and academics, and they present much less of a BLP concern, and articles on them are particularly helpful in building an encyclopedia. (in judging source reliability or notability). At the worst, a merge to Jesse Glass, not deletion would be in order.John Z (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Definitely more substantial Google results than the nominator claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable alumni Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i agree substantially with John Z. When it becomes obvious that a publisher is working with at least some notable authors, and is clearly not a vanity press or publisher of trivia, we should generally allow articles, even if not well known. i worked in book wholesaling for years, and while a lot of these presses are not very well known, they are notable for having helped launch major authors. this one seems to fall solidly in that category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obvious SNOW. POINTy nomination by spa. DGG (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Mafia

There is no such thing as Russian mafia, it is meaningless, umbrella term, applied liberally to individual groups. No one criminal gang or organization is named "Russian mafia". HoKiNgO (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, obviously (subject of books, etc.) Given that this is the nominator's first and only edit, I suspect this is some sort of WP:POINT violation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (ec) A well known term much used in the media for organised russian criminals. Whether or not it is an umbrella term for many different groups is irrelevant to AfD, obviously notable. Clarifying in the article, if needed, is the proper action. SpinningSpark 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that's an awful lot of references for an imaginary topic. Should be moved to Russian mafia though (lower case). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraternity, Inc.

Seems to be a nonnotable organization; I've tagged it for speedy and prodded it, and both notices have been removed without any further substantial edits being made to either article. It might also be worth checking into Mu Sigma Nu, which seems to be a related organization. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. only came up with this online which is self-published. SpinningSpark 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:RS at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - google search turned up nada, given title and lack of detail it's almost impossible to find any reliable sources. If someone wants to keep it, they should put in the time to include some actual indicators of notability. Fails WP:CORP, no evidence of reliable, secondary coverage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:Spam.. South Bay (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. shirulashem (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable - we cannot have an article on every single non-notable society in existence. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - considering the persistent removal of the AfD notice, can this page be protected? Jdrewitt (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of point in doing that, it will make no difference to this debate. It is also wrong in principle as it is possible that an article could be improved to an acceptable standard during the course of a deletion debate (granted unlikely in this case) and protection makes that impossible. SpinningSpark 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for pointing that out - they seemed to have stopped removing the template messages now anyway. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG & WP:N Skier Dude (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mfield (Oi!) 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apresphere

Contested prod, unreferenced article on a term lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is any different to any other articles on wikipedia. Look up apres ski or ski and you get an explanation of the word and some examples. What is the difference? Wikipedia is at it's very basis a glorified dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjlclark (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument in a deletion debate, either for or against. Pointing to an equally bad article will not save this one. You are wrong about Wikipedia on just about every count. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, such entries are specifically excluded by WP:NOTDICDEF, the correct place for dictionary articles is Wiktionary. You are also incorrect in that this article differs from other Wikipedia articles in failing to verify that the term is notable by references to reliable sources. Delete. SpinningSpark 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - google turns up two hits for aprêsphere, both to wikipedia. As apresphere, 7 hits, mostly mis-spellings for French. No indication of notability, no coverage in secondary sources. Looks like a cheap marketing term that someone is trying to spin. Also fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. Not that it's definitive, but Google has hardly heard of this term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef and hopeless neologism. A redirect to après-ski is not required. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Pollock (music producer)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for Music Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two references and three external links to unreliable sources (personal web pages). Pollock is mentioned three times in the first reference, but it's a CD review for a non-notable band that says nothing about Pollock himself, just the CD. Not even clear if it's the same guy. Can't access the second. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CREATIVE. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets minimum criteria for WP:CREATIVE being that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He has recorded/mixed/produced at least two albums which fit this criteria, with references in the article. Untick (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the albums the references link to a)aren't notable enough albums for their producer to gain notability from and that b)the references don't mention the subject in anything but passing Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. paranormal travel books

This list should be deleted as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List#Development since out of 34 books listed, all but 1 are red links. Navy II (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice towards later re-creation. Call me crazy, but I think the articles should precede the list, not vice versa. ObtuseAngle (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments from nom and ObtuseAngle. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could support a list of redlinks, but even if the listed articles don't yet exist, the list would need inclusion criteria and a clear explanation as to why the listed entries are notable on their own to deserve being linked in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Landry's Restaurants. Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muer Seafood Restaurants

Tagged for primary sources and ad-like tone since December '07 with no improvement. Asserts no notability whatsoever, besides being part of Landry's. Only sources found were trivial mentions that talked more about Landry's than Muer's. Even searching the individual restaurant names turned up virtually nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is even worse after "improvements" were made back in October, but there was no demonstrated notability to begin with. Apparently, the Muer name is not visible on any of the eateries, which go by names like "The River Crab" or (not making this up) "The Big Fish". Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to be a relative of Dave Barry by any chance, would you? ("Worse After Improvements" would be a good name for a rock band.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The opening sentence may find a home in the article in chief on the Landry's chain. In the version that I read, it seemed more to be about a storm than about these businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All the necessary information is already in the article for Langry's, so there's nothing worth merging. Redirect not delete, because its a plausible search term.DGG (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanial Carter

autobiography with no indication of how this person is notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER RadioFan (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely that an actor with such exceedingly minor roles would be adequately covered by reliable sources for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable third party sources in the article and non can be found either. It's unlikely any of the roles are major enough to receive such coverage. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the Circle of Satanic Ritual Abuse

No indication that the book passes notability criteria for books. A single review, in 1992, of non-popular interest does not meet criteria 1. It has won no awards, led to the creation of no motion pictures, plays, art or movements, is not the subject of a course at any level, and the book's author is not significant. Any book that gets a review in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically get an article. The book was published 17 years ago, left no impact, and is not notable. The creator of the article is a [confirmed sockpuppet of the banned User:ResearchEditor, now permablocked for sockpuppeting to evade a community ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't even seem to be cited in relevant WP articles. Rd232 ^talk 13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About 200 worldCat libraries do have it, but during the period of peak interest, most academic libraries bought essentially everything that was published on the subject. No noticeable impact. DGG (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT..South Bay (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak abstain. I abstain. Cashewbrick 3:44, 6 April 2009

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS PDA Business Strategy

Reads as an assignment for a university business course. There are references but they include the course syllabus (with a non-existent ISBN number). RadioFan (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a webhost or a place to host online classes or projects. TN X Man 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This isn't an encyclopedia article. I have put some advice and a pointer to WP:SUP on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK)

