Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 11

< 10 May	12 May >

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. One^{two^three...} 03:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscreant

WP:WINAD & badly written and misleading. Hopalfrubs (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:NPOV The article offers a dictionary definition and then goes into some rigmarole about the Pakistani war, as if that is the primary context of the word. Eauhomme (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook case of a dictionary definition - Whpq (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete' per ever reason listed above! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really it hasn't been deleted yet? per nom - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

280 Slides

Appears to be spam regarding non notable software. No reliable sources cited and a google search throws up nothing but blogs and primary sources. HJMitchell You rang? 17:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam without independent references. Drawn Some (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some external coverage. This might be a blog, but some blogs are OK as reliable sources, and this seems to fit the bill:[1]. Also on Ars Technica:[2]. Fences and windows (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm inclined to agree with Fences and windows, actually. I've been contacted by the original authour and he's provided me with two sources. Whether they qualify as WP:RS, I'm not entirely sure, but I think there is some hope of establishing notability. As such, can we hold fire on closing this one and I'll try to engage the authour in conversation to see if we can bring about an improvement. HJMitchell You rang? 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. The author gave me [3] and, with a little digging, I've found [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Whether a single one of those meets WP:RS, I wouldn't like to guess, but it's enough to persuade me to fight for the article, at least for now- and I nominated it! HJMitchell You rang?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did some more digging around, and found mentions in Laptop Magazine and The Guardian. I've added those to the article, which I think now counts as sufficiently notable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One^{two^three...} 03:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Peña Sr.

"unverifiable" (violates WP:V) facts mentioned in this article could not be verified. It was impossible to get information about the IPO of Great Western Resources in the 1980s from the London Stock Exchange, they could not confirm such an IPO and they did not have any information about it. Requested membership confirmation from the clubs mentioned, none (!) of them confirmed his membership or to even only know him. It is not verifiable whether or not he was involved in or if there was a $450 million dollar company. The companies mentioned cannot be found in any state corporate register. The one that can be found and where the register number on their website equals the one in the Jersey Channel Island company register, was founded in 2002, not in 1977 (!). This article is creating a myth where there is no substance.

"original research" (violates WP:NOR) the only verifications come from his own websites and probably friends.

"non-notable" and/or "does not meet WP:BIO" it seems to be a promotional tool to promote his seminars only and him as a speaker. The merits could not be verified so the person does not meet WP:BIO criteria.

"deleted before" the same page has been deleted before already twice without an AFD-discussion. Esinclair52 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)— Esinclair52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Article has been worked on to make it less POV, Google news archive search [9] reveals numerous possible refs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: all of these links either come from paid-public-relations websites or don't even mention the person in question. --Esinclair52 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the coverage is a bit on the trivial side, and unfortunately much of it is pay-per-view, but are you seriously claiming that The New York Times, the Fresno Bee, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Austin American-Statesman are paid pr websites? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not at all! I'm questioning the validity of the facts, none of the mentioned media has real coverage on file, tried the online searches on their websites and requested information from their editors and they didn't have any; not on Daniel S. Peña Sr. and not on Dan Pena.; not for the NY times, not for the Fresno Bee, not for the Worth Star Telegram and not for the Austin American Statesman -- and not for any other newspaper mentioned. In some links at the Google News collection you sent, Daniel S. Peña Sr. is mentioned, but never as the focus of the article. The others are, as you said, ppv.--Esinclair52 (talk

On a sidebar, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if the sources make the most outrageous claims, if a reader can verify what is written, it falls within policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you ho ahaed and pay the money to read those articles? Otherwise, how do you know what the content of them is? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have those and much more, including corporate registry contents as well as statements of former biz partners etc. - as I said, I was researching an article for our paper and what I found was a trail of stuff, disputes, unpaid services, "facts" that are not confirmed, etc, that doesn't fit to the picture being painted online at all. --Esinclair52 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quote: "The trio--David Reecher, Dan Pena and Jose Alverez--together formed Great Wisdom Publishing Co" - looks like self-publishing there to me. Could be wrong. The book might have been chosen for publication entirely on its merit by an editor who didn't know it was by one of the bosses. Medina Ltd - based in Reading (pronounced redding) - can't find much. Website "under construction". The Guthrie Group - now.... "Head quartered at Guthrie Castle, Scotland, (Dan Peña’s personal estate) we have an established network of long-term relationships with professionals spanning four continents." from http://www.theguthriegroup.co.uk/aboutus.php Guthrie Castle does look like a nice place to have your wedding - http://www.guthriecastle.com/accommodation.php Same phone and fax as the Guthrie Group. No mention of Mr Peña. Interesting. Good financial sense to make your 'personal estate' pay its way, I suppose. I'd have expected separate phone and fax, though. Not mentioned in the article, but perhaps it's been removed as spam. References and Links - first the AMC one. Who is it by? Mr Peña or the feller whose name is at the bottom? Either way, it doesn't do much for me. Then there's his website - which does mentions seminars at the castle but not the weddings. Missing an opportunity there. There's nothing here that's truly independent. Perhaps it's all a puff, perhaps zealous editors have removed the Wikipedia-valued third party references by mistake.

Oh yes, the quote at the start of my ramblings. It's from http://www.forewordmagazine.com/ftw/ftwarchives.aspx?id=20000719.htm where the history and apparent bankruptcy proceedings of Access, a subsidiary of Great Wisdom, are described. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mumbai Cyber Crime Investigation Department is obviously investigating against Dan Pena: "Two US nationals came to Bangalore to set up a call centre which operates in illegal pornography sites. They got credit card details of over 1.5 million users in the US and used this to siphon off money through another site. Modus operandi: Daniel Pena and Bill Smith have websites from which you can download MP3 files. These have sublinks to four porn sites which are paid sites." (click here and read in the second half of the text) 85.25.139.99 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain this is about the same person? It's not that uncommon of a name, if you Google it a lot of unrelated results pop up. Running a credit card flimflam from a porn and mp3 site does not seem like this guys style. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I verified with the Mumbai Cyber Crime Dept. and they confirmed. They did not reveal the status of the investigations as it's ongoing. The "guys style", as you say, is a carefully painted picture that nobody seems to question --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must ask how you verified this information. Ironically, if this can be verified, it would add another level of notability that could be included in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can call there and ask: Cyber Crime Investigation cell, Annex III, 1st floor, Office of the Commissioner of Police,

D.N.Road, Mumbai - 400001 - Tel: +91 - 022 - 22641261 -- that's what I did for my article (see above in the other context).--Esinclair52 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And suggesting wikipedia editors engage in their own original research is not the best way to go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might get you past your editor, but it is not considered verification by Wikipedia standards. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so you are saying a newspaper's ethical standards are lower than Wikipedia's? What a verification is you can learn in the first semester of communication's study but I guess all of that is not important for the "Kings of WP" celebrating the victory of their power --- what else can one do than verify facts and then post the sources? That's more than the creator of the article ever did. --Esinclair52 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your rationale for wanting this deleted is that it is original research and yet you ask us to accept your original research. You can't have it both ways. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this story stinks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.139.99 (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — 85.25.139.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being poorly written is not a reason to delete an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this IP address is the same as the one making the comment immediately above this. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SPA nom.--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that is a valid reason, we are discussing the article and it's subject, not who nominated it or wrote it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Unionhawk: I'm just new to this but my motives are neutral and surely not SPA as per its definition.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Comment - most of the more blatant POV (And associated COI issues, seeing as the article creator seems to know the subject personally) was removed by DGG, and a bit more of the POV has been removed over the course of numerous recreations (if I remember correctly a previously-deleted version used to talk about his love of golf). However, the News search linked by Beeblebrox above are not convincing for me. The New York Times article is nothing but a passing mention, and the Powerhomebiz page is purely promotional. For a man who is the founder and chairman of a group that has supposedly overseen negotiations with governments around the world totalling billions of Euros, you would expect more substantial coverage. Our article paints him as a hugely notable figure, certainly, and it claims he has been featured in numerous newspapers. Where are those articles? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point, thanks. There are no such articles, at least I couldn't find them since I have been ordered to write an article about him for our paper and the more research I did over the past couple of months, the more holes I found. My understanding was that Wikipedia isn't a platform to promote one's book or seminar sales. --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, the user who created and edited the article was Izonetech-ph - too much of a coincidence that Daniel S. Pena is Chairman of a company called iZone Technologies in the Philippines [10] - another hint at the theory that much or all of this is just promotional. --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.izonetech-ph.com/management.htm

You are correct, Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion, and users should not edit an article where they have a conflict of interest. However, The NY Times article, while doing little to nothing to establish Mr. Pena's notability, does seem to verify the contention that at least some people view him as a successful businessman. An article being inaccurate or poorly written is a reason to fix it not a reason to delete it. Also, while I did not pony up the dough to read the whole article, he is apparently on the list of the 60 wealthiest Hispanic-Americans. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you. WP claims to be an encyclopedia. As such, I understand it as a platform where not oneself but others write about one because of the importance of what that person contributes to contemporary history. With leaving that article in WP, we are all contributing just to one thing: to sales of his seminars and books and when one day a real investigative article bombs out everything that really happened, WP will have contributed to that questionable success by helping paint a picture as him being a notable person in the sense of an encyclopedia, which he isn't. Convincing some junior writer to think he is successful, is not difficult. But does he own the castle? Did he ever make any serious money (with the story around GWRI being at least questionable with even the London Stock Exchange having nothing on that!)? Who published this list of the 60 wealthiest Hispanic-Americans and when/where, I couldn't find the list nor him being mentioned in that context. In fact, he appears on no such "top x richest" list. --Esinclair52 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, because you claimed above that you had paid for and read all the articles I mentioned. I guess you missed this one [11]. If there are factual errors in the article, they should be removed, but policy is firmly on my side that that is not a reason to delete. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he is not on that list! (which you can check yourself easily by buying the article). If WP has the claim to be a real encyclopedia one day, it simply should not provide space for questionable and clearly promotional articles. That's all I'm saying, it's not about you or me being right; it's about WP being used as a promotion's tool for selling books and seminars on basis of a myth created by a clever PR-machinery not created by actual high volume of business deals as claimed. There is a trail of law suits and not-so-well-off companies which I am happy to provide you with, but not on this public forum, post your email on my talk page and I will share.--Esinclair52 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't post it here, and it has not been published in a reliable source, then it is useless as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you have the article, perhaps you would consider re-reading it in order to discover why it came up in this google search [12] and why there is even a quote from the article that uses his name clearly displayed on the search page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found an interesting article in The Sunday Times, which is very careful to present present the subject's claims as claims rather than facts. This search, designed to catch the various forms of the name but remove most false positives, gets remarkably few hits for someone with this CV. The only other relevant independent source found by that search is this one in The Scotsman, which appears to confirm the subject's ownership of Guthrie Castle. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Guthrie Castle: "The site is a privately owned hotel, managed by the Peña Family and access is restricted to guests with reservations for an overnight stay or to play golf." from http://www.castleuk.net/castle_lists_scotland/54/guthriecastle.htm "The 55 room castle was sold to the Penna family in 1984. After 19 years as their private residence, the Penna family has now opened Guthrie Castle to the public. Today it is a popular venue for fairy tale weddings and corporate programs. It can accommodate up to forty people." from http://www.scotland.com/castles/angus-dundee/guthrie/ I assume the 'fairy tale' refers only to the weddings... Peridon (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have requested the Property Register from the Scottish authorities; these documents contain a description of the property, its tenure, the name and address of the owners, details of mortgage holder and other charges, covenants etc. --- will let know the outcome. --Esinclair52 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator I notice you are now adding some of this new information to the article. Does this mean you no longer believe it should be deleted? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still believe the article should be deleted: of all the praise in the original article that supposedly makes the guy notable, I couldn't verify one single fact (!) - without being prejudiced, personally couldn't care less - but on the contrary, I could verify many facts and added some of them to the page for everybody to decide whether such a questionable story should get a platform here to promote his seminars and books -- the elements of the original praise story are not verifiable, which makes the article violate WP:V, in the light of the really available facts, the person is not notable; and rather than enabling to continue spread a story with big holes, the place in WP should not be granted. Especially because it's a living person, I would also not recommend it. If there is any proof for the praise, if there are any positive news mentionings, where are they, why can nobody find them? My guess is they would have been published, if there were any. Last but not least, the interest and participation would probably be a lot higher if he were as notable as the praise proposed. So, in summary: DELETE and stop from being created again. --Esinclair52 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument does not make sense. You have added new information to the article, and provided some sources, yet you continue to state that he is not notable... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I agree with it, but there is an argument to be made for deletion based on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Nearly all available independent reliable sources appear to present the subject in a negative light, so it will be very difficult to produce an article that complies with those policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with the new facts having come to light, I believe the article should stay in. At least it would contribute to people having a more critical look at the guy's story. It may help him to sell some books or seminars, but where else people will find an unbiased look at his claims? -- 206.53.153.163 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm getting slightly confused as to whether the nominator is saying Peña is notable or not. As the article now stands, I feel there is a definite degree of ~~notoriety~~ notability. I wonder what else may turn up. It doesn't look like the bit of puff now that it did. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NBeale below and don't think that given the real facts visible now this guy is note-worthy; however I am also not objected to being a neutral platform. My personal opinion is it's not notable because the original puff-piece seems to have been mostly untrue. If it stays in, care should be taken, that over time not suddenly "the puff" is back and the (for him) not-suitable links disappear. --Esinclair52 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting requirements of WP:GNG and then continue diligent use of WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It all looks pretty bogus - and his major claim to notability seems to be being accused of dodgy dealings. NBeale (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. It's going to be on my watchlist. I suggest others put it on theirs, too. (I'm not always at home.) Peridon (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think that the sources found are just about enough to show notability. This looks like a textbook case of the law of unintended consequences. And, btw, this has been on my watchlist since I first saw this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One^{two^three...} 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Namie