Queried delete. This page existed from 17:41, 11 March 2007 to 13:21, 20 July 2007 and had 833 edits; at the end it seems to have been ad-hoc deleted without any sign of {{tagging}} for deletion (speedy or ordinary or AfD), and with nothing about deletion in its talk page. Robot Wars (TV series) was a popular series in Britain. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of points from the history; the article, according to its log, was deleted under CSD:A7. This was entirely inapropriate as A7 applies only to people, organisations or web sites and robots clearly do not fit any of these so bringing to AfD is correct. Secondly, the creator of the article himself seems to agree with the deletion, he states he only created it in order to put a large number of non-notable articles in one place (note that he has confusingly changed his username in the meantime). Towards the end, there was debate on the talk page over deleting non-notable robots and many were (including "Full Metal Anorak" which should have been kept on the basis of its name alone). The biggest difficulty in deciding what to include, however, is that absolutely none of the entries are referenced and it seems many editors were quite thankful when it was deleted as this avoided that impossible task. A great shame, looking down the list I can remember many of those robots fighting, often notable only for comedy value, not how far they got in the competition. Was I supposed to !vote? Sorry, I have no idea. SpinningSpark 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"not referenced': some would say that the television series, which will almost certainly be on video at the television company, and very many people saw it, is the reference. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a real problem with that argument which is commonly used by soap fans and results in articles on "43B Albert Square" and the like. To my mind the tape is a primary source. It is ok to use primary sources (with caution) but only after first establishing notability with reliable secondary sources. But in any case, there is no indication in the article of where the information came from at all - primary or secondary. SpinningSpark 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sane as for non-robots, they have to win or at least come near. But is there a Wikia to move this to? DGG (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure is. SpinningSpark 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the article over to robotwars wikia. I gave them this older version as I figured they would probably be interested in the nn's as well. DGG, some of the images have been deleted as they were orphaned while the article was deleted. Would it be possible to temporarily undelete them so they can be moved across also? SpinningSpark 16:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're all non-free and were just copied from the Internet. It shouldn't be too hard to find the originals. Black Kite 17:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per DGG. Note: I originally created this article as a "List of..." as a merge of many non-notable articles, but most of the redirects have been removed since and we're not left with much encyclopedic. Black Kite 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Robotwars Wikia don't want it transwikied. SpinningSpark 17:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robot Wars Wiki's deletion log for their page [List of minor Robot Wars contestants] says "17:03, 2 April 2009 CBFan (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK)" ‎ (This is a blatant Copy'n'Paste of an old Wikipedia article. Not only that, but seeing as every robot will have its own article unless otherwise stated, this is pointless. Removed.)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving such prominence to how badly I got flamed on that site. SpinningSpark 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that some of the robots mentioned in this page (at least, in old edits of it) are not in the Robot Wars wiki yet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So, essentially, we can't even give this article away. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The C of E (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there aren't any independant reliable sources that can back this up. Them From Space 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Grant

No evidence of notability. Assertion of notability exists ("best known for..."), which disqualifies this article for speedy deletion. No information found in independent, reliable, third-party sources. Frank | talk 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to assert notability. As this is the sole article work of user:dugggy, I'd take a wild stab that it's self promotion, too. one brave monkey 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can find no sources that would establish notability. Rnb (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete real person with no notability claimed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital

On the face of it, this appears to be a notable band. However, I cannot find any sources to verify the claims in the article. For example, the claim the album is at number 48 does not agree with this source. I cannot find the single on this list either. There seems to be a lot of false positives due to the bands name but this is the only source I could find and it is trivial. There is also no record of the #2 single in this database. I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination if reliable, non-trivial sources are found. DFS454 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the bit about having a number 2 hit single is definitely untrue. Also, the album was released on 31 March (ie the day before yesterday) but has already peaked at number 48 on the albums chart (even though this week's chart won't be revealed until Sunday)? That's clearly false too. Their only two claims to notability having been proven false, there is nothing to support the existence of the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With claims of charting shown to be false, fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If they really are 14-15 years old and the songs on their MySpace page are actually them, they're not half bad. Vocals sort of remind me of The Pooh Sticks. Not that that has any bearing on this AFD, just thought I'd share. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims are false, even if it exists band is not notable. I thought of adding their alleged album Rock On Dudes, but if we get rid of this the album can be speedied WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by me, the nominator. Hiding T 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lornna Soto

This was a prod because it was unsourced since August 2006. I've found a source that verifies she is or was a Senator, but most of the sources I am turning up are not in English. I'd like the community's input on the best way to deal with this article. I'd like to see it improved, but if we can't improve it, I'm not sure whether we should keep it. Hiding T 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:POLITICIAN guideline suggests national-level politicians should have articles. That the available sources are not in English is not relevant; WP:V and WP:RS are both language-agnostic, except for suggesting that English sources should be preferred when they are available. Keep the article, and tag it for attention of a spanish-speaking editor. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico can assist? JulesH (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, sounds like a plan. Let's do that. Hiding T 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove dns changer

How-to guide not appropriate under WP:NOT and WP:SNOW, would be more suited to a computer virus-wiki. Was previously prodded, original creator (User:Dilipsharma2005) diff removed prod tag here. Prod was endorsed by User:TrulyBlue here. User:Dilipsharma2005 has also been copy-pasting his text into other articles. Matty (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an essay, not for wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a how to guide, which - of course - we don't do here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete per all the above. JulesH (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate content for an article. Wouldn't even be particularly useful as a how-to, as the root cause isn't even identified (paraphrasing, "eventually we rebooted all our computers and it stopped happening"). Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How do you "restart all the machines in...Voila?" What's Voila? Seriously...clearly agree with Zetawoof, not very useful and clearly a failure of WP:NOT, as mentioned by DitzyNizzy. If we can't really discover what the subject of this article is, we clearly shouldn't have an article on it. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought we weren't WikiHow (or if you prefer a real rational, WP:NOT#HOWTO). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above; WP:NOT. SD5 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More appropriate for a forum discussion. Try http://www.symantec.com/connect/forums instead. SpinningSpark 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Lenticel. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yungi

Nominating as probable hoax. No references at all, no mentions of term found outside article. Radiant chains (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's give it the works: G3 Vandalism, Blatant Hoax, Misinformation, Complete Bollocks, Something made up in one day, WP:SNOW. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 08:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3 - And, to add to it, Wp:HOAX and Wp:BOLLOCKS. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's deleted now, could someone please close this? Radiant chains (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing discussion for mootness. Article has been deleted already. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook on District Planning in Arunachal Pradesh by Rakesh Srivastava

The article makes absolutely no sense, but it looks like it's copied from a published source of some sort. Google turned up nothing of interest. I don't even know what to make of this, I'm starting to think vandalism. —LedgendGamer 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's vandalism. I wonder if it's an attempt to cite a source, or add a source, to Wikipedia that's accidentally ended up as an article? If you edit it, the text document that appears makes perfect sense because it has line breaks that don't show up.

Whatever, it looks more like an accident or error than a serious attempt to write an article. Is there any particular reason why you didn't use a {{prod}} instead?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like some sort of government report regarding economic development in Arunachal Pradesh. It's next to incomprehensible without much more context, and is completely unsuited as an article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Besides any question of whether this is a worthwile article, it should be speedy deleted under G12 copyright violation. The vast majority, possibly all, of the article is copied from someone elses document with no indication of copyright status. SpinningSpark 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself opens with Workshop Handbook: SUGGESTIONS FOR FACILITATING THE PROCESS OF DISTRICT PLANNING: State Level Workshop on Determining Training Content for Sectoral Programmes and Plan Plus (with support from NIC), 10 – 11 Feb 2009, Itanagar State Institute of Rural Development, Arunachal Pradesh (my formatting) indicating that what follows is a direct copy from that document. I cannot see how any other interpretation can be put on it. It is immaterial whether or not the document can be found online. It is for the editor to show that the document is released under the GFDL (Wikipedia:Copyrights) which has not been done. This article should therefore be treated as a copyvio until such time as a licence is provided. SpinningSpark 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as copyvio As Spinningspark notes, why ever would someone put the intro information into an article unless s/he were trying to reproduce a book accurately? Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BYOND

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Was originally deleted at the first Afd, but was relisted after discussion at Deletion review. I am personally neutral in this discussion. Aervanath (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I may simply repeat the rationale from my original nomination: "Article presents no assertion of notability (WP:N) or independent references (WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed anonymously without comment in July. Request for sources since then has unearthed [64], a blog which isn't sufficient per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? (blog author has 22 ghits)"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No reliable sources, and not really even an assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait, an AfD in which the nominator is neutral? Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, relisted for deletion. Never mind. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, all coverage comes from their own website. No indication of independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No assertion of real-world notability; only sources are from the official website. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete one of the thousand articles with 'no notability' as you say, that is posted throughout the internet. Yet, keep A+_(programming_language). No sources, citations or anything. It's a programming language too. Dream Maker is a programming language, it's also the name of the IDE used on BYOND. BYOND is a community, programming language, and game warehouse. Also, why would all the sources come FROM the website? Where are they supposed to come from? Third-part websites? Everything about BYOND is on BYOND.com, it doesn't need to be anywhere else to have a wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takuy (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence or merits of other articles has no bearing on this one. MuZemike 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, third-party coverage, i.e. real-world notability, is necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, per policy. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the exact same rationale I made in the first AFD, which I will reiterate: lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability, nor could I find any. Article is also written in an in-universe tone and reads somewhat like an advertisement. It's kind of interesting that this article has been in this state or similar for over four years without a single deletion or trip to AfD. MuZemike 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"in-universe" is a phrase usually associated with fictional content. I think meant to say something else, since this is a piece of software and not fiction. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I probably should've said NPOV. MuZemike 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V due to lack of WP:RS. MLauba (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Put all the game creation systems into one article. The internet needs a stable resource for these. All the stable ones, the ones that you can actually do something with (like BYOND); leave the borkEn alphas on sourceforge. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this with which articles? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anders August

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Esperanta Klavaro

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Off Posse

Non-notable criminal organization. Google has not heard of this organization; neither has Google News Archive. This article may be a hoax. The 3 references are offline sources that may have been fabricated by the author.