Non-notable per WP:BIO Brianga (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Passes WP:N. a little insignificant 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm rather surprised that the three editors above have claimed non-notability without explaining how these books and these news articles covering the subject don't confer notability. It takes hardly any more time to find them than it does to type, "I agree, non-notable", or, "clear[sic] non-notable", and certainly less time than it takes to create an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this page is to assess BLPs as they are presented, not to rewrite them. That is the job of their authors. If you think that the BLP can be improved by the information you provide, then edit it. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, The bully at work, currently in more than 800 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added the info. about his book’s holdings to the article; this is in my view the key verifiable claim of notability, as far as WP:PRO is concerned.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough referenced material to establish notability. The book holdings is quite impressive, but not enough on its own and is also WP:OR NBeale (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work, but passes WP:N and WP:V. Nanowolf (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closed as G3 (blatant hoax) Keeper | 76 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gomelian language

Apparent hoax. No relevant Google hits; Voblast is not a language; gom is the language code for an Indian language. —teb728 t c 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A somewhat elaborate hoax, aimed at people who have studied linguistics. "hws dad pōššivl?" is an alteration of "How is that possible". Soon this will be gone, but I'll always wonder what "wỹći hȳṣ itan the brɥd, wỹći uas er mst ḥālūŵ fudw, wỹći uas er mst ḥālūŵ fudw" was a takeoff of. Mandsford (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 03:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazxul (Demo)

Non notable demo album. Not on a label. No reviews. No independent coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS and WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pursuant to everything the nominator stated. Fails everything about WP:MUSIC#Albums. At best, merge info into parent article if not already there.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple of The Presence

The article lacks independent sourcing and refers to some sources that do not cover the subject of the article, but rather it's broader parent body of Theosophy. After searching through a variety of library resources, I have not been able to find independent reliable sources that provide substantive coverage of the topic (The Temple of The Presence). Without such sources, we cannot craft an article on the topic that meets our core content policies. Vassyana (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of third-party sources means we are basically in cloud-cuckoo land here. Unless they emerge, I agree, there is no article here. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all the references are simply pointers to the website of the organisation. Nothing like 3rd party Reliable Sources. And no real claim of notability anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBeale (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One^{two^three...} 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Magazine (New York City)

Procedural nomination: this was prodded with the reason "Advertisement: no links to third-party citations, only references listed are links to the publication website, "sources" are links to publication media kit" I'm sending it here for community opinions because the publication seems probably important, & the name makes searching very inconclusive. Myself, I'm not sure. DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Distributing 50,000 copies is a claim to notability, but the ref quoted is its own website, and it doesn't even say it there. Searching is difficult due to the name, but I couldn't find anything of note. Would be willing to reconsider if third party reliable sources can be found about the magazine. Quantpole (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for ("Next Magazine" + gay) or ("Next Magazine" + gay + "New York") is making the search easier but may be screening out some stuff. I don't see any in-depth coverage, there are plenty of mentions in quasi-reliable sources such as the Village Voice. As far as the size and scope of the magazine, the article claims: "Next Magazine prints approximately 50,000 copies and has over 300 distribution points in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, Long Island, and New Jersey." but I can't find a reliable source to confirm that either. Drawn Some (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This weekly magazine has been a long-time staple of the LGBT community in New York City, and even Frommer’s knows about it [13]. A Google News search turns up more than a few articles, too: [14]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This piece appears to be advertising. The only sources cited are references to the publication's internet site that encourage people to advertise in the publication, and per Wikipedia rules it should be deleted for that reason. Just being a commercial entity or mentioned by a travel publication is not justification in and of itself to be encyclopedic. FuturePresent (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Paster Theo. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that many famous people would be on the cover, if it didn't have at significant circulation. Dream Focus 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns for article tone can be addressed through WP:CLEANUP. It being a publication with an editorial staff for research and fact-checking, allows that the article might be kept and fixed. Needs sources? Just a matter of digging over time. Reads like advert? Just a matter of proper cleanup. A presumption of notability exists. And it is a rare article that springs into existance already perfect. Wikipedia allows that over time that articles be allowed to improve. Edge Miami writes of Next, as does Edge New York. Their articles are being quoted Broadway World. Naturally problems in searches arrise because there are a few other magazines with this same name (like one in Chia), but even with its market demographic being a bit specialized, I think we have a reasonable presumption that more soures will be brought forward as the article grows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that's the case then the bulk of the article should be deleted. The main header should be kept but the remainder of the article (which is just direct quotes from the marketing materials encouraging people to advertise with unsubstantiated claims) should be deleted until third parties are able to add sources and verify data. Wikipedia should not be used as a corporate website nor should it be advertising. FuturePresent (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. WP:CLEANUP should properly address any sense of advert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Mawhinney

Sorry, but I don't think "Shropshire Young Musician of the Year 2008" is notable enough for an encyclopedia. See WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. a little insignificant 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, though I'm not yet sure to what. Reasoning: Sophie's article is verifiable from reliable sources, and reliably-sourced material should not be deleted because of WP:PRESERVE. However, she's not notable enough for her own separate article, so a merge is the only outcome consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
It's annoying that there doesn't appear to be an appropriate list of musicians. I'm open to suggestions.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A merge to some sort of list of County Musicians of the Year would merely create a list of almost entirely non-notable student musicians. Searching online, I don't see any further reasons for notability, except possibly a notice of a bankruptcy filing (which I'm pretty sure Sophie would not want enshrined in her Wikipedia article.) Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because she is verifiable does not mean she is important or significant enough to be incorporated in a list or article. I myself know thousands of verifiable people who don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. On the other hand, there is always the list of People who have been described by colleagues as "hard-working" and "great with children." as stated in the article. Drawn Some (talk)
- With all due respect for Drawn Some's ingenious argument here, I'd like to draw attention to WP:NNC and User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I particularly said "important or significant" not "notable". The Uncle G thing is a personal essay and it is too long to read. Drawn Some (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to read it when you do have time. :) Wikipedia doesn't have any authority figures, but in view of how much of the notability guideline Uncle G actually wrote, in this area he's probably one of the more important of the authority figures Wikipedia doesn't have.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have read the Uncle G article, and it says much the same as WP:NNC - if something is not notable enough for an article, it may be possible to preserve some of its content by merging. But what are we to preserve from this? Not the toddler club and the hard-working bits; only "Sophie won Shropshire Young Musician of the Year 2008." That's verifiable, but is it encyclopedic? and where would we merge it to? It would have to be "List of winners of UK county Young Musician of the Year awards" or "List of UPANDCOMING young musicians", and neither of those really sounds like an encyclopedic article. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, therein lies the rub (and that's the reason why I said "I'm open to suggestions"). If there isn't an appropriate article to merge it to, we'll have to IAR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE doesn't say all reliably-sourced material should be retained - all sorts of trivia can be reliably sourced. It says it should be retained if it would belong in a "finished" article. I'm not sure this would. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my view's a little more nuanced than that. I think there are reasons why you might delete reliably-sourced material (e.g. a BLP concern, or a copyvio).

I do think we should not lightly remove reliably-sourced material from Wikipedia, and I prefer policy-based reasons to do it rather than guideline-based reasons such as WP:N.

Having said that, we've spent an awful lot of words on deciding whether to delete this or turn it into a footnote in something like List of musicians from Shropshire or British Young Musician of the Year awards (and if no suitable article exists, my suggestion fails in any case). I'm minded to do something more productive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much all winners of any music competition will be verifiable, as the results are usually published somewhere, or reported in a local paper. Unless the competition is significant (something like Leeds International Pianoforte Competition springs to mind) the winner is not notable. I have also removed personal info that is probably against WP:BLP. Quantpole (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope she does well in future, but this is not remotely notable at present. NBeale (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One^{two^three...} 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trench coats in popular culture

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivial facts. The project is not served by an endless list of every character in any work of fiction who happens to wear a trenchcoat. PROD removed with the usual refrain of "it's notable and I just know there must be sources out there somewhere!" While there may indeed be, as the de-prodder suggests, sources regarding the "use of [an] iconic costume in significant media", such currently hypothetical sources would allow for a sourced section within Trench coat, not a list of every single fictional character who ever wore one. Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the trench coat article, and maybe downsize it a bit.--Kross ^Talk 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial list cruft/clutter at best. IF there is any notable entries, put them in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and look for sources. No attempt to find secondary sources seems to have been made by the nominator (or the author,for that matter), although many of the films discussed have extensive criticism available. At first glance, it seems iconic, and the use of it in the notable works can certainly be sourced easily enough. DGG (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate it if you would stop making assumptions about what I did or did not do regarding looking for sources. Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT. Quote from the article: "Some popular examples of characters wearing trench coats include Rorschach (comics), Doctor Occult, Green Hornet, the Sandman, and the Crimson Avenger, among others." Keep. I'm not against a mention of how trench coats are used in popular culture (preferably in the trench coat article) but an endless list of people wearing trench coats can be done with. If it was changed into how trench coats were used in pop culture, I'd be happy. a little insignificant 19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing but an endless list of people wearing trench coats, so by your reasoning it can still be done with. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If some sources surface, I agree that the place to start is a section in the Trench coat article. A short list of examples there might be appropriate, but I don't see the point of a separate article at the moment. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sad thing is, the trench coat has been a significant part of pop culture that influenced people like the Columbine High killers; this, of course, is your run of the mill ipc article, a list of sightings of an object in films and TV programs, in this case, people who wore coats that came down to their knees. Say, didn't I see the Vulcan high council wearing trench coats in the new Star Trek movie? Of course, those might have been robes.... Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Trenchcoats have influenced a large part of popular culture, an I feel this should be mentioned, but a list of people wearing trenchcoats is inappropriate (no pun intended). a little insignificant 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe merge highly notable plot device. I might be able to find some refs on commentary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like many popcult articles or sections, it could do with a trimming, some reorganization, and better writing, but it's a resource we should include. If necessary, it could be Merged into the Trench coat article, that would be fine, but the material should be kept. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is fine. You could use the information to see when the sale of trench coats went up, based on being seen in a popular movie or television series. I bought my black trenchcoat after watching Highlander the series for awhile. Dream Focus 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then couldn't we include that in the article, i.e. "trenchcoats were made popular with the release of The Matrix in 1999", etc. a little insignificant 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does a list of every fictional character who ever wore a trench coat in any fictional work ever allow people to determine anything about the sales of trench coats? That has to be about the most nonsensical assertion I've ever seen. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to be arguing for a merge with the main Trenchcoat article. Be that as it may, the article has good scope to develop along the lines of the List of bowtie wearers. I'll add a source, to demonstrate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination is not in any conceivable way, shape or form calling for the merger of a list of every fictional character who ever wore a trench into the trench coat article. Garbage that doesn't belong in a standalone article does not belong in the lead article either. Your source would serve nicely for a section of the lead article that discusses the history and/or impact of the coat. It does nothing to support the idea that a list of every fictional character who wears a particular garment serves the project. Sourced prose discussion of the impact of the trench = good. "Hey look, that guy's wearing a trench coat in a video game!" = rubbish. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DDG. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Hippogriff. One^{two^three...} 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hippogriff in popular culture