This article has previously been deleted three times under the name The Shot Off Posse and was created by Blackjackjokerz (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely for repeatedly creating this article with violations of WP:BLP. The user who recreated this article, TnMethTaskForce (talk · contribs) created an account the day after Blackjackjokerz was blocked, so TnMeth is a likely sock. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of Tennessee Methamphetamine Task Force, the references are not fabricated. I have a VHS tape of the FOX13 story on this group as well as many local newspaper clipings. I understand these may no longer be online but I assure you these are not fabricated. Another refernce from local paper, The Collierville Herald, will be added.(TnMethTaskForce (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: while it is always true that a reference "may have been fabricated", is there any reason to believe that is more likely in this article than any other? Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely when the article has already been deleted three times and all the supporters are recently created spas. The first ref (The Collierville Herald) does not have onlines archives going back far enough but I would have thought that "shot off posse" would have been mentioned at least once since 2006 if they really are notable. The second ref (Memphis Commercial Appeal) DOES have online archives for the period but completely fails to verify the claim. I can't be bothered to waste my time with the rest of the refs. We are being hoaxed and socked. Delete. SpinningSpark 11:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the two users are the same, and I would have blocked the first account too, based on the history; however, the editor has been cooperative (but needs to change his username), and I would consider the previous account's interactions under the category of "learning the hard way." Based on the information provided, the organization is marginally notable at best, and that no more than within the Memphis area. Just because references are not available online does not mean that they are invalid or fabricated; that said, I find nothing in the Commercial Appeal archives under any of several search terms, and if there are only three stories over three years, it's not a notable organization. Acroterion _(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as compelling as the SPA sock fabricators are. WP:DENY WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Blackjackjokerz, is my oldest son. He tried to write this article but it was understandably removed. I took on the task myself, and did my best to follow the wiki guidelines, witch User: Acroterion helped me very much as I am a fan of wikipedia but a new editor. I hope to write a few more articles on meth-producing gangs in the Mid-South area. I have taged the article "underconstruction" and will improve it with time. I am bothered by the fact that I have been polite and cooperative to everybody here and my work is labled as a "Hoax", "Fabricated" and "Non-notable", witch in the Memphis area meth market this group is more than notable. Please inform me as to what I can do better, or what I have done wrong. Any help will be greatly appreciated, Thank You.(TnMethTaskForce (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The task force actually exists, but as this is a project with worldwide reach, the mention of a local group isn't that notable unless they have multiple mentions in multiple Tennessee media markets beyond WHBQ-TV in Memphis. As it is, there's only one mention of it at all in G-hits, and that's from some moron on MySpace who hasn't visited his profile in three years. Thus the notability of this group sounds at worst non-existant, and at best scattershot and disconnected. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many more and most articles on this group were published by The Collierville Herald. I can reference these, but as far as I can tell references must be on Google.? The Collierville Herald has covered the news of Collierville and the surrounding area for 130 years. But these articles (to the best of MY knowledge) can not be found on Google.(TnMethTaskForce (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) — TnMethTaskForce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have added more references from The Collierville Herald, I will also add references from WHBQ (Fox13)(TnMethTaskForce (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps we haven't been clear. The issue is not with the number of sources, it is with the ability to verify their content on a page where several editors have already shown themselves willing and able to break the rules to create it. Considering the gang is ostensibly based in Memphis, they have very low notability. Unless working urls are included, you're wasting your time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collierville Herald articles are obtainable at Collierville Public Library thus verifiable. How does the groups location effect its notability? Note: The Memphis metropolitan area has population of 1,280,533. (TnMethTaskForce (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

While offline references are perfectly acceptable, It is quite a coincidence that all your references for this very contemporary and topical subject are just outside the range of the online archives. It is an even greater coincidence that when you are caught out inserting a reference that can be checked online (Memphis Commercial Appeal), the reference fails to check out and suddenly is replaced by yet another ref just outside the online archive range. Both the Collierville Herald and the Shelby Sun Times have online archives going back several years, yet your most recent ref is for 2006. The suspicion must be that these references are quite deliberately chosen for the difficulty of checking them. If this is genuine, I invite you to e-mail me with a scan of one of these articles, but at the moment I am having a complete failure of good faith over this. SpinningSpark 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I feel like I am being attacked? The group is notable. The references are verifiable. I understand your concern but I assure you all I am only here with good intentions. I am still looking into it but I can not yet find a wiki rule or giudeline broken in this article.WP:AGF(TnMethTaskForce (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also other criminal gang stubs such as Satanas have nearly no information or references.(TnMethTaskForce (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, flagrant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megan couch

Unreferenced, can't find any sources mentioning her. Claimed to be a "star" on Hannah Montana / Disney Channel, but I can't find any references to her name or the names of the characters she's claimed to play. Radiant chains (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like the work of the Disneymania/Sher'qaun Johnson vandal trying to establish yet another fictional "star". No sources, no notability, probably does not exist. Nate • (chatter) 06:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; following a websearch that took me into some pretty unpleasant places I'm totally unable to find anything to verify the claims in the article, and am only finding info that contradicts those claims. Smells like a big 'ol hoax. one brave monkey 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Mfield (Oi!) 06:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Adelman

Non-notable Person. I can find no sources to back up anything in this article; this search is particularly telling. Oo7565 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything in the article seems easily verifiable; I have no worries in that regard. I linked to his dissertation and website for verification. Very little is claimed in the article; There is something to be said for a publication record of 308 papers. (I'm of course out of my element in professional astronomy, but such a publication record seems to establish notability in my eyes.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure just what search the nominator thinks to be particularly telling. Google Scholar is eloquent enough to me: [65]. That;s just his own publications, not the references to them. As for the refences [66] Clearly an authority in his field. (note that a few in my search are by SW Adelson, an economist, but almost all are him)DGG (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. 300 publications and the best he can muster is one with 35 citations in Google scholar? It is not difficult to find papers on similar subjects with ten times that (e.g. DOI:10.1086/305126). To me this seems a clear sign that he has not been making an impact, and there is no evidence of passing the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with David Eppstein that the citations on Google Scholar alone are not enough. I also checked WorldCat and it does not look very promising – most widely held item, seems to be a book or report, in only 54 libraries. But when you look at this Google Books search, it goes some way toward meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) based on his leadership in the field; the entries suggest that he chaired high profile committees, organized important academic meetings etc. All combined, pubs+citations+leadership = weak keep, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Mfield (Oi!) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Zambia relations

Topic fails general notability requirements, specifically there does not appear to be significant coverage of these countries' relations in sources which reliable, independent, and secondary. None are cited in article, and I couldn't locate in any myself. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is yet another article created by user:Plumoyr without regard for any notability. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wp:N. Also because Zambia doesn't have an embassy in Ireland. (So what if Samantha Mumba has Irish in her? Simply having someone with the blood of both countries doesn't make a relationship between the two notable.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Samantha Mumba and the Anglosphere are trivial connections. The lack of embassy in Ireland means the relations are not important enough to be covered based on the embassies alone. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established The usual way. See [67]The top story is this search - I hate All Africa's archives As Previous [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]][76] - I really don't want to spend more than a few minutes digging up sources, but I can if it comes to that. Wily D 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that Ireland has given a few million for combating AIDS in Zambia is nice, but doesn't quite constitute a notable relationship: rich countries are always giving to poor ones these days. But, if the gifts are indeed notable, there's plenty of scope for mentioning them at (the pretty bad) HIV/AIDS in Zambia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be aware that "notable" is a special jargon, and should be avoided for phrases like that, as they read (in context) as flatly false. Wily D 15:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Unfortunately, the usual way in this type of article is that somebody creates a nothingburger, and someone like WileyD has to do someone else's homework. What I see is that the Irish government has a "Strategic Planning Mission for Zambia" and that it has donated several million dollars specifically earmarked for Zambia. If that's not evidence of relations between Ireland and Zambia, I'm not sure what would be. Perhaps someone can nominate United States – Zambia relations, if foreign aid isn't considered a relationship. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, not to imply anything about Yilloslime's google skills but a few minutes' search reveals that Zambia is one of Ireland's priority aid recipients and their relationship goes back to missionary schools established during the colonial era. Hilary T (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is....? Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With thanks to Wily-D for confirming notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland and Template:Foreign relations of Zambia? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Bilateral relations of Zambia are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing that we do look at these case by case. If it came down to an "all or nothing" choice, most of us, including I, would opt for the latter. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: despite the motivations of the creator of the article, nation states spill a lot of ink over these things, even when, as poor countries, they can't afford to open embassies. This article in particular has third party references which are significant (and some exclusive), and thus passes the current Notability guidelines. T L Miles (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind just confirming to us that you have actually read the discussion so far? Hilary T (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and, in a similar vein, did you read the 8 other discussions you just spammed with the exact same vote? Hilary T (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read all nine articles (given their length it wasn't hard to do) and found that the same argument works for each and every one of them, which is why I didn't waste my time typing out the same thing in slightly different wording. I stand by my reasoning as stated. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK so that's an admission that you haven't read the discussions then? Hilary T (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've read the article and the nomination and voiced my support of it for the reasons stated, which I still stand by. If you have a point to make about how I do things, stop beating around the bush and make it. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't read the discussions, did you? This is a very simple question. Try "yes" or "no". Hilary T (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I am satisfied that notability has been established by WilyD. --can dle •wicke 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, a bit disturbed that this has come about when the article has only been in existence for less than two months. What is the difference between relations of these two countries and any other two which have articles for far longer? --can dle •wicke 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is that they're far longer. Also, it has not been established that anything that, even in theory, could be placed into articles such as this could not be equally covered in, say, the "Foreign relations of..." articles referenced within this articles "See also" section, or in articles on the history of the two nations in question if such a diplomatic incident was worthy of inclusion. The mere establishment of a bureaucracy in another country is hardly noteworthy. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 912 Project

Delete - zero notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.202.135.189 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability by reliable & independent sources. Just a dubious political project initiated by a television personality. Huge vandal attractor. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per no assertion of notability. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This article is (sadly) culturally relevant, helping explain a subculture in the American conservative movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.231.93 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Thousands of people are joining this group and participating in "Tea Parties" around the country.E2a2j (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above. Non-notable, no significant recognition or response outside of Glenn Beck's show. Neutronium (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete It might be appropriate to merge this article with another article as it shares beliefs with other conservative campaigns such as the tea party movement. The Glen Beck website claims it has 400,000 members. There are independent websites dedicated to the project as well.Joshm22 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The movement is growing and relevant for those who want to find out about Conservatives. The website has gained in less than three weeks 425,453 members and it's still growing.

Note to closing admin, User:Joshm22's and User:Cuchin2254's contribution histories suggest that they have only edited pages related to the 912 Project. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has been the subject of multiple new stories, even though those are not listed in the article. [77] Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a way it's insulting that he puts on this fake act like he really cares. Until it becomes a really big deal, the article should be deleted just for the time being... -- Gouryella (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could define "really big deal"? Of course, that wouldn't be NPOV now would it?

What I meant was, until it gets notability from people or if this project is really serious instead of just a stunt he's trying to pull. Anyway, it should just be added to Glenn Beck's page for the time being. -- Gouryella (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, make mention on Glenn Beck article if need be. Nothing particularly notable about this organization. Article is currently nothing more than a transcript of Beck's show. Notability is not inherited. Just because Beck created this doesn't make it any more notable than Badger Drink's 11 Project, which revolves around the core principle of "Glenn Beck is a moron", featuring the core value of "Any political movement which would deny a human being the right to medical attention is steeped in ignorance and inhumanity". The burden of proof is on the article creators to show us significant mainstream coverage - and first party sources (a.k.a. Beck) do not fit the bill. One would hope the closing admin would see through the (suspiciously large) amount of poorly rationalized !votes - AfD is not a vote. Badger Drink (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Karanacs mentions "multiple new stories" but the google news link brings up 14 hits. 4 hits from examiner.com a site where anyone can sign up and be a writer. The El Paso Times opinion piece has already been removed. The Palmetto Scoop piece is a letter to the editor. The AOL New piece is unrelated, only spam in the comments mention the project. The 2 Right Pundits pieces, the Lone Star Times, the History News Network, the New Hounds, and the NRC Handelsblad piece, are all blogs. And then there's the Human Events piece which mentions the project as a set up to talk about Beck's favorite book, which was authored by the uncle of the guy who wrote this piece! Sarilox (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. At most it merits a mention in either Glenn Beck or Glenn Beck Program, but there's nothing really notable about this "project"; it's just a talk show slogan. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mention on Glenn Beck article is enough. The current form is just a transcription of what he said on his show. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly doesn't warrant its own entry. — Sampo Torgo ^[talk] 21:42, November 26, 2024 CST [refresh]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arlyn

Non-notable musician who has yet to release a debut album. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only way he could potentially pass WP:MUSIC is for his tour with Magna Carta. But there is no indication of "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source". TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Arlyn is a notable proponent of the emerging SA new folk scene. For instance, see the following recent press publications: http://overtone.co.za/musicblog/magical-avant-garde-folk-tour-kicks-off/2008/11/12/events/music/download/south%20africa/events/live%20bands/free%20downloads/reviews/venues
http://www.jhblive.com/live/publications_view.jsp?pub_id=253742
http://new.overtone.co.za/musicblog/humble-folk-goes-avant-garde-11th-17th-nov
http://www.designindaba.com/press-release/design-indaba-magazine-crafts-future
http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=82516,1,22
http://www.capetownmagazine.com/events/The-Folk-Avant-Garde-Western-Cape-Tour~1171

In addition, Arlyn has in fact released a debut single, which has sold over 1500 copies at live events [quantity not verifiable], and an instrumental EP. Please refer to http://www.myspace.com/arlynsolo for evidence of this recording, though.

Finally Magna Carta's official website, www.magnac.com, makes repeated and substantial reference to Arlyn's involvment in their South African tours. See http://www.magnac.com/concerts2007/taphuisj.shtml, http://www.magnac.com/concerts2007/smokeyswallows.shtml, http://www.magnac.com/concerts2007/tapasalsol.shtml, etc. Many other websites make mention of this too: http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global[_id]=10540, http://www.thepavilion.co.za/theatre-magna-carta.htm

The above facts have been added to Arlyn's wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlynculwick (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) — Arlynculwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's a lot of links. Here's what it boils down to: Overtone is a booking agent so those two articles are promotional and not independent of the subject of the article, the JHBLive (reliability?) article is just a list of "up-and-coming" artists with single-paragraph bios of each, with Design Indaba I may be overlooking it but I can't find a mention at the link provided, The Citizen is the most solid reference but unfortunately it's only 6 sentences about a package tour and only verifies that Arlyn opened for Magna Carta on 2 tours and was part of a planned package tour, Capetown Magazine's is the exact same 6 sentences from The Citizen with 4 additional sentences plus a list of tour dates.