Trivial list cruft/clutter. If there is any notable content: it should be in the main article only. This appears to be yet another "let's move it to a new article to sweep the trivia away", which is a poor solution. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate collection of trivial information. The project is not served by a list of every time someone said the word "hippogriff" in any fictional setting. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hippogriff deleting the unimportant examples. No one really likes this stuff except for the people who like it but it exists. Yes it detracts from many an article on a serious subject. But there are some important members on the list and they should be incorporated into the main article where they have context and the rest eliminated. Drawn Some (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and look for actual sources. "Nobody likes this stuff except for the people who like it" is not a reason for deletion -- or keeping -- or even relevant. Myself, I think the uses of major cultural legends in notable work is always notable. the nom apparently does not agree with WP:BEFORE. Perhaps we should make it mandatory. DGG (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the nom apparently does not agree with WP:BEFORE. What exactly qualifies you to declare what the nominator does or does not agree with? How do you know what the nominator did or did not do regarding WP:BEFORE prior to making this nomination? As an administrator, shouldn't you know better than to try to make this about the nominator rather than the nomination? Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"agree with" is a synonym for "has done as suggested by". The conduct is immediately pertinent to the nomination. I could find an elaborate paraphrase, but it would say the same thing. DGG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Agree with" does not mean "has done as suggested by" under any reasonable interpretation of the English language. One describes an opinion. The other describes an action. Next time you mean "has done as suggested by", try elaborately paraphrasing it as "has done as suggested by". Otto4711 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hippogriff. a little insignificant 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Hippogriff. This material is practically useless without context. What does a hippogriff signify? How has this changed over time? Remove non-notable appearances, keep the significant and/or iconic ones. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a foolish idea. Firstly, what exactly will be said? The utterly uninformative generic pop-culture disclaimer of "Hippogriffs have appeared a lot in popular culture, such as...."? Naturally, the Harry Potter and D&D examples will be used. And then a third one, because humans think in threes. And then some fanboy will come along, and remember that hippogriffs are in this totally awesome game or manga, and then that'll go onto the list. Fifteen bulleted examples later, we're back at square one. Let me make this perfectly clear: absent specific citations of relevance, no mention in pop culture should be considered more relevant than any other. Merging is a vain attempt to isolate those that are importance, typically through some kind of OR declaration. If you've got sources to write a legitimate cultural perception section, do it. Otherwise, don't mess up a legitimate article with a bunch of navel-gazing fan refs. Mintrick (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the fact that the hippogriff is used as an heraldic charge irrelevant to the main article? Drawn Some (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, yes. There is no citation to back that up. Mintrick (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some available [15]. It helps to recognize that there is an alternate spelling "hippogryph". Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite it and add it. Mintrick (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since when are Hippogriffs in pop culture? Harry Potter books 1-7? Oh, and <insert random trivial poems, video games, books, movies, and other references to hippogriffs nobody has ever heard of>--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random trivial works like The Satanic Verses and The Worm Ouroboros The article only contains those works that people have indeed heard of to the extent there are notable Wikipedia articles about them. . DGG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this back, per everyone else. It would be hippogrittical of me to say otherwise. This should never have been split off in the first place. Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge completely arbitary split. What makes one literature mention a pop culture mentin and another one not? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we could easily retitle it Hippogriff in fiction. Satisfied? In fact, given the nature ofthe examples, and that some are in classic literature, I will do so after its kept. I don't want to do it during the discussion. DGG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is the classical hippogriff ain't factual either. I had hoped to propose a merger before this AfD came up, like with bugbear, saving the need for this debate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it Hippogriff in fiction or anything else doesn't change the fundamental fact that this is nothing but a list of times the word "hippogriff" appears in a book or a play or a video game. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random and indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of the word used to describe different imaginary creatures. Edison (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hippogriff - which is what I did a month ago but somebody else reverted. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through your past edits, in particular the amount of "in popular culture" articles you've made and / or split from larger articles you really don't seem to be doing much but propagating useless trivia. Besides the fact that almost all of your articles have no references cited, I'm not even sure they meet Wiki's notability guidelines. Additionally, they do not conform to Wiki's goals for "popular culture" sections / articles. The point of these types of articles is that they explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. They do not just list trivia references. Wiki even has a tag to this end (In popular culture), which has rightfully been added to most of your articles. Frankly, most of them should either be deleted or, more appropriately, merged back into their parent articles only listed the entries that explain the subject's impact on popular culture.JasonFrankTed (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Striking through comments from sockpuppet account per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive -- Banjeboi 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but a random selection of trivial information. None of these points are notable in themselves. The proper way to include this kind of information would be to mention Hippogriffs in passing in the other articles and link to the Hippogriff article from the others. Having these backlinks from this article only creates a web of trivia. This doesn't belong in this article nor back in the main article as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What we feature must be cited and relevant to the parent topic. The only point here that has real-world relevance is the definition from the Devil's Dictionary. That should be moved to the main article (and cited), but the rest of these points fail WP:IINFO and don't belong in any article. Them From Space 10:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly written content fock (what does one do with this bullet for instance "Agesilan of Colchos, a sequel to Amadis of Gaul, published in the 1530s.") and redirect to Hippogriff.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hippogriff Ikip (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 Hoax. If that doesn't work for ya, than A7 it is. Keeper | 76 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Mason

was nominated for speedy, but one of authors removed speedy; was proded, and one of authors removed prod and all references - albeit non-subject related references were the only wiki worthy references. Only reference that mentioned subject was his myspace page. I suspect this is a hoax. With so many people concerned about this article, I feel it needs to be discussed and a consensus reached as to whether or not it should stay or go. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either a hoax or as utterly non-notable, no references to verify his existence. It really doesn't matter which is the case. Drawn Some (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert sufficient notability even if true. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a hoax, either way appears non-notable. a little insignificant 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - searches (listed on the article talk page) draw a complete blank. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as article has been deleted multiple times before. Salted as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti (album)

Future album with no confirmed title, tracklist, etc. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can't find any reliable sources that support this article beyond blog posts. TN X Man 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Problems from last afd still haven't been issued. Maybe salt until needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 - still HAMMER-worthy, fails WP:NALBUMS, no confirmed title, everything is "rumored to be" and "words have it". When will they learn this is an encyclopedia not a fan-rumour-site? JohnCD (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 04:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bushell

Delete - Non notable, CoI article. Created by P176 along with another page. User works with the subject and the userspace can prove that, given the identical nature of style and tone. Kale Weathers (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Of the four sources, one is Youtube, one is his employer, the NME one says it features "user-generated content" from Youtube; that leaves the "Ahlan! hot 100", i.e. top 100 celebs in Dubai. That's not notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google news turns up one more source, unfortunately it is trivial for the radio hosts and only extremely borderline if it were to establish notability for the song they covered. In other words, no independent Reliable Sources in sufficient quantitiy to establish a verifiable and neutral article. MLauba (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advert for an individual with little established notability. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ebionites. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionite Jewish Community

I have searched through various periodicals databases and other library resources, but I have been unable to find any sources detailing this modern movement. It appears to lack substantive coverage in independent sources. Without reliable sources, we cannot build an article that meets the basic requirements of our content rules. Vassyana (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I can't find any third-party sources. If they emerge, some sort of article could be constructed; otherwise, we are just quoting their websites. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep You are mistaken. The first two references are verifiable third-party sources that specifically mention the EJC. Neither of them are vanity publications. --Ovadyah (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The jesusfamilytomb.com site has a page on the ancient Ebionites. It briefly mentions the modern revival, giving no details, and links to the Ebionites site. The other web link appears to be gone. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The first website does seem to repeat information from The Jesus Family Tomb, which is clearly notable. The second link, though, doesn't seem to go directly to the source indicated. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to the back issue of the second reference is now broken. Changing my vote to a weak keep. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote back to Keep after finding online news article and YouTube video about the EJC. --Ovadyah (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak keep - This google page shows a listing which might qualify as trivial in some eyes, but may help to substantiate notability. If the issue whose link is no broken online had some sort of paper edition as well, then I assume that it can at least theoretically be found again and that between them the three sources, including the minimal one above, might be sufficient to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a regurgitation of Wikipedia material. It's even cited to Wikipedia. That publisher's sole business is scraping open content from the web and reorganizing it. The dead link was the same sort of material (repackaged Wikipedia material). All that is left is the barest passing mention on a rather far to the fringe website. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. As the creator of, and main contributor to, the Ebionite Jewish Community article, I suggest that we merge and redirect to the Ebionites article, which appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to a merge per se, however it should be noted that the content was originally separated from the Ebionites article to make sure it could stand on its own. The results of the first AfD were inconclusive, however that was before the addition of the first reference. --Ovadyah (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you know, I'm aware of all that. ;) However, I now think this is the best way to preserve this information otherwise it should be deleted since the Ebionite Jewish Community is not notable enough to have its own article but I think it is notable enough to be mentioned in the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Ebionites article and save any worthwhile content. Otherwise this has pretty much been an open example of violations of WP:NOR; WP:RS; WP:NEO and WP:NOTMYSPACE for a long time already and it's time it was put in its proper context where it belongs at the main Ebionites article that is shaky enough as it is. IZAK (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is on an organization that is not notable and it's content is based on sources that are not reliable according to Wikipedia standards. However, I disagree that it is an open example of violations of WP:NOR; WP:NEO and WP:NOTMYSPACE but, despite my neutral intentions when I created this article, it could be argued that it has become an open example of violations of WP:SOAP in the sense of Wikipedia being used as a vehicle for advertising and recruitment of a religious kind. --Loremaster (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not an open example of WP:SOAP. The content was originally written by several independent editors who became aware of the group. Members of the group later made a few changes to correct factual misstatements (e.g. baptist minister baloney). I support the merge and redirect suggestion if it is done within the larger objective of bringing the Ebionites article back up to FA quality. --Ovadyah (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get 628809 ghits for "ebionite jewish community" and "shemayah phillips". Clearly other people are interested in the EJC. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I get only 529 for the phrase bionite jewish community when using quotation marks [16], almost all of which are their own sites, or Wikipedia mirrors; without the quotes, >99% of the references refer to the ancient group, not the modern. DGG (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I included "shemayah phillips" in the search to exclude the non-EJC enteries. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did a search of my own and came up with a link to a web magazine called Kosmix with Jewish content that lists the EJC under Jewish Movements Baltimore Jewish Times. The EJC link has an abstract of the Wiki Ebionites article but also a link to the EJC website and some of their images EJC. Also, the first YouTube video on the Ebionites has a screen shot of the EJC website and talks about the contents. Check it out. --Ovadyah (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also check out this encyclopedic article on the Ebionites that mentions the EJC and appears to be independent of the Wiki article or dependent on a very early version. Ebionite The article mentions Talmidi Judaism with a link to a related article, and the Wiki Ebionites article never mentioned that group. --Ovadyah (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are all repackagings of Wikipedia material, making them useless for our purposes. --Vassyana (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Loremaster. I can't find anything relevant on ProQuest, either. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources provided are either are Wikipedia mirrors (making them useless as reliable sources for our purposes) or provide only the barest of passing mentions. Merging does not seem to make any sense, since there is quite literally no reliably sourced material to merge. Additionally, considering the only source unrelated to Wikipedia is well to the fringes of religious studies and provides only a very brief and uninformative passing mention, which makes for undue weight to the subject even with a brief mention in the main Ebionite article. If sources are found at a later date, we can add information to the Ebionite article. If sufficient sources are found, we can always have an article for the topic at that point. As it stands currently, there are not sufficient sources to even justify a short treatment in a broader article. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean you are unilaterally superseding the votes of all but one editor? All we all then too stupid to know better? --Ovadyah (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, why are you making this personal? How does Vassyana making his case for deletion and against merging supercede the votes of others or imply that they are stupid? --Loremaster (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? Because like most people, he's blind to his own defects that he projects onto others. Better would have been to produce some good sources to address the substantive issue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Before I nominated the article for deletion, I undertook a search for sources. The search included the library resources of a large university, Questia, JSTOR, and Project MUSE. I additionally checked via Google and various booksellers for potential references. With the sole exception the bare passing mention at the Jesus family tomb site, my search resulted in zero sources that were not based on Wikipedia. --Vassyana (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Michael correctly surmised my objection - making sweeping pronouncements without presenting the evidence. Anyway, I apologize to Vassyana for making it seem personal. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, I think Michael was criticizing you, Ovadyah. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see. Well, that's much better. :0) --Ovadyah (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. The criterion that should be used to decide this issue is verifiable sources. Notability is a subjective judgment about undue weight. The article has one reliable source now that the link to the second source is broken - the reference to the Jesus family tomb site. Therefore, the existence of the group is verifiable, although one could argue it's barely notable (subjective). I propose we resolve the issue as follows: if the existence of the group is verifiable by a reliable source, then vote to keep it to resolve the AfD followed immediately by a proposal to merge and redirect, otherwise vote to delete and be done with it. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After having heard all the arguments, I would still vote for merging. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. I am still voting to keep based on my reasoning above. However, if the article survives AfD, I am open to considering a subsequent proposal to merge and redirect. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Faisal Bin Turkey Bin Naser