So, while 2 tours with Magna Carta are verified from a reliable source, it's still far from the "non-trivial coverage" specified by WP:MUSIC. None of the rest counts toward WP:MUSIC in my interpretation. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been a bit of a misapprehension here. It is important to note that Arlyn is not described in this wikipedia article as a musician, singer-songwriter, etc. Rather, Arlyn is decribed impersonally as a "musical venture aimed at creating an expression of folk music within a current contemporary idiom" - something which includes singing and writing songs, but also includes philosophising about music itself, engaging in cultural experiments, creating events, and attempting to realise the possibility of folk-minimalism as a general cultural mode and not just a private artistic expression. Therefore, any publication related to Arlyn that is geared towards these objectives is non-trivially about Arlyn.

- Overtone is not merely a booking agent, and also was not involved in this capacity with respect to the articles in question. In more detail, Overtone is a music-focussed social networking site that (a) hosts profiles for musicians, venues, managers, etc. (b) covers newsworthy music-related events, (c) has a music store, and (d) does artist bookings. In the above articles, Overtone includes no links to its music store or bookings department, and gives no indication at all of a partisan involvement in the Folk Avant Garde tour. Therefore, the claim that the articles are "promotional" is unjustified.

- The Folk Avant Garde tour was created by Arlyn. It is as much Arlyn's work as Arlyn's music is. Therefore, coverage of the tour is part of Arlyn's "musical venture". As such, any article covering the tour makes exclusive, non-trivial reference to Arlyn's musical venture.

- JHBLive is a major Johannesburg culture e-mag. Any mention of an artist being up-and-coming is therefore fairly significant coverage. Furthermore, JHBLive does not publish long articles on anything, as is standard with online magazines. Also, suspicions about JHBLive's unreliability are unsubstantiated.

- Design Indaba is a print magazine. It does not replicate its content online, but merely mentions it. Nevertheless, on pages 66-73 of their 1st Quarter edition of 2009 can be found a feature article on South African new-folk, which makes extensive reference to Arlyn, the Folk Avant Garde tour, its significance in bringing about an SA folk scene, and the fact that Arlyn created this tour and wrote the press releases that raised consciousness about a folk 'scene' in national media.

- Yes, the Citizen and Capetown Magazine (a) give insubstantial coverage and (b) are not devoted exlusively to Arlyn as a musician. Rather, they repeat material in the press release for the Folk Avant Garde tour (which, as described above, is part of the "musical venture" which is Arlyn.

I hope this is sufficient to dispell any doubt about this article's appropriateness. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlynculwick (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arlyn, can I give you some advice? Ask another editor to help in writing/rewriting the article. It has inherent WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION issues otherwise [78]. No vote from me yet. JamesBurns (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James. Yes, I think third party input is crucial in sorting this out. Do you know of anyone who would be obliging?

I'll use the talk page to get started on issues surrounding conflict of interest and promotion... let's hope other people get involved. Shotto:-)--Arlynculwick (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for assistance on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Keep an copy of your article on your user account sandbox. Get editors to have a look at it and edit. When it's ready, ask for a review. That's what I would do. JamesBurns (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not-notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE. No 3rd party independent articles on the musician. All links appear to be self-promotional. The guy is not even listed at allmusic.com. Untick (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Untick, did you take a look at any of the previous discussion on this page? Arlyn is not a musician (Arlyn is a musical project), and I cannot imagine in what possible sense the links (either on this page or on the entry itself) are self-promotional. They are from sources independent of the subject! Please try to justify your opinion as I find it bizarre.--Arlynculwick (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arlynculwick, have you declared your Conflict of interest as is "strongly encouraged" by WP:COI? Untick (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails creative, fails band. "Arlyn" may become notable after it releases something. Who know?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arlyn is not a band or merely a 'creative' entity. Therefore it is inapplicable to say that Arlyn "fails" these criteria. Rather, they simply do not apply.
- Even if one were to accept this argument, the "concept" of Arlyn would still have to meet WP:GNG, which it/he/they/she does not. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The criteria for notability do NOT require that a musician releases an album. Also, since Arlyn is not a musician, these criteria are misapplied in any case. Arlyn is notable for the structural position it currently enacts in South African new-folk culture. Can anyone disagree with this, given the sources above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlynculwick (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Untick - yes, I discussed a possible conflict of interest on Arlyn's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arlyn).

I've also just declared my conflict of interest on my user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arlynculwick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlynculwick (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:POLITICIAN confirmed by settled precedent that a member of a state legislature is notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Leonard

This page about an Oregon politician doesn't seem to me to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the first administrator to have speedied it before me apparently felt the same way, but the contributor is insistent that that this individual has notability, so I bring it to the community for a conclusive decision. I must admit that I didn't grasp his former status as a state representative, and I'm not sure if that contributes to notability (I'm not an American and I'm not sure of the intricacies of that system). There are very few reliable sources that were offered in the second iteration; the contributor has some what about "X" arguments which certainly aren't relevant. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (remember that you are required to research the topic before nominating per the deletion policy): Per WP:POLITICIAN, the very first sentence: People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges. (bolding added). In the article (and any research would show) Mr. Leonard was in the Oregon Legislative Assembly, which is a first-level sub-national legislature. Please consider withdrawing the nomination. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former member of a US state legislature, therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot. Speedy deleted as a article without content; if the entire page was blanked as a suspected copyright violation, there's no longer an article to discuss. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using language to persuade

A set of course notes linked to the book Using Language to Persuade. Almost certainly a copyvio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article is clearly just a copy of some textbook or something like that. Belasted (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed, per previous comments. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not persuaded that the editor got permission. WillOakland (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was tagged G12 by TPH, but the URL RHaworth cites does not feature the text in the article. I declined the speedy but used {{copyvio}} to hide the text from view. Regards So Why 12:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't get on to that Australian site, but the ISBN number is for this book on Google. Unfortunately still no online text to compare. In any case the article appears to be more about doing homework online rather than an article about the book, so delete whether or not it is a copyvio and whether or not the book is notable, the article is no good in any case. SpinningSpark 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees.K

A non-notable band who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--no coverage at all in reliable sources, no albums on notable labels. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, no charts or awards either. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lamine Dieng

Fails WP:Creative. No assertion of notability, and the only news article I could find that mentions him is not in English- [79]. The Swedish version of this article [80] is equally unreferenced. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But Petropoxy, may I point out that sources do not have to be in English; it's our responsibility to be polyglots. The article mentions a soccer trainer of the same name. The subject of the article is not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, per Drmies: Lamine & Dieng are both common names in West Africa (and especially Senegal), so this title will likely be recreated. Following google, The 2007 "Affaire Lamine Dieng" got much press when a young man of that name was killed in police custody in Paris. The trainer of US Goree, a Senegalese D1 team, is named Lamine Dieng. I guarantee there will be others, so any deletion should not prejudice recreation. T L Miles (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mfield (Oi!) 06:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Dibbs

Creation of single purpose account, no google web or news results aside from local newspapers; gallery showings only within the US; no major awards listed; no museum collections, only corporate and private collections. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't like the lack of references, and where did the info come from to make the article? The paintings look good, but the link for Tania Dibbs' interview on Fusemedia is broken. I see nothing wrong with local newspapers as references, but non are given and as it stands looks like a delete unless backed up by third party references. --Artypants, ^Babble 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in the Aspen Times,[81] and Aspen Daily News.[82] A paragraph in University of Virginia Alumni news.[83] Ty 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The local press doesn't cut it for me, even less so the University of Virginia Alumni news. Working artist, not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources found to date are not sufficient to justify an article. Ty 13:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be encyclopedic yet...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete existing/convert to disambiguation page. Mfield (Oi!) 06:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin brothers