Delete unreferenced one-line BLP, just being rich and owning something notable doesn't make you notable. I tried redirecting this to the soccer club, but apparently the editor prefered to retain this unreferenced "biography" whithout so much of an iota of biographical detail - in such a state this article cannot stand - if people come up with more or if he becomes notable, we're still not losing anything meaningful by deleting this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no context, no ghits, not notable. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited and it's not even spelled correctly. "Turkey", come on now. Also someone needs to check the name of the team he owns, it looks like it should be located at ...Nassr.... instead of ....Nasr..... -Drawn Some (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree to delete, I removed the speedy tag. The stub appears to claim that he gave a retirement speech, and sources might be found. If not, delete. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Correct name appears to be Prince Faisal bin Turki bin Nasser sometimes with an extra bin Abdul Aziz as well. Only info I could find was something to do with overtime pay for bodyguards, and a user submitted bit of news about him taking over as chairman o the football club. I don't think this is enough to establish notability per se, but am inclined to think that being a member of the Saudi royal family is a decent claim to notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced BLP. Note that there are thousands of members of the Saudi royal family, unless this person is a senior member of the family (and I see nothing to indicate this), then I don't believe that makes him notable either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdraw, no other current ~~keep~~delete !votes (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant delete, not keep. Thank you, A Nobody, for pointing that out to me. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cally (Blake's 7)

unreferenced, non-notable —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To this day, Blake's 7 has a strong fan following. The information in the article can easily be cited from the series per WP:WAF. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you actually read WP:WAF? the second paragraph says, "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources." —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? Under the heading "Primary and secondary information" it reads: "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source." This article is an offshoot of Blake's 7, whose notability is not in question. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so where are the citations to specific episodes (primary sources) or secondary sources? both are expected and this article has none of either. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But deleting the article solves nothing. I'd have done it by now, but it's been too long since I've seen the show. It needs editing, not deleting. It is not unsalvageable. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes little sense to pick out this one article -- out of all the articles on B7 -- for deletion. It does make a lot of sense to reference the article properly, which I will try to work on in the next few weeks or soHal 10000.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as consisting wholly of unreferenced plot and trivia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as the article has quickly satisfied my criteria for deletion and has met the Heymann Standard. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable main character of notable TV series - and it only had a few characters. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change original nomination from Delete to Keep there have been enough improvements to this article, especially by A Nobody to meet notability requirements, and the article should be kept. I retract my original nomination. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Afds are not the place for WP:CLEANUP Incredible job of a nobody. Ikip (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing administrator this article has gone through signifigant improvements since nomination.[17] Ikip (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lassan (surname)

Delete nothing to indicate that this surname among the multitude is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article to prove its notability or importance Turbo900 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even enough here to transwiki to Wiktionary. bd2412 T 06:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in Switzerland

AfDs for this article:

Not much has changed since last Afd in December 2008 (closed as no consensus). Still little more than a linkfarm. Fails WP:LIST. ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's just a directory for external links. If they were turned into internal links, that would be a different matter altogether. Lugnuts (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are several other lists of banks from other countries, just like this one, on Wikipedia. If this one is to be deleted, then all the others should also be flagged as such. Diana LeCrois : 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not just a random list, it's organized in a way that conveys very important information. Perhaps all the external links should be removed but that's not a reason to delete it. The Swiss banking industry is quite notable and the alternative to this stand-alone list would be to incorporate it in an article which would be unwieldy. Catagories cannot impart the same information in a comprehensible manner. Drawn Some (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably almost all of these are notable, even the ones that current do not have articles. The redlinks should help in indicating where articles need to be written. Each should of course be checked in the German and French wikipedias, where I'd expect to find most--they not surprisingly do a better job than us with companies in their cultural area, but if they;re important anywhere we should have the articles too. Of course, the argument that there are lists for other countries is not by itself the reason to keep these--the argument should have been stated as there are lists for other countries ,because many banks are notable, and this applies here as well. And, normally, if there is acategory for some sort of organizations, there should be a list also. DGG (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the list is discriminate (there is a limited number of banks in the country) and the information is encyclopedic. Take for instance a look at List of banks in Norway for how such a list could be formatted. Of course, all the external links should be converted to internal links. I bet many of the banks actually have an article—I see several on the top of my head that do, that have external/no link. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:LIST. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve per the Norway list. More time spent improving instead of deleting would greatly help WP Hmains (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as per other lists of country banks Nanowolf (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayonnaise jar

There is no reliable info to cover the subject properly, despite the discussion in the talk page started in March. - Altenmann >t 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can conceive that there might be some interesting, encyclopedic stuff to say about mayonnaise jars in the Soviet Union; and if someone can actually provide substantial reliable-source discussion of it then we can make an article. As it is though, this article pretty much tells us that a mayonnaise jar is a jar that is used to store mayonnaise. I cannot see much evidence of coverage to demonstrate the notability of mayonnaise jars outside the general discussion of all jars. I therefore suggest that we redirect this article to mason jar so as to direct readers to information about this kind of jar in general. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a mason jar. There are dozens quite different designs for jars to store mayo. - Altenmann >t 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objections to deletion if that's the case; though I certainly have never seen a mayonnaise jar in my experience that was not functionally a mason jar. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Its a Mayonnaise jar. A mayonnaise jar. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't read the article's talk page, have you? Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, appears to be non-noteworthy variant of generic use of "Mason Jar". Google has some hits for the combination of "Mayonnaise Jar" and "Soviet Union", but all of them seem to be copies or rewordings of this article. Needs an expert, if there is one. Hairhorn (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try "Майонезная банка". Articles about this aren't necessarily going to be in the Latin alphabet, after all. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's little point, since I can't read the articles... Hairhorn (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that editors of the "But it's a mayonnaise jar!" persuasion read the article's talk page, the Russian Wikipedia article at ru:Майонезная банка, the Russian Wikipedia's currently ongoing deletion discussion at ru:Википедия:К удалению/2 мая 2009#Майонезная банка, where several editors are opining "speedy keep", and the Russian Wikipedia's previous deletion discussion at ru:Википедия:К удалению/21 января 2006#Баночка из-под майонеза, to find that there's more here than may readily be apparent to English speakers. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Russian wikipedia seems to have rather lax standards as to sourcing the info. I did look into the russian page to find possible references to reuse. Found none. Their arguments in their AfD would not be accepted here. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of them might. All four of Uliss, Saidaziz, Beaumain, and Wind are directly addressing the existence of sources, for example. So, too, is Trycatch, who not only argues that sources exists, but even cites some, including the "mayonnaise jar" entry in Marlene G. Rosato's Concise encyclopedia of plastics (Springer, 2001, ISBN 9780792384960). Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no encyclopaedic content here. The questions are: (1) Could there be; and (2) If so, would it belong in an article entitled "Mayonnaise Jar"; and both questions would need a "yes" answer before I could recommend retaining this as a bluelink.
After reading Google translate versions of the articles Uncle G links above, I think there could be encyclopaedic content concerning mayonnaise jars, so (1) is a "yes", but (2) is still a "no" because I think such content would belong in Economy of the Soviet Union rather than in a separate article.
Delete as an article title that should be a redlink on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mason jar. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, mayo jar can be of numerous designs, not only Mason's. - Altenmann >t 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say keep but I am unqualified to judge references needed for notability and verifiability. My reasoning is this has the same (more likely greater) importance in Russia as Milk bottle has in some other countries. It is also similar to the little jars preserves used to come in with cartoon characters that were intended to be used for juice glasses. Also they had a deposit on them similar to milk bottles or soda bottles and are now collected and written about. Drawn Some (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a cultural significance and the cultural difference of the terms Майонезная банка (mayonnaise jar) and Баночка из-под майонеза (literally: "a jar which originally stored mayo"). I can write an interesting sociological essay on the subject. But the problem with the subject is lack of known sources. - Altenmann >t 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete ...wtf is this even doing here for this long?--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history, the original version [18] was about a particular type of container that was part of Russian/Soviet culture. The ru.wikipedia article Mайонезная_банка ("Mayoneznaya Ganka") might one day be translated to what this article once aspired to be. Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Translation of unreferenced interwikipedia pages is bad idea (apparent refs in the ru: text in fact are not). - Altenmann >t 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutely do not redirect to Mason jar Mayonaise jars (in the U.S., at least) are much thinner than Mason jars and are far less likely to survive the canning process. Delete it or leave it alone. Edison (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary seems like a dictionary definition rendered as a paragraph. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File this one in the Trash Can with Ketchup Bottle, Toothpaste Tube, and any other overly specific container article one can come up with. And if someone can figure out that somewhere in Kiribati, there is a special interest in Soup Cans, please don't write an article on it. Well, maybe it's late and I just need some sleep... Eauhomme (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- re Kiribati: actually, it may be an interesting topic, Reuse of food containers in underdeveloped countries. 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary and then Delete. It is not notable as a seprarate entry and not splitable from jar in general. According russian article, it is also nominated for deletion recently.Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Whitney Students Program

Admissions program at Yale University that has not received any significant coverage from reliable, third party sources. Notability is also not inherited. Only citations of note are due to a controversy arising from an affiliate who was never even a member of the program. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual special admissions programs, even at Yale, are not notable. Possibly find some place to mention it. The references are not on the program, but on Rahmatullah, who might well be notable. DGG (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks stand-alone notability. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yale is notable, but notability need not be inherited. I did not see significant 3rd part coverage independent of the subject, or of its parent organization. Dloh cierekim 15:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Anthony Lloyd

Non-notable engineer Passportguy (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent coverage, no claim to notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in this article suggests notability. NBeale (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Gividen

Non-notable past candidate for political office. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable losing minor party candidate. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources; I don't even see any news mentions of him, a little surprising given the run for governor. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN minor party candidate --rogerd (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoGoBuilder

Non-notable software, borderline advertising Passportguy (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails in notability and seems to be promotional in content. Diana LeCrois : 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be any wide notability here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Scazzola

Mostly a courtesy nomination. An account claiming to be the article's subject blanked the article, requesting privacy in the edit comments. A look at the article shows the notability of the subject to be IMHO marginal at best, so it seems best to me to give the subject his desire and delete it. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a little insignificant 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any serious notability online. I don't think the subject's request to be removed should count for much, but he just doesn't make the cut anyways. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 06:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Sam Horn

AfDs for this article:

not notable fan blog site Spanneraol (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable Boston Red Sox fan page. Hundreds of this sort of internet sites exist, none of them deserve their own articles.Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last AFD resulted in keep because of two links, one where members banded together and donated $25K or so to some charity, and one where a reporter for the Slate said he likes the web site. That's it. That hardly qualifies as "significant coverage" in my opinion. Wknight94 ^talk 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is merely a fan blog, it fails notability. Diana LeCrois : 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full article on it in Slate, strong mention in CNET article, plus multiple mentions in major regional media (i.e. the Boston Globe refs).--Cube lurker (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only certain (i.e. famous, significant coverage) blogs are notable, and this one isn't.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on examination, I don't see anything that would establish enough third-party notability to make this worthy of inclusion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep No !votes for deletion after several days of discussion, and the juxtaposition of editors !voting keep is compelling. Rewrite is indicated per discussion, and stubbification may be appropriate in the meantime, but the article stays. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Sontag