I'm sure this has been proposed for deletion already. But, come on, look at this article. It would be one thing if they were "The Baldwin Brothers", a singing group or something. But this is just pointless. They are actors and they are brothers. It's not worthy of an article on its own, certainly not this article. Their respective articles can link to each other, but this is utterly pointless. Belasted (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally redundant to the existing articles on all four brothers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as redundant Tavix : Chat 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I understand the above arguments, these actors are referred to as the "Baldwin brothers" so much in the news, that first, this is not original research, and second, an article (or at least a placeholder/dabpage) with this title is warranted, in my opinion. Here's a tiny sampling of articles referring to them as the "Baldwin brothers" [84], [85], [86], [87]. *Many* more can be had on Gnews. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, haven't the Canadians done it already? I was expecting something of a in-depth family story, so if someone follows User:LinguistAtLarge's advice above and expands it thoroughly, it's fine, but right now there's nothing to salvage. It's a non-article. And no need to listify either. NVO (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With all due respect, I don't think you've given a compelling reason to delete the article. I think we're here to decide if Wikipedia should have an article on the subject or not. If the answer to that is yes, but the current text is not up to speed, it should be tagged for improvement, not be deleted, in my opinion. We don't have a deadline. In my opinion, there is something to salvage; this is a start, upon which an encyclopedic article can be written. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This article has been here since 2004, and is still less than stub status. But anyway, why do you think it's important to have an article for the Baldwin Brothers, as opposed to just letting them have their own articles that link to each other? They're not like the Coen Brothers, who have done most of their projects together. Belasted (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm not bent on having an article on them. As I mentioned above, "an article (or at least a placeholder/dabpage) with this title is warranted". Due to the notoriety of the term "Baldwin brothers" in reference to two or more of the four brothers, is still think this is true. Perhaps we should have something of a disambiguation page at this title, with links to The Baldwin Brothers and to these four actors. In my research for this AfD, I also saw a couple of companies that use the moniker "Baldwin brothers", that probably could have an article as well, and could be linked to from said dabpage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly because it's a helpful navigation aid. The title is a very likely search term for people who just want a list of all four brothers, so we should leave the article be, rather than force readers to start with one brother as a jumping off point to the other brothers' articles. After all, it is possible that someone might not know the first names of any of the brothers. I'll also note that the page routinely gets 1,000+ visits a day, so people are definitely using it. Zagalejo^^^ 08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this concept is notable. Will you also nominate Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen and Williams sisters? - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, I wouldn't nominate them, because they are more closely linked. Anyway, after reading Zagalejo's comment, I think it may be a good idea to keep it after all. Belasted (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only as a disambiguation page. Sarilox (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove most of the content and turn it into a disambiguation page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page per above comments. Belasted (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting ~~to delete, then~~ to redirect. Opinions were all over the board on this one. A strong strain of argument favored apply WP:BLP1E, and certainly, that has a great deal of force. The subject does not appear to have been treated independently apart from the tragic circumstances of the fishermen's deaths. The keep arguments point to the numerous citations present in the article, as well as others outside of the article uncovered by those involved in this discussion. These sources would seem to permit the creation of an encyclopedic article. There also is significant current favoring merger to the featured article Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. The juxtaposition of these view boils down to this: should we require the subject of the article, and his family, to bear the growing pains of this article, including vandalism, while the article matures? In this case, where there is such a well-developed complimentary article, I feel BLP requires that this question be answered in favor of removing this article. There will be little loss of content, as virtually everything in this stub is contained in the collision article. ~~After deletion~~ I will add a redirect to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision If someone is willing to take responsibilty for developing and watching this article, I'd be happy to userfy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC) N.B. Per add'l discussion on my talk page I've agreed to restore the non-vandalism history of the article. It remains redirected to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Waddle