Not WP:Notable. The article only tells us two things about him. He wrote a book on the Unification Church in 1977 which attracted some attention. And he was the victim of a violent attack in 2000 which was reported by the LA Times. Other than that Kris Kristofferson says he's a good teacher. There is really no life story in this "biography." Borock (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ highly questionable that he meets any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, plus is a poster-boy for the explicit exception "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with complete rewrite: giving WP:DUE weight to Gale listing (The Existentialist Prolegomena: To a Future Metaphysics & The God of Evil: An Argument from the Existence of the Devil) and avoiding WP:UNDUE weight to ephemera (background to Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, the stabbing or Kris Kristofferson). [(belatedly signed Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

hmmm... ~~Delete~~... I tried to save the page (which was started by a friend) but could not come up with any real substantial coverage of him in secondary sources. (That's WP:N) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep I guess I'm not very good at saving articles. I see that more sources have been found and information added to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No one objected to this article until I linked to his Sun Myung Moon interview. I think the motive behind the delete initiative is to suppress factual information about the Unification Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to do that. This person isn't notable based on the lack of in depth coverage in sources.Borock (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because nobody noticed this article until you linked it. And I would point out Ed that you very rarely contribute verifiable "information about the Unification Church" -- which is why it is frequently ~~suppressed~~ removed, per WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that your tunnel vision on the UC aspect neglected Sontag's main claims to notability and almost got this article deleted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was able to find 17 news articles, as well as 361 hits in Google books, he's cited in at least 21 books on religion, and additional scholarly sources as well. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add some more sourced info then. Right now the article cites a review of his book and a news story on the crime he was a victim of, plus a mention in an interview of an ex-student in the college paper.Borock (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ per Wikipedia:Notability. I don't think there's significant existing coverage on this professor that merit an entry in an encyclopedia.Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with complete rewrite: After doing a little research I found plenty of information that makes this person significant.Dabackgammonator (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot find a significant difference between this biography of a professor and the numerous other similar biographies on the WP. This individual has a number of publications and it is well sourced. This article appears to fit the criteria for a biography so I'm not certain why an AFD was placed on it. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I cannot find a significant difference between this biography of a professor and the numerous other similar biographies on the WP" = WP:OTHERSTUFF. "This article appears to fit the criteria for a biography so I'm not certain why an AFD was placed on it." This individual fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria as "the depth of coverage is not substantial" and there is an insufficient multiplicity of sources to mitigate that shortcoming. There is no indication that he meets any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He wrote a lot more books than are currently listed, according to his entry at Contemporary Authors. The sources in the article establish enough notability for me. Zagalejo^^^ 02:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Contemporary Authors entry lists the following sources in its "Further Reading about the Author" section:

Commonweal, October 10, 1969
Library Journal, July, 1970
Christian Century, October 21, 1970 Zagalejo^^^ 04:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article in Gale's Contemporary Authors is notability, as a reputable selective publish encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that directory really substantial coverage in a secondary source as required by WP:BLP?Borock (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to note is that the CA entry points to the existence of other sources (which probably aren't available online). And our article on Sontag already had a couple of additional sources, but Hrafn got rid of them. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note ~~(i) that you have not added this source to the article DGG~~ [I see that somebody else has added it -- but only for his birthdate.] & (ii) that the Gale entry concentrates on his The Existentialist Prolegomena: To a Future Metaphysics & The God of Evil: An Argument from the Existence of the Devil, and makes no mention of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, the stabbing or Kris Kristofferson (which is the substance of the article currently). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the "Sidelights" portion of his CA entry was written before the Moon book was published, and never updated afterwards. (The Sidelights sections shouldn't be thought of as comprehensive; some authors don't even have one.) Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church is in at least 1308 libraries [19], which is more than the other two books combined ([20], [21]), so from a common sense perspective, it certainly merits a mention in our article. The stabbing seems worth mentioning, as well. I won't argue for the Kristofferson connection, though. Zagalejo^^^ 21:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the only three articles that link to this one are all about the Unification Church. It also seems to me that being the victim of a violent attack which sounds like it's close to attempted murder would be a notable event in a person's life. The Kristofferson link, although a minor item, could be worth mentioning since Kristofferson mentioned Sontag as a major influence in his life. Also both of these items are directly related to his career as a teacher. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one has mentioned the fact that (as the article states) he holds the title of Distinguished Professor. Apparently a judgement has already been made about him by his peers. Distinguished Professor states: "Distinguished Professor is an honorary title at many universities for faculty who are recognized by colleagues throughout the world as leaders in their fields." Rather than nominating the article for deletion, a better course of action would seem to be trying to find out what it was that led to his being highly regarded by those who voted to give him this distinction. Since his work is decades old it might take a little digging. -Exucmember (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that nobody has mentioned it, is that it is a very recent addition to the article (by myself), after most of these comments were made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I might have looked back through the history, but it never occurred to me that an article could have been created about Sontag without mentioning that he was a Distinguished Professor! -Exucmember (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of good reasons: see above. -Exucmember (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. I would, however, be open to individual nominations of the related articles for deletion. One^{two^three...} 06:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secreteria Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia

Unless we take all national-level government agencies to be notable (a position I acknowledge but don't share), then these are good candidates for deletion. Never mind the poor writing style, the WP:ENGLISH issues and, given the bureaucratese, possible copyright violations (at any rate, this is a direct copy of this). What's important is the lack of much of an attempt to even assert notability, the utter lack of references, and the lack of third-party, independent sources that might help in establishing notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - these are important government agencies. When searching under their correct titles (the lead article had a typo in the heading for example) there are in fact plenty of sources. I would add that I think that this deletion discussion is premature; experience shows that significant government bodies are likely to have sources and the better way forward would have been to tagged the pages for improvement and given them time to be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you actually know they're important? More to the point, do we really want to keep around probable copyvios (the first one certainly is) spat out in atrocious grammar by a machine translator until the mythical "expansion" happens "with time"? There's something to be said for not looking like a junkyard for extended intervals. Granted, I don't exclude out of hand the possibility of improvement (or, before that, of notability being shown), but it seems slight at the moment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you consider any meet the criteria of CSD:G12 then tag them accordingly. TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first article; nominate the others separately. They are of very different degrees of notability first level government bodies in all countries are notable, and I think the Secretaria... is one of them. The second,a research branch of the air Force, is probably not. The others may vary--we'd need to look individually. DGG (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the user did also create Ministry of National Defence (Ecuador), but that's obviously notable. The Secretaria may or may not be in that category, but given it's a copyvio, should be speedied. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't yet see how any of these articles meet the notability standards, and they also seem to part with WP:NOT. I don't see how gvt agencies (if these are really institutions on that level) are supposed to be inherently notable, particularly in the case of Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos (?!). Now, if anyone really pines for them once they're gone, let them restart them from proper sources - they're gonna have to either way, since the existing texts amount to horridly unintelligible crap, and since the article titles are probably the wrong ones. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secreteria Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia--This is the top-science agency in Ecuador responsible for government policy and plenty of sources are available to establish notability, 1. --J^mundo 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Definitely. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need a reason. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki all to Spainsh Wikipedia per WP:ENGLISH. The Junk Police (reports|works) 06:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ENGLISH is not a valid reason for transwikiing or deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any government agency in a country whose population is measured in millions rather than thousands will almost certainly turn out to be notable. In this case notability is demonstrated by these books and these news articles. WP:ENGLISH can only serve as a reason to possibly move the article to another title, not to delete it, and certainly not to transwiki as the article is written in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake trio

Delete Fails WP:N, among others. Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added sources, so it no longer fails WP:V or WP:RS. It doesn't violate WP:N because the Pokémon video game franchise is indisputably notable, and therefore all major parts of the franchise are notable. --Aruseusu (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon may have notability, but not everything in it does. Such as this article. Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "Lake trio" is not a major part of the franchise. TheLeft orium 15:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Legendary Pokémon. Delete. Non-notable, even within the franchise. a little insignificant 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has no context and details a non-notable point within the Pokemon franchise. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely in-universe with no real-world information (and none likely to exist.) Artichoker^[talk] 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; This kind of stuff is for Bulbapedia, and there's already an article there. Well written articles on pokémon should go on Bulbapedia, not here. Looneyman (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pokemon fans have a tendency to make up "duos" and "trios". This is one of those things, which are generally made up at school one day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf are specifically stated by the games to be a trio. Azelf's Pokédex entry in Pearl states that they are a trio, and the painting in the cave in Celestic Town and the scene in DP at the Spear Pillar establish that Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf are a trio. Therefore, since the games themselves say that they are a trio, it isn't simply something made up one day. --Aruseusu (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Pokémon: The Movie 2000 makes numerous references to the three birds as a set. One example includes: "Moltres, Zapdos, and Articuno...together they are the three keys...." Also, the "Articuno, Moltres, and Zapdos" jumbo card is, as far as I know, the only Pokémon card shared by multiple species. By the way, I'm still against this Lake trio article (still doesn't establish WP:N), but I just wanted to clarify that the birds are, in fact, treated as a set in official material. Cheers. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should have articles on the other trios as well. --Aruseusu (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would have the exact same problems with notability, verifiability, and sourcing as this one does. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if articles on the other trio's were created, thesame thing would happen to them. They just aren't notible enough for Wikipedia. Looneyman (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't suggesting we make an article for other legendary trios, just pointing out an inaccurate statement. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we were just responding to Aruseusu's statement that they should be made. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree that not everything in Pokemon is notable. Turbo900 (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody's made any posts here for a couple of days, I assume that a consensus has been reached. Looks like delete won by a large majority. Looneyman (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems so. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free ds roms

Contested prod - non notable website / manual Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is worthless. It conflates Nintendo DS homebrew and Software piracy as though they were the same thing, but says nothing about them not already said in the two articles I just linked. APL (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the article is by no means worthless - the only problem with it is that it is a manual. The goal of the article is to teach anyone who reads it how to download and use roms for the DS. Hence the fact that is doesn't care about the difference between home brew and piracy is understandable since it matters little in terms of how to use them. I pointed the user to wikihow; i got no idea of the guidelines over there, but at least i think it has a chance. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worthless maybe I should make it less of a tutorial and more factual - I have tried to do this by showing the differences between the Flashcarts available what do you guys suggest I do?

--Badboy pro (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article Nintendo DS storage devices. Some of the devices in that article are unreferenced. Perhaps the article could use some cleanup? APL (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and borderline speedy delete as very close to being spam. Seems to be promoting a website of the same name. I also agree that, in its current state, it's also a how-to and also contains information redundant to the articles mentioned above. MuZemike 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant violation of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:WEB. Iowateen (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Editor was also aware of other similar pages like Nintendo DS storage devices, as he linked from them to his page. Rurik (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per others and (maybe) WP:MADEUP. The Junk Police (reports|works) 06:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One^{two^three...} 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRents

Non-notable web service with poor or invalid sources and paltry / non-existent web search results. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Article was tagged for issues (deleted without resolution) and conflict of interest, as the creator and one subsequent major contributor accounts share the names of the founders of the service. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well written, but still promotional in tone. No showing of notability under the business or website guidelines. The only claims for notability are local trade awards, not the sort of thing that equals widespread, general, impartial notice outside the trade or location. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original article was written by one of the founders of the site. I have since attempted to rewrite it and remove aspects which would be considered advertising or promotional in tone. Whilst the site is only currently being used by students of Durham University it is expanding and has received press coverage in local news papers (I wasn't sure what references on the article this could be used to cite). Google search for related terms has not gained traction just yet as few sites in similar industries are linking to them, but a search for "sturents" gives the first two pages of results connected to the site, many of which are entirely independent sources. - M1ke (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When it becomes notable, as judged by substantial coverage , and major awards, then there can perhaps be an article. There's a standard reason given at RfA: Not Now. The same general idea applies here too. DGG (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It won a local award, but it's still only known in the NE of England, and it has had no news coverage. If and when it becomes notable, recreate it. Fences and windows (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedied under WP:CSD#G3 as blatant and obvious misinformation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly rat

No google hits, likely hoax Passportguy (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced at best, suspect it is a veiled attack page. Edward321 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a hoax, or indeed a veiled attack page as per Edward321. Taelus (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and user's history. I suggest deletion and warning to editor, whom I suspect is either adding hoax articles or possibly ATP Mrathel (talk)
Delete. Veiled attack or hoax, easily. Weather calls for a snowstorm methinks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional beverages

AfDs for this article:

Clear-cut re-creation of a deleted article that does nothing to address the issues that led to its initial deletion, although speedy deletion was declined by admin who did not bother to look into the situation at all. There has been nothing done to address the reasons the list was initially deleted, which were that this is an "indiscriminate collection of unsourced, unverified information that provides absolutely no context for any of its entries' importance to their points of origin with the exception of links to those very rare fictional beverages that are notable enough in themselves to have articles. We do not need a list of every single fake drink from every single Letterman Top Ten List, Simpsons episode, one-time sight gag or passing background billboard ad from every random TV show, magazine, book or movie." Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD G4; if that's apparently not appropriate, delete since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a large helping of "source" and "trim" per List of fictional swords and the ensuing discussion. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Item is not G4-eligible. Recreation overlaps several of the definitions, but 1) appears to have been a completely new list, and 2) has been around, un-G4'ed since early 2008 in which time many edits have been made by a variety of editors. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much too broad; also contains items too trivial (e.g. the SNL drinks). The "Fictional beverages that also existed" part is the only salvageable section. JJL (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and salvage. It is beyond question that there are some notable fictional beverages, particularly those that are intrinsic to the plot of the story being told. If we trim away the minor mentions and require independent sourcing of the importance of those that remain, we will have an article worth keeping. BD2412 T 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of a particular fictional drink, then write an article about it and put it in Category:Fictional beverages. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about world colliding. As consensus is clear here, the list AND the category can co-exist together in synergistic fashion, per WP:CLN. There appears to be no reason to delete the list in favor of a category, or vice versa. The two will allow readers to navigate through these fictional beverages either through the list or the category. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. WP:CLN in no way obviates WP:NOT and a collection of every beverage that exists within every fictional setting that lacks reliable sources that discuss the concept of fictional beverages is trivial garbage. No one is suggesting deleting the list in favor of the category, What is being suggested is that a list of every time someone mentions a non-existent beverage in any work of fiction ever is not encyclopedic and that we have a place for those interested in actual significant fictional beverages to find those that are actually notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about someone who can't stop the personal attacks. I'm baffled as to how you can insist that "No one is suggesting deleting the list in favor of the category" when you are persistently pushing for deletion of this list and you just stated that "If there are independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of a particular fictional drink, then write an article about it and put it in Category:Fictional beverages". How do we manage to have five separate Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes when we also have Category:LGBT-related television episodes? How do we deal with the slippery slope problem of not including every television episode with a passing reference to homosexuality in those lists? Does everyone who has voted to keep suffer from the same problem of "having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines"? Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk about someone who insists on finding personal attacks where none exist. I am not advocating deleting the list in favor of the category. I am responding to those who claim that the existence of some fictional beverage warrants retaining a list of every fictional beverage. And as for the LGBT lists and category, there are actual books written about LGBT-related TV episodes. They are actually notable as attested to by reliable secondary sources, as opposed to the vast majority of the trivial drinks listed here, which have little or no importance to the fiction they're drawn from, let alone the real world. So that's how we deal with the "slippery slope", by relying on secondary sources and not "this one time in this one TV show there was this fake drink that never got mentioned again in the TV series or anywhere else." And yeah, if people vote to keep this list, they are fundamentally not understanding WP:NOT among other things. Otto4711 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bizarro world of WP:CFD, your arguments might actually find receptive ears. Here, in the real world, we seem to have a firm grasp that reliable and verifiable sources carry the day in demonstrating notability. You may want to consider taking this to WP:DRV and convincing other editors that WP:NOT is being violated by this article and that everyone arguing for retention of this article is dead wrong in "fundamentally not understanding" your interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~, this is a collection of useless trivia about things that don't even actually exist, and it is not related to anything else, it is just a list for the sake of having a list. Not notable. --Susan118 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment On what basis did you decide this list was not notable? Are you aware that a number of these drinks (e.g., the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster appear in RS? Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But having a couple of notable items on a list does not make the list itself notable. Those items can be (and in your example is) included in the article about the TV show, film, book, etc. Using your argument, I can say a List of words that start with "T" is significant because Tree is notable. --Susan118 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, but the overarching theme of this article is not random and unrelated words, but examples of a common thing, that thing being a beverage that does not exist in the real world, but which is used in a work of fiction as a stand-in, perhaps even a parody, for that which exists in the real world. BD2412 T 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      - Comment "examples of a common thing" is a Pandora's box in this context. List of fictional schools exists, but if we're down to beverages we could have fictional streets, fictional clothing companies, fictional bosses, etc. I don't see what's notable enough about "beverages" to justify this list of drinks from such widely varying media (Through the Looking Glass to SNL). JJL (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's how I feel about it, too, but I really don't feel strongly enough about it to waste any more energy on it. It's obviously going to be kept just because some of the items are semi-notable. Still do not see how that makes the list notable, but whatever. --Susan118 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, in going back and looking at the latest version, I'm impressed by what bd2412 has done to improve this in such a short time. It no longer reads like a laundry list of every fake beverage, but is now well sourced and includes descriptions and/or explanations of significance for most of them. I bet if it had been done like this in the first place, it never would have been nominated for deletion. (As close as I'm going to get to saying Keep)--Susan118 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep as it contains information that wouldn't be found elsewhere. a little insignificant 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial listcruft, also: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What we are in the process of doing is making the list discriminating in its collection of information. BD2412 T 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep Cogent discussion at this other Afd had that information merged to this article. Following, this earlier AfD noted that some of the information IS sourced. Calling in "indiscriminate" is mis-direction, as the article title tells the viewer exactly what the article contains. It is not indescriminate. Spreading this information out among dozens of other articles makes it difficult for a reader to then find unless they know specifically what they are looking for. The "context" is seen in the title. Calling it "listcruft" is a negative connotation that acts to denigrate the work of editors who have contributed. Since the nom's other concern is that the list is "unsourced and unverified" information, that concern would call for a tag for cleanup and sourcing... and AfD is not for cleanup. Keep it, tag it, discuss sourcing on its talk page, and let's move on to contributing to a paperless encyclopedia, rather than shrinking it. Article's are here more for the average reader... not for the editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just needs to have more references added. The topic is notable since there is already articles in reliable media on the very same topic. JUst help add references as I am doing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, where might one find these "articles in reliable media on the very same topic"? I can't seem to locate any. Deor (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, each article has a section we call "references", and it lists the articles that were used to source the article. You can also use The Google and type in the phrase "fictional beverage". But I am sure you already know this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Googled, but the only thing I found that treated "the very same topic"—that is, the topic of fictional beverages in general—was the one currently referenced in footnote 3 in the article. The FAQ for that site, however, says, "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own": It's as if they read WP:RS and decided to emphasize deliberately that their site isn't "reliable media." Deor (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, books which discuss the use of fictional brands, and which address beverages in that context. I have now cited some. BD2412 T 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia's coverage of fiction must serve it's coverage of reality. Fictional works must be covered, but their contents need only be discussed to the extent necessary to understand the work and its place in human culture. Mintrick (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are working on making this article serve that function. BD2412 T 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  - Mintrick's remark strikes me as a very debatable point of view couched in the emphatic declarative. I'm reminded of what Jimbo Wales had to say about "rampant deletionism".
    Keep per MichaelQSchmidt.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The hilarious fact is that, since people ignored the creation of articles about pure fiction, they've exploded well beyond anything approaching sanity. Jimbo was wrong. It's something that happens to mortals. Mintrick (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then userfy the content, add sources, and put the new article in its place if it's deleted. Mintrick (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why should we do that when we can, relatively quickly, fix the content of the article with these same improvements? BD2412 T 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
      - Fix the article and I'll change my vote. You've got a full week. Mintrick (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we cover the real world, yes. What else is there? Fiction is part of the real world, just as music is, or philosophy, or religion. They are covered to the extent necessary to show their significance, and the major background elements of a story are part of the significance. But the question here is not articles for the individual beverages, which i agree would be justified only in unusual cases, where they were central to the story or characterization, or otherwise of special importance. (I think there are only two such at the moment) This is a combination article, with just the briefest description, and such articles are the only hope for compromise. Some of these may need a little weeding out, butt hat's an editing problem--I'm not really sure just where the line should be drawn, but that's for the talk page. I'd organize it by type of work or of drink, not alphabetically, but that;s an editing matter also. DGG (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure just where the line should be drawn... is an outstanding illustration of how this list is indiscriminate. Not knowing where the line should be drawn means no one will draw the line, which means that any time some editor sees a digital billboard whiz past in the latest video game, they'll run to add it to the list despite its being completely and utterly meaningless. Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give our editors more credit than that. BD2412 T 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrectly so. Mintrick (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, an editor, doubt the judgment of editors? BD2412 T 00:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Doubt" is the wrong word. Otto's assessment is accurate, and you are incorrect to doubt it. Pop culture lists grow, often with silly, unimportant, or even obviously repetitive details until obliterated. Mintrick (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can happen to any article. The solution is to fix what's there. We can come to a consensus about what is a clearly notable and reliably sourced fictional beverage, and police the content of the article accordingly. Please feel free to take a chainsaw to any content that is not notable or unsourced. BD2412 T 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One It is not indiscriminate now, since it only includes those in notable works. Two Saying that there can be dispute over which items to include does not mea n that all items can or should be included. Saying the exact point to discriminate isn't clear is proof that the topic is discriminate, not that it isn't. The exact point above which things are significant is open to discussion on most articles, and not necessarily obvious. Saying if we can need to have a discussion, we should delete, is not building the encyclopedia, but destroying it. DGG (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not indiscriminate now, since it only includes those in notable works. This makes absolutely no sense. The notability of the fiction does not confer notability onto the fictional beverage. Where are the sources that, for instance, discuss "Black Pony Scotch" from Laura and establish that the scotch is notable? As for your second comment, honestly I find it too incoherent to formulate a response. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pony Scotch is pivotal to the story. A bottle of this brand is found in the apartment of the title character (who is incorrectly thought to have been murdered), leading a detective to develop certain suspicions because she would not drink so cheap a brand. Is it less notable than Duff Beer, Buzz Beer, Romulan Ale, and the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster? Clearly. The correct forum for determining whether it belongs in the article at all is a discussion on the article's talk page, where I have already proposed some criteria for inclusions which should satisfactorily clean up the article. BD2412 T 07:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pivotal to the story" does not equal "notable" The importance of a fictional element to the story does not establish the notability of the fictional element in the absence of reliable sources that are significantly about the element. This is a perfect illustration of the problem with these "List of every fictional foo" pseudo-articles; editors either cannot understand, or understand and choose to ignore for reasons of WP:ILIKEIT, the difference between in-universe importance and real-world notability. Thank you for such a perfect example. Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you right back for such a perfect example of a discussion that should be taking place ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE! You raise that as a reason for deleting the article, and yet you make no effort to address the content of the article in the appropriate forum. I have proposed criteria at Talk:List of fictional beverages, and you are welcome to use all of your powers of argument and persuasion to limit inclusion to those things that you feel are truly notable. BD2412 T 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