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The subject of this article was involved in a one-time event. Before and since that event, the subject has not been notable in any way. Furthermore, the article has been the subject of defamatory vandalism which was in the article for several hours. Since Wikipedia currently has no adequate system for preventing this type of abuse of BLPs (semi-protection is only applied when the vandalism is frequent), articles such as this should be deleted since we can't adequately safeguard them. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. As the author of a book which has itself appeared to receive reasonably significant coverage, as well as his involvement in the original incident, there is a viable article to be written on the topic – but this is such a mess, if nobody's willing to clean it up – and take responsibility for keeping it clean – I'd say it's better to wipe it out and start again with a clean slate; he's not so essential a topic that we need an article on him (only six incoming links from other articles). Otherwise, salvage what can be salvaged to the "Later events" subsection of Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. – iride scent 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't buy the "this is a BLP so it might get vandalized" argument; deleting individual articles is putting a band-aid on a shotgun blast. Unless we delete every BLP, and every non-BLP that might mention a living person, or until the foundation come up with a viable BLP protection policy (I'm not holding my breath), things like this are going to happen. Not good and not right, but we have to start from where we are, not where we'd like to be. – iride scent 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between the event, the book, and the lecturing career, he meets WP:N. This isn't a case of being known for only a one-time event but rather a case of being known for a one-time event and its sequelae. JJL (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contra JJL, the subject doesn't quite escape BLP1E for me. In particular, I see no added value to having this when we already have Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision; could put a sentence there to summarise what's useful from here. Rd232 ^talk 03:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a typical vulnerable BLP. His article is watchlisted by basically no one and it's infrequently edited. Since the notability appears to be borderline anyway, I default to delete per the nom. He is not being protected by Wikipedia. Enigma^msg 03:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further reflection, it's semi-protected for the next year, at least, so I change my stance to Weak Delete. Thank you, Lar. Enigma^msg 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Everything in this article is better described there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The one event sparked different other things, so he's not notable for just the one event. Also WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when it is semi-protected for a long time. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sparked different other things"? That really depends on where you draw the line, doesn't it. Book, lecture tour (no source given for that, and no details so notability hard to judge) wouldn't have happened if the event hadn't. That's a very strong dependency which to me makes it WP:BLP1E. Also I don't see the book passing WP:BK, not least as the publisher is a small one which has a hint of self-publisher about it ([88]). Finally, I don't see a single source in the article which is not primarily about the One Event. Rd232 ^talk 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a gsearch on his name provides copious evidence of his lecturing career (e.g. [89], [90], [91], [92]). An article that puts his career in broader perspective, from Newsweek: [93]. There are lots of scholar hits; for example, [94] is a book on the importance of apologizing, discussing what Scott Waddle did post-incident (see also [95], [96], [97], [98], for instance). I feel that his trip to Japan to apologize was a separate event. It wouldn't have happened without the first one but it was not only not inevitable, it was quite unexpected and is now oft-cited in works on apologies and U.S.-Japan relations. Those are from Google Scholar; you'll find more in Google Books. JJL (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of which flows from the incident and for me is better handled as part of that - or if it is significant for apologies, then somewhere else related to that. The Newsweek article is a perfect example: it follows on from the Navy's formal inquiry "the week before". The Dissent article, 6 months later about apologies, only mentions Waddle in passing at the end. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for his lecture career (which seems to flow entirely from the One Event), we need reliable secondary sources to establish its notability, not primary ones to establish its existence. Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the one event is notable enough, the person is. It's absurd to argue whether continuing coverage or discussions for an event is a separate event--the test is the notability of the event. DGG (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E, dead tree standard. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nominator says it all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the event article is sufficient. Kevin (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. DGG has it right. Everyking (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may agree with DGG, but it's hard to square his opinion with the principle of WP:BLP1E. Hence the issue of the definition of an event, etc, discussed above. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept "the principle of WP:BLP1E". Everyking (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? You don't accept my assertion that it doesn't fit with the principle, or you don't accept the principle? Because, y'know, it's part of WP:BLP, which is policy. Rd232 ^talk 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I said, I don't accept the principle. Everyking (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote marks gave a certain ambiguity. And I don't know what to say to someone who flatout rejects established policy. Usually people just interpret it into irrelevance if they disagree... ! Rd232 ^talk 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the article itself sucks ass. what's with every single news report this poor guy has been named in listed as a ref, but no inline ref's to specific things? I guess I'm ok with keeping, provided it stays at the least semi-, if not full protected, and it gets cleaned up. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ it's hard to judge how big of a deal his book and lecture tour are, and depending on how big a deal they are I could fall on either side of this debate. My first inclination was to compare him to William Rodriguez, another person notable for basically one event and then the stuff he did afterwards, but in that case I think the stuff he did afterwards was fairly prominent, making it a much easier decision than this. In any case, this AfD is starting to look a lot like it's gonna get closed as no consensus, and right now my own opinion is divided just as much as the !votes are, so just commenting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Actually...if I had to !vote one way or another right now, I think Iridescent's solution (merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision) is a good one. We could argue all day over the guidelines, our moral standpoints on bla bla bla, what sort of precedent this would set, what it means for WP, etc.... but when it comes down to it, for this particular article at this particular point in time, merging certainly seems to be the most practical solution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  "No consensus"? Yours is the eighth delete/redirect/merge opinion against 4 Keeps (2 of which seem to be based on ignoring or rejecting policy (WP:BLP1E) rather than discussing its particular application/interpretation here). Rd232 ^talk 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I may have miscounted. Anyway, I said that because as far as I can tell, other than the first couple comments, most of them are just simple votes with nothing but "keep, per so-and-so" or "delete, per nom". I don't see a clear consensus yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment a redirect/merge is generally counted as a form of keep, I think. Merging is an editorial decision. JJL (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technicality. A delete/redirect/merge discussion outcome is counted as a "keep" because it doesn't require an admin to hit the delete button. But it still concludes that there should not be an independent article. Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. I actually don't think there is much to merge, since most info in this bio is already mentioned in the article on the one event. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Iridescent. I especially agree with the point that an article being vandalized is not a rationale for deletion, otherwise we'd have to deleted most featured articles. Second choice would be Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re vandalism: what relevance do featured articles have to this? Featured articles are watched by many, and usually not BLPs, so less likely to attract vandalism harmful to a person. Whereas BLPs on people of low notability (everybody's notable to someone for something; it's a spectrum not an either/or) are little watched, and may attract harmful vandalism. So the encyclopedic value of keeping such marginal BLPs (versus covering the subject elsewhere, not versus complete deletion of the material) needs to be weighed against a number of issues, and harm from actual or potential vandalism should be one of them. IMHO. Rd232 ^talk 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Serious WP:BLP1E issues here, but it is a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The main idea about WP:BLP1E is to protect the privacy of victims of a single event. I cannot see that a person who has written and published a reasonably well-known book about the event needs protection like that. The fact that he has been a reasonably high-profile keynote speaker on the topic of marine responsibility [99] means there is considerable interest in the person Scott Waddle, not merely the event he was involved in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy protection is just one rationale for BLP1E; but "interest in the person ... not merely the event he was involved in" is precisely when privacy protection is needed! (Otherwise it isn't an issue.) In any case it is not obvious the publishing a book and giving some lectures on the One Event should be understood as turning the person into a Public Figure for whom privacy is not an issue. Separately, there are also issues of maintainability and whether there is any actual WP:RS material on the person as opposed to the event (which would permit an actual bio worth mentioning); and whether there is any WP:RS secondary source coverage of the person or their deeds independent of the event. Rd232 ^talk 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't think of a better way to encourage anonymous vandalism than to delete its targets. Do you want to get someone's article off Wikipedia? Keep adding "And his daughter is a slut" to his article and articles about him. Good intentions, bad proposed outcome. A new way for vandals to rack up points for their exploits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making decisions purely based on vandalism ("no! we can't let the vandals win, we can't delete!") lets the vandals win too. The major arguments here are about whether a separate article in this particular instance adds value. Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Presence of vandalism needs to be dealt with. It is not an argument to delete articles about people who clearly meet WP:BIO. Moreover, there's no way that Waddle can even be plausibly be called a BLP1E or an individual of marginal notability given his long career and his work after the accident. Also note that the nominator has explicitly attempted to canvass for deletion [100]. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (bangs head against wall in frustration) Please address the entire AFD discussion, not merely the nomination. Vandalism is a secondary issue if the article clearly meets notability criteria - this we know. Articles about "people who clearly meet WP:BIO" should be kept, obviously. Now how about some actual evidence that Waddle meets WP:BIO? At the moment every single source we have relates to the event or its aftermath. We don't even have sources demonstrating substantial secondary WP:RS coverage of the book, never mind the lecture career - never mind the issue whether these should be covered by BLP1E, as I contend they should unless they have so much secondary coverage as to make Waddle notable purely based on those (WP:AUTHOR). Rd232 ^talk 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can somebody who has voted keep please indicate anything in the Waddle article that is not yet already presented in the article on the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision? --Crusio (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in what universe you are operating in that every comment must address every single point brought up. I didn't address the other issues because their answers don't seem that complicated. But if you want I'll do so: First, if the substantive point of BLP1E and BLP issues in general is to Do-No-Harm, then having a Wikipedia article on this individual is clearly not doing harm aside from vandalism which can be easily dealt with. In fact, you agree in that regard. Moreover, Waddle has been willing (quite honorably) to be in the public eye post the accident. So dealing with BLP1E is already not necessary by itself. But this isn't a BLP1E. There has been almost years of coverage, which makes it extremely difficult to dismiss this as a one-time event. Even the NYT coverage by itself is extensive.

There is of course a large amount of coverage about him and his book. Example coverage focusing on the book include [101] [102] [103] [104]. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a "large amount" to me from that (excluding event-related coverage). Anyway, what I'm complaining about is people missing the wood for the trees. Setting aside the fact that it's a BLP (and not wanting to delete anything just because it's a BLP of at-best marginal notability, which is a contentious point of view), is it useful to have this as a aeparate article? This has not been demonstrated, which is why people have voted for merging (not deleting). Case in point: does any of this "large amount" of coverage provide biographical background worth a damn? I haven't seen any. What's the point of a Biography of a Living Person if there are no verifiable reliable sources providing bio data? You might as well avoid unnecesary duplication and redirect to the event article, which already covers his Trip to Japan and should cover the book (and the lecture tour is of no demonstrated notability, but it could be mentioned there if need be). Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and unconditional delete, just as we should delete all BLPs of marginally notable subjects. How can people argue in good conscience for keeping these things? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Easily. That's aside from the fact that one of the issues in dispute is precisely whether Waddle is marginally notable or not... JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. Given the potential for harm to the subjects I feel strongly that we should delete all such BLPs unless there are patently obvious and compelling reasons to keep. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But what constitute "such BLPs"? There needs to be a discussion about whether this individual is marginally notable or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - From my perspective the mere fact that "there needs to be a discussion" of notability decides the question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That can't be right. Under that logic once a single person thinks that someone is marginally notable it should get deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't seem to understand what "marginally notable" means. It doesn't mean "clearly not notable, don't include". It means that the subject is borderline notable and some people think it should be in and others out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris is simply saying that the very fact that the subject's notability isn't clearcut is reason enough to exclude. It's a perfect reasonable point of view; there's no need to rehash here all the general arguments for and against it, so I won't; I'm sure you're familiar with them. Rd232 ^talk 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No I understand that. The issue is that different people can reasonably disagree with what is borderline notable. To use a deliberately extreme example, presumably a single person claiming non-notability of say John Hinkley wouldn't make him marginally notable. There needs to be some argument there about why one can reasonably see the person as not very notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. This guy doesn't seem to be otherwise notable, and the article about the collision is fairly thorough, while the article about the person is weak. Note that it's now possible to redirect into the middle of an article, so if Waddle has a section in the article, Scott Waddle can be aimed there. --John Nagle (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thore Langfeldt