SECTION BREAK Okay, BD2412, you need to calm down. We can link this discussion to the talk page if you'd like. a little insignificant 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know how many different ways I can say that the appropriate way to resolve the objection that some items on the list are non-notable is to fix the article. I've made that point several times in this discussion, and yet other keep insisting that this is a reason for deletion without even attempting to resolve the issue by fixing the article itself. I've proposed criteria on the talk page. I would ask that anyone who seriously objects to the content of the article please engage in that discussion. Those who have made no attempt to fix the article can not credibly say that the article is unfixable. BD2412 T 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that too few of these fictional drinks are actually notable enough to be listed here. "Buzz Cola" and "Alaskan Polar Bear Heater"? These are one-time references with no real connection to a plotline. a little insignificant 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-defined list backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. All prior issues of sourcing have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty well sourced now, and doesn't seem to be full of fluff. Cut out any non-notable beverages, but keep the list. Fences and windows (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we cut out all of the non-notable beverages, the list would be a duplicate of the contents of Category:Fictional beverages because 99% of the listed beverages are not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does overlap have in requiring deletion of a list (or a category), when WP:CLN states that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." I performed a careful analysis of List of Presidents of the United States and Category:Presidents of the United States and they overlap nearly 100%, one of many categories with complete duplication in a list and category. Which one should we delete? Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. The topic certainly falls into the range of broadness and narrowness, and there are even good examples given in the same vein, eg the list of fictional dogs. I was the one who declined the speedy delete, viewing the large amount of time since the last AfD, the large number of edits by many people, the restoration of the previous history, and the different content, so it did not count as an identical recreation, and that a debate should be in order to establish whether to continue keeping the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an indiscriminate collection of random information. There is no likelihood that a complete or near-complete list of fictional beverages could ever be compiled. It winds up being a few things that a few editors like. Maybe it would include, "Kaf-Pow" from NCIS and "Butterbeer,"from Harry Potter, but is unlikely to include the "Stim-brew" or "Skullbustium" from 1930's sci-fi spaceoperas. It is unlikely to ever hold more than 1/10 of 1 % of the eligible entries, and few of these have any sources other than the fictional work wherein they were mentioned. A pointless and unencyclopedic exercise in recentism.Edison (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These objections can be dealt with by less extreme measures than deleting the article. We are currently in the process of trimming it to matters mentioned in reliable sources external to the media from which the fictional product comes. BD2412 T 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your argument is contradictory, as you clearly understand the inclusion criteria (therefore it is not indiscriminatory!), and you then complain that it isn't perfect - so improve it! Add Stim-brew and Skullbustium, if you've got sources. Fences and windows (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be less recentist if it gave the date of the work, so readers could look for 1930's fictional drinks if they were so inclined. J Alan Smith (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, good idea. Each should have a description too. Fences and windows (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not indiscriminate, and there are definitely some notable examples Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable examples should have articles, The fact that some fictional beverages have independent notability does not mean that a list of every beverage ever mentioned once in a TV show is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's timeline and train of thought. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it included every fictional beverage ever it would be indiscriminate but the criteria proposed on the talk page are enough to make it encylopedic. Unfortunately we'll have to lose Soylent Cola but it's a price worth paying. J Alan Smith (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent article which provides a good index to these notable topics, per our list guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course that without independent reliable sources the items on this list are not notable, something that you are either unable to understand or that you understand but in your zeal to keep everything you choose to ignore. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks? Is everyone voting Keep "unable to understand" Wikipedia policy? Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is working towards independent reliable sources for all of them. J Alan Smith (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I honestly think that somone whould take a moment and define what indiscriminate actually means, rather than how it appears to be being used in this discussion. As there is a discriminate inclusion criteria for this list (being a beverage presented in fiction, which is also only fictional). Indiscriminate would be to pull 5 or more disparate things out of mid-air and list them on a page. Like for example if I listed acetylsalicylic acid, Snoopy, Australia, fire, and hard drive all on a page. Then someone could possibly suggest that those 5 are disparate enough as to be indiscriminate information. But a page with clear inclusion criteria, and which can be referenced with verifiable reliable sources, simply doesn't fall into the category of indiscriminate information. And incidentally, it's only "can", because, as we're a wiki, the idea is that references will be added eventually. So we only need to WP:AGF that such references likely exist. And even better, if in doubt - go find some : ) - jc37 11:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jc37 demolishes the 'indiscriminate' charge. Individual items on lists are not required to be notable. The category and the list can co-exist in harmony and indeed there is much on the list that is missing from the category. Occuli (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an unambiguous copyright violation (non-admin close). —Emufarmers^(T/C) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A2 Airliner

Spam, no reliable sources, nonsense. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t· c·r) 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam, essay, WP:OR, WP:RS, take your pick. AndrewWTaylor (talk)
Strong delete. Talks about an idea for an aircraft. Ambitious, but very much crystalballery as well. Also big time original ideas. Neither go here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article fulfills its purpose per WP:WPOUTLINE, which makes me feel confident that this can be closed as a speedy keep per discussion. One (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of South Africa

I do not really see the point of this article: it is incomplete (check the general reference section) and is just a bunch of redlinks or links that should be elsewhere (do they have to have all the municipalities presented there - they would be better in a navbox). Chris DHDR 12:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be part of WP:WPOUTLINE. Drawn Some (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This is an outline, and it is fulfilling its purpose as an outline. Also, the article is not "just a bunch of redlinks", I see a majority of blue links. And your assertion that all the links should be elsewhere is false, this is an outline, and while the links can be in a navbox, they should be here too. The purpose of an outline is to provide easy navigability between items in a topic. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Valid article as per WP:WPOUTLINE, just need some work --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G11—blatant advertisement). Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clim-hat

Non notable, not referenced, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 12:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is bogus. See user contributions. Suggest speedy deletion User A1 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's only only edit is this, which looks to me like a perfectly serious attempt to add information on an admittedly unnotable device. Which speedy deletion category do you think it falls under? None seem appropriate to me. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Searching Google web, news, books and scholar produces only a website selling the hats (and Wikipedia itself) that seems to be talking about the product at all. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalla Hill FC

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Club on an island with some 4,000 inhabitants (now, used to be some 8,000), so dubious notability from the start. Capacity of all stadiums on the island is apparently 4,000 as well. So it seems that the info in this unsourced article is very dubious, and that the club is not notable anyway" After the prod was removed (article unchanged), I searched some more, and could not find any evidence that this even exists, never mind it being notable. All five Google hits are Wikipedia or mirrors[22], and there are no Google News hits. Cavalla Hill has no Wikipedia article but it seems to exist (although it is not shown here[23], it should be a part of or close to Saint-Peter), so there may well be a small local football club, but it clearly fails WP:ORG since it even fails WP:V. Fram (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's not much more to say that wasn't covered by the nominator. This is either a hoax or a spectacularly obscure team. In either case, there is nowhere near sufficient coverage to produce a verifiable encyclopedia article. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clubs in Montserrat are going to meet WP:FOOTY. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a whole category filled with similar articles. Each of the infoboxes states the capacity of the particular stadium to be 4000. That is probably the result of a copy & paste. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poorly written article that gives no sources to establish any kind of notability. John Sloan @ 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. --Angelo (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable club. Giant Snowman 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable football club.BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myi Watson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Myi Watson (2nd nomination)

Page contains no true valuable information. Provides no real background on the person in question, and provides no specific links to any given accomplishments calling into question their validity. Even the references provided lead to pages where no easily accessible information on the person is given again questing validity. Unless true information can be provided and backed up I see no reason why this Beauty pageant hopeful should be given a wikipedia page when she has not truly accomplished anything other than graduating high school. Furthermore, no pages link to the article marking it as having no real connection to anything else.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being Miss Black Southeast Texas USA isn't notable. There is no coverage about her in reliable sources. And her remaining accomplishments appear to be winning university competitions in debating. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments against keeping weren't properly addressed/corrected and as a result it seems that the community consensus (excluding the blatant sockpuppets) feels that the article does not meet our inclusion guidelines (especially those regarding notability and sourcing). Rjd0060 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Gin

No significant coverage in secondary sources means that this fails WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to promote the brand/product. Author claims that mocrodistilleries are about to become notable, but the doesn't mean that this one is notable, nor is wikipedia a crystal ball. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 3 newspaper articles about to be published (one now published) about this new Sacred Gin microdistillery phenomenon. Namely in The Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Evening Standard, and The Camden New Journal. Please do not nominate this article for deletion yet. thanks. UPDATE: There is now significant coverage justifying NOTABILITY - The gin has more than half page coverage on page 3 in the well renowned local paper in the microdistillery's catchment area. "Ian's gin is just the tonic for Highgate" Hampstead and Highgate Express 14th May 2009.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki (talk • contribs) — Inhwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't in good conscience say otherwise when three articles are about to be published on account of WP:CRYSTAL. This is great and all, but still. That, and this sounds more like a promotional article to begin with, aside from the notability issues. On top of that, the article is all over the map - explains briefly the gin, and then goes into recipes to be used, amongst other things. If it's to stay, it needs to be notable, and needs a rewrite as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These observations are no longer the case. There has obviously been a lot of rewriting of the article going on to address these issues, and there is now also verified notability.
(ec) Delete I believe this is the first article I've ever seen in which not a single one of the references and external links even mentions the article's topic. There are zero relevant Google Web, News, or Books hits for either the name of the product or the name of its supposed manufacturer. Complete failure of WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These 2 points are now verifiably untrue.
Delete without prejudice. This consumer product may, some day, have independent reviews in edited publications, and as such may qualify for an article. At the present I cannot find any. But I think I need to change my religious faith to one where gin is properly revered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This point is no longer relevant, given notability has now been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This consumer product is part of a phenomenon which is of significant interest to distillers and consumers of distilled products worldwide. The author should be given the benefit of the doubt for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — 90.193.10.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If, as your post on the talk page of this discussion seems to indicate, you are User:Inhwiki, please strike out the boldfaced "Keep" in the preceding comment. A user gets to express only one such boldfaced opinion in an AfD discussion. Deor (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and struck out the "keep" above, as it's obvious that Inhwiki and 90.193.10.67 are the same person. Deor (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. There is no benefit of any doubt here as the complete lack of sourcing leaves no doubt on notability much less verifiability. Note that the company's purported website is a coming soon page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not any more it's not coming soon. Nicely layed out site. Unfortunately for the creator of the article, that still doesn't make it notable.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.sacredgin.com and the 'About us' page on that site. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article pre-dates the website content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yet another example of TrulyBlue's biased and extreme commentary. - Speedy delete on unfair and unsafe grounds? - this is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "First microdistillery of its kind in Britain to stock local pubs" - Ham&High 14th May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is now significant coverage justifying NOTABILITY - The gin has more than half page coverage on page 3 in the well renowned local paper in the microdistillery's catchment area. "Ian's gin is just the tonic for Highgate" Hampstead and Highgate Express 14th May 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is it with TrulyBlue? Why is this generating such an unbalanced level of comments from one person? Surely TrulyBlue's comments are out of proportion, and inappropriately dismissive? there is entry after entry after entry from TrulyBlue. Does he/she have an undeclared interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have just been drinking Sacred Gin in G&T form in my Highgate pub. I was interested to try it after reading about it in the Ham and High and was pleased to discover more about it in Wikipedia, which is what I thought Wikipedia was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smhiac (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 May 2009 — Smhiac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Per WP:AN/I#Yet another legal threat Smhiac's !vote has been struck.

Comment You must be looking at another user - there is no legal threat here.

Comment The above comment was posted by an account making their first ever edit to Wikipedia. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume your comment is making a sideways accusation of sockpuppetting. However, you will find this is not the case. There are now 800 hits per day on the Sacred Gin wikipedia entry, and a lot of people are getting useful information from it, notwithstanding TrulyBlue's attempt to delete. Why is it getting 800 hits per day? BECAUSE IT IS NOTABLE AND IMPORTANT!

What is it with you guys trying to delete this? Haven't you got real contributions? This is something real that is happening, that you are trying to snuff out - but for what reason? I'm sure you are not really the trolls you seem to be. Can you give it a rest please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sky Attacker - do you have association with TrulyBlue? It seems as if you are associated given the speed of your response. If so would you please observe Wikipedia's rules on identification and conflict of interest. If not - please explain your sudden interest in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have just been informed that the reason that the "Sacred Gin" Wikipedia article is generating so much interest is because one of the detractors above is directly associated with a rival gin. This is extremely dishonest and very much against the principles of Wikipedia. I really think this is intolerable. I note that there is a certain rival Gin with a blue bottle as its trademark...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk)

Rather unlikely and in any case, it's still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck through. Deor (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have studied Wikipedia's definitions of "Notable", and I beg to differ. This article IS NOW NOTABLE on the basis of reliable secondary sources. Also - Madison Avenue advertising agencies will have a dedicated staff devoted to annihilating competition. Don't be naive. Important sources of information such as Wikipedia are patrolled by big corporations. This is certainly an example of that. There is no other justification for this AfD behavior - look at the Bombay Sapphire Wikipedia entry! - Strangely, there is no challenge to that Wikipedia entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Why knock one product unless you have a motive. I look forward to trying an exciting new gin and this one sounds extremely interesting. Don't kill a good idea until it has been fully tested and tasted! Keep this entry, you have my vote!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHowley (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — SHowley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment above vote struck through as the user has been banned for being a sockpuppet of User:Inhwiki.TrulyBlue (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Frankly at this stage of the proceedings I am interested in the anti-trust element of the unjustified deletion perspectives being voiced here. Please note that my lawyers are noting the Ip addresses of these unjustified detractors. You had better be sure that you have absolutely no contact with the brand name in question, or I will be subpoening your ISPs for your details. And for the record, I mean this to be relevant to comments which are obviously biased. It is morally wrong to act in a concerted way to detract from a competitor. Does anyone think it is OK for big brands to throw their weight around?