There's no indication of any notability. The association he joint-founded renders 5 Google hits, so I doubt that makes him notable Scott Mac (Doc) 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of his three books. He's a Norwegian sexologist. I wouldn't necessarily stop at Google. Reviews will probably be found in Norwegian sources. DGG (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Your "probably" is a practically unverifiable assertion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This Norwegian newssearch shows that Lanfeldt has been cited almost 300 times in Norwegian media since 2004. A google search for the Norwegian name of the organization he according to the article joint-founded renders much more hits. I have not investigated the quality of the hits. Rettetast (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, as suggested by this Google Scholar search, and the fact that the subject's most widely held book in libraries, Barn och sexualitet, is currently in less than 5 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. However, I think he passes WP:BIO based on the results of this Google News search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WorldCat is irrelevant for books in Norwegian. it isn;t actually worldwide. its 95% US and canada. I doubt it contains more than a very few Scandinavian libraries at all, and those only the most important ones. DGG (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, such as WorldCat. I do not think we'll find many perfect sources that can be used in AfD discussions. Google News is somewhat flawed, but is an international source that is easily available to all in an AfD discussion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's true that En:WP is the global WP. After that I don't follow your logic. Punkmorten (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little uncomfortable with how closely some of the text in the article matches the results of running Google translate on this bio of him on Aftenposten, bad grammar and all. In general I agree with Eric Yurken — he does not seem to pass WP:PROF but he does seem to pass WP:BIO — but if we are to have an article on him, we should have an article that at least one human has worked on. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and clean up) per Eric Yurken. Also, WP clearly doesn't have enough Norwegian sexologist articles... Rd232 ^talk 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to userfying the article for an editor to work on it, but consensus is to delete Fritzpoll (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budd burton moss

Unable to verify any information in article of living person. The links in the "References" section provide no actual information, nor do they verify any facts given. Radiant chains (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find a few sources mentioning this person, but nothing that warrants mention in an encyclopedia. Article does not seem to meet notability guidelines, and is also written like a resume. Additionally, nom is right, none of the "references" listed mention the person doing anything of note, and definitely not what is claimed in the article.Wacko Jack O 01:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources indicate he exists, but that is about the extent of the coverage. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bud Burton Moss has been an agent in Hollywood, representing Rita Hayworth, Cyd Charisse, Tom Bosley, Gary Coleman and Norman Fell; successful yes, legendary, no. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP & FIX OR MERGE he's notable enough to be a included, tho i admit not a major player. the bio needs serious cleanup, but info about him would be useful & of interest to somebody doing serious research on the US film industry in the 20th century. perhaps we could lump him into another article someplace? (can't we refer articles like this to a working group on "hollywood" or something, & let them deal with it, as more expert opinions?) Lx 121 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Follow-up: did some minor copyedit type fixes & moved the page to a properly capitalized version of the name. NOT INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT THE DEBATE HERE, it was just bugging me that it wasn't properly capitalized... will do more fixes, if the page is still around Lx 121 (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vani;lla

Fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination incomplete. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Possible speedy A7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger it, I've gone and tagged it as A7 regardless. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I second E. Gibb's move. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sky Is Falling (1989 novel)

Non-notable YA novel; totally orphaned and unsourced Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NB #1 and #2. Here is a source from the Washington Post. The book has also won the CLA Book of the Year Award for Children and the Geoffrey Bilson Award. Cunard (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Source for the Geoffrey Bilson Award also [105]. Between 2 major awards, I think this book has sufficient notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cunard. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think notability is pretty obvious now, isn't it?--Michig (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Chris Aberdein

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

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

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

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

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

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

No idea. I prodded it originally, but was satisfied with the improvements made by the nominator and so didn't wish to pursue deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Unreleased/Shelved Punjwood films

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Unreleased/Shelved Punjwood films

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bühnenkunst Theatre Company

Non-notable organization. Article contains only primary sources. Only non-trivial mention of the company in ghits is a book, which appears to be self-published [106] and not well-distributed. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, no significant coverage Lets drink Tea 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't read German, but could someone who does take a look at these: [107] [108]. I'm not even sure if they're about the right theater, but if so, they might be good sources. Cool3 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pressemitteilung.ws is a site for press releases (which can be self-submitted, as this one is). Potsdam-abc.de is a website of the University of Potsdam - the page is a blurb about how an alumni of the University founded the company. I don't read German, but Google translate helped. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes, I should have thought of Google translate myself. Based on the google translation, it would appear that these are not sufficient to establish notability, so I'm now leaning towards delete. Cool3 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ce fut en mai

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

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

already Transwiki'd. s:Ce fut en mai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care-to-cure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pamlico 140

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeus Numerix

AfDs for this article:

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

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

In the previous AfD discussion, three additional links were provided: [109], [110], and [111]. However, it turned out that the first and third of these are copies from each other, and originate from a blog site. The second is a press release by Zeus Numerix itself.
In conclusion: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:N, is lacking. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elbasho

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

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

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

Delete, can't be notable without sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mfield (Oi!) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Smart Memories Project

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

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

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

Delete. This might or might not be a notable project, but this isn't an appropriate way to write about it: this article is being used by the Stanford team as a substitute for a project web site. Most of the text here is ripped directly from pages within the project's web site. Copyright is not an issue here, as the primary author (User:Su-steveri) suggests that he is Stephen Richardson, who probably wrote the project web site as well. What is an issue, however, is that the material copied from there has a completely inappropriate tone for Wikipedia, making heavy use of the first person and failing to cite most of its statements to independent sources. There might be an article in here somewhere, but this isn't it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NOTWEBHOST. WillOakland (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I do not think the way an article is written is grounds for deleting it. If an article is written in a way that is inappropriate, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. The question in my mind is whether the subject is notable. "not well-known" is not the way I define notability. There are notable yet obscure subjects in all scientific fields. i.e. rare plants or insects. I note with interest (although I admit it is probably not significant), that "Stanford Smart Memories Project" placed in speech marks in a google search has 536 hits [112]. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are offering to rewrite the article now, there is no point in keeping it. What's written here is not an encyclopedia article and doesn't belong here. WillOakland (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a little to technical for me. But no doubt somebody familiar with some of the terms (multiple processors, single integrated circuit chip, chip multiprocessor, an IC, Reconfigurable computing....etc) may be able to strip the article and turn it into a stub. This in my mind is preferable to deletion. Any offers? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been here for nearly two and a half years now, and (literally!) nobody from outside Stanford has made any substantial edits to it. Eventualism has its place, but at a certain point it starts becoming clear that there's simply no one who's willing to write a suitable article. Moreover, a blank slate might well be a better starting point than the current article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

James Forde

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "This minor has not received significant media attention (89 distinct Google hits, no Google News hits)" Prod removed without adressing these problems (IMDb link added). The 98 distinct Google hits[113] include a mini-profile on the BBC website, but this is as part of their own programming, not as a BBC news report or anything, so is not the independent coverage required in WP:BIO. The only Google News hit[114] is a truly passing mention. Fram (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slide (Thought control)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amvona

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bontade Mafia family

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

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

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

delete - non-notable blp family. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Alex Francis

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Non notable child actor. He has received no significant media attention (no Google news hits, less than 100 distinct Google hits)." Prod removed without adressing the problems (added IMDb link). 74 distinct Google hits[115], no Google news hits[116]. Fram (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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