Please identify yourself TrulyBlue. My lawyers need your address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck through the above vote as another duplicate. This is getting ridiculous. A glance at my edit history shows that I'm a reasonably long-standing editor with no previous contributions relating to gin. For the record, I have made no contributions to this debate, or relating to Sacred Gin, other than those made (and signed) under my username. I have no association with User:Sky Attacker. I have no associations with rival distillers, distributors of promoters of gin-like products. I don't even drink the stuff. It seems to me that User:Inhwiki's name is consistent with an association with Ian Hunt of Sacred Gin and that the user may well have a significant conflict of interest, and that the various contributions from IPs 90.193.10.* are closely associated with that user, but that's just a view. This AfD should be about the merits or otherwise of having a wiki on Sacred Gin, so let's be civil and keep it to the facts and policies. Thanks, TrulyBlue (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - User:90.193.10.67 has been blocked for 1 year for legal threats per this thread on ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. While I can accept on good faith that there may be articles on the subject of this article in the pipeline, until they're actually published we won't know how credible and substantial they are. The sources already in the article that are from reliable sources (such as the Guardian one), do not appear to cover this distillery in detail, or at all in some cases. If this business becomes successful and the drink becomes notable, then the article should of course be recreated. But they're not there just yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Please note that the main article that represents NOTABILITY is in the Hampstead and Highate Express, not the Guardian. It is not available online yet, but is available as the print edition. There is usually a delay between print and online versions, simply due to staffing issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a local resident to London and a drinks trade employer in Highgate, I find it particularly notable that during a distressed economic climate local enthusiasts and entrepreneurs are turning to innovation in this way. It is win for them, win for me and win for our clinets who come from all over the world. It is good for everybody and interesting to hear about and quite frankly sets a good example for people who would otherwise waste too much time trying to prevent the world from dealing with a shared problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.31.0 (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Well I have decided to check the veracity of the existence of the claimed page 3 article, in the Hampstead and Highgate Express - and it is indeed present. It is a half page written by a regular and well known reporter Tan Parsons. I would suggest that notability has been achieved already therefore, and that perhaps anyone who says otherwise should take the trouble to obtain the article in print form, pending it's appearance online. I must say it was a very interesting read, and highly relevant to local people who are suffering from the economic downturn like everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC) — RegencyPost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment RegencyPost was created a few minutes before posting on this AfD, and to date has made no contributions other than the three on this AfD. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I am the drinks trade employer above and I have discussed the interest in Sacred Gin with my clients this lunchtime and discussed with them the surprising level of negative feedback that its entry on Wikipedia is attracting from just one or two contributors. We all understand that Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing platform - I would not advetrtise my establishments on Wikipedia. But I and my clients believe it is notable that a new drink is appearing in the market place from this type pf activity. It is not just the drink that is notable, but the way in which it has come to market. While microdistilleries are commonplace in USA, eg. California, they are not in UK. I also believe it is not common for microdistilleries to produce gin. So we all agreed it was notable, and we all had a drink to celebrate the fact! We all hoped that many others around the world would follow suit and take the initiative to set something up themselves, rather than just fall in line behind the heavy hitting conglomerates that dominate the commercial world and quite frankly distort it so badly that we end up where we all are today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.31.0 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck out your Keep edit - Only one vote please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 May 2009

Comment. If anyone wants to look at the press coverage referred to above, it can be seen here (click on "Next" to get to page 3). One article in a local paper still doesn't seem to me enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, so my opinion is unchanged. Deor (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting to see the article like that. It seems to me that in fact it does therefore meet the requirements of WP:GNG, and should certainly be given more time, as there is obviously a lot happening. Notability would seem to be established, as this meets the requirements quite clearly. It is not about what seems sufficient to you, it is about Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come back when you have multiple articles in national newspapers. Not notable. (The number of sockpuppets on this page is alarming, believe me, you are fooling nobody) Theresa Knott | token threats 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple articles in national newspapers is not the required standard for notability under Wikipedia's rules. The rules are less stringent, and the article does in fact meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Please check them. Also your allegation of sockpuppetting is unfounded and untrue. There are 800 hits per day on the article from interested independent parties in the wine and spirits trade, and it is an article of interest in its own right now. I would also suggest that it is good for Wikipedia to generate such interest in the alcoholic bevarage trade, as it has not been a medium that these people have used much before. So it probably has a beneficial effect on Wikipedia. Think carefully before you act in a negative way - there are unintended consequences and collateral damage.
Delete: No reliable sources, and I agree with Theresa that the number of sockpuppets is astounding. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your allegation is unfounded and untrue. Please would you explain why you think there is sockpuppetting going on? There is a community of interested, but unlinked users who are supporting the keeping of this article because it is genuinely notable. There is also obviously a community of users who are trying to get it deleted and are sadly resorting to making unfounded allegations. Please check your facts before making these assertions. Your lack of research is shown by your "No reliable sources" comment, and the "Sockpuppetting" allegation is unfair, and false.

~~Note to closing admin~~ – Smhiac (talk · contribs) and SHowley (talk · contribs) have been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of Inhwiki (talk · contribs). MuZemike 21:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You really must run a checkuser before making these untrue allegations.
Comment - Sorry to disagree, but just because external individuals support the article does not qualify them as sockpuppets. Your allegation is unfounded and untrue. Please would you explain why you think there is sockpuppetting going on? I will be contacting these users to start the process of appeal. You are just simply wrong. There are 800 hits per day on the article from interested independent parties in the wine and spirits trade, and it is an article of interest in its own right now. I would also suggest that it is good for Wikipedia to generate such interest in the alcoholic bevarage trade, as it has not been a medium that these people have used much before. So it probably has a beneficial effect on Wikipedia. Think carefully before you act in a negative way - there are unintended consequences and collateral damage.

Comment I thought it would be useful to mention this Wikipedia rule, for those unacquainted with it -

"Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." The real issue here would seem to be notability as a policy related point, not accusations of bias from either side. Blocking users is crude and unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Please also take a look at this link before blocking new contributors on the basis of unchecked allegations. You will put people off contributing, and damage Wikipedia's accessibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

I tried this gin recently at a drinks convention. I would put it in the same category as Bombay. Good herby aftertaste, quality spirit. Can't see anything wrong about including it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritdrinker (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Spiritdrinker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Seriously you are fooling no one. The socking is very foolish as it merely makes you look disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above vote struck through as User:Spiritdrinker has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Inhwiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another note to closing admin – RegencyPost (talk · contribs) and Spiritdrinker (talk · contribs) have both been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of the above. MuZemike 21:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True in the case of RegencyPost only, and only because you unfairly blocked me. Please check your facts before arbitrarily dispensing summary justice.

Delete Notability, we need it. Inline references, we need them. COI, we avoid it. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stuart - could you explain what COI is? Surely notability has been established to the required standard now?

Comment An unsigned comment above asks what COI is. COI is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. And no, I do NOT believe notability has been established. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello again, I am Inhwiki (and Inhwiki2). I am not using sockpuppets MuzeMike. They are people in the drinks industry who have an opinion, and are entitled to express their opinion. By blocking them you are violating wikipedia policy. I note you have also been deleting AfD pages without appropriate authority. A note to Theresa Knott - why do you insist on making unfounded accusations - there is a clear procedure for examining claims of sockpuppetting. The only other user name I have used is RegencyPost, and that was in response to MuZemike unfairly banning my username. I will strike out the "Keep" post that RegencyPost made as penance.

Because I know for a fact that the other users are NOT my sockpuppets, I absolutely challenge you to prove otherwise - this is a SUBSTANTIAL cause for complaint. Will someone please call a sysops to verify that this is true? My previous Inhwiki has been blocked WITHOUT an investigation. This is very unfair, and I am surprised that you can get away with it. For the record - I am not Ian Hunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki2 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also point out that this article is drawing around 800 page views per day, and that is 10 times what the article on Bombay Sapphire draws. That makes the product NOTABLE in itself, and should probably be cause for a change in Wikipedia notability criteria. It is also GOOD for Wikipedia to be reaching the drinks industry, parts of which which have been very slow to use new technology. Yes - I know that Wikipedia is not "new technology" to us, but the drinks industry can be very old fashioned...

Comment user:Inhwiki2 (created to get round ban on User:Inhwiki) struck though multiple 'delete' votes for no given reason. I have tried to restore the status to a reasonable approximation of the thoughts of unbanned users,and apologise if I've got some of them wrong. I pity the poor closing admin who has to wade through this.... TrulyBlue (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if other users see fit to strike through "Keep" comments that are based on untrue perspectives, or indeed negligent heavyhandedness, it is appropriate to act similarly to "Delete" comments, particularly those which are based on verifiably untrue, or out of date reasons. Thanks for yet more helpful and polarising comment TrulyBlue. You obviously have become personally aggravated, and I would ask that you moderate your actions. I am being treated unfairly, and it is acceptable to try to put the record straight, particularly when subjected to this treatment. You are making no attempt to put things right, it is clearly a partisan issue you are following— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki2 (talk • contribs) This comment was made by Inhwiki2, then removed by Deor (I assume accidentally) in the process of reverting changes to other peoples' bolded !votes. I am restoring it. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I misunderstood? I thought that a struck through comment in an AfD page indicated that the author of the comment had decided to retract it. Is it acceptable for a third party to strike through comments? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't a constructive way to go about things, however, most admins don't just run through and count the "keep" and "delete" comments. I've read this entire discussion with absolutely no regard to what has been struck and what hasn't and will close it momentarily. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Iford

A mix of a hoax and a copy of Earl of Shaftesbury. Phoe (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Note no incoming links. Good catch, some of these are convincing. Drawn Some (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Nice catch by the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semisonic (film)

There is no indication that these two unreleased low-budget straight-to-DVD films are notable per WP:NF. No independent sources are cited. Searches are complicated because the band Semisonic is notable and there are several John Stevensons in the film business, but joint searches find nothing relevant except these articles. The studio "Sonic-Clear Pictures" also returns only Wikipedia. The articles suggest that this is a one-man outfit; the author's user-name Semisonic30 (talk · contribs) suggests a COI and an agenda to use WP for publicity, as does his talk page which shows that articles on Sonic-Clear Pictures and John William Stevenson III have already been speedied. Delete both as non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy Still in post-production? Absolutely nothing sourcable about the film. Let it return when it gets released and gets some coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoaxes or WP:MADEUP or WP:OR at best. Drawn Some (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Romania relations

WP:NOTABILITY is not established. PMK1 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this refers to Azerbaijan-Romania relations, what does Argentina have to do with it? --Susan118 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you've correctly surmised, it has nothing to do with it-- the request for help with an Argentina article has been pasted onto most of the relations discussions regardless of which two nations are being talked about. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at first I was mildly excited by this (although puzzled by the laudatory tone); then I realised it was a press release from the Azeri embassy. No independent sources are forthcoming. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are both members of Council of Europe, and several Black Sea-related organizations.--Turkish Flame ^☎ 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I'm not sure there needs to be a separate article for relations between every country in the world. Is there something significant about the relationship between these two countries? --Susan118 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing absent (likely for perpetuity), non-notable topic by any account. And no, "country A and country B both belong to organization C" is not a relevant argument, and it only serves to create a slippery slope to Krazy Cat and Eek! are both cats. Dahn (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While sourcing is absent -- no surprise, considering the source -- there's certainly evidence of a notable and ongoing relationship, as seen on a "azerbaijan+and+romania"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en| news search. What I see is
2000 military cooperation agreement;
2003 cooperative agreement;
2004 visit by President Aliyev to Romania where they signed 11 agreements;
2007 energy discussion;

Anyway, a lot more here than in the usual random pairing. So far, those Groubanis are mostly chaff, but sometimes there's some wheat. Mandsford (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foreign relations of Romania by country and Foreign relations of Azerbaijan by country, taking 20,000 bilateral articles down to about 200 articles, one for each sovereign nation. Edison (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting, then, that Russia–United States relations should be replaced by a mention in Foreign relations of Russia and Foreign relations of the United States? Your proposal is a good idea for cases where two nations don't really have anything notable going on between them. Sometimes, however, two nations have a notable bilateral relationship, and people want to read more about it than existing articles can accomodate. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just enough here given above to justify an article. DGG (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub. I find no articles on my own that discuss this relationship or otherwise demonstrate it's a notable relationship. The links above are about trivial, non-notable events.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the signing of a treaty is not a trivial event, nor is a state visit. DGG (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came here thinking "oh go" another pair of random countries, however, Mandsford's sources are enough for me [24] in particular. HJMitchell You rang? 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some coverage found when I excluded Eurovision and football. and this article demonstrates notability. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder there are more articles up for deletion that can use more Google searching and more references added and they are here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is the above comment related to this AfD? If it was meant for me, please post on my talk page. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage of the article topic to establish the notability of the relations. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on additional material that establishes notability for this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've just finished major expansion to the article. It cites 11 separate references all to WP:RS, at least one of the articles listed covers the relationship "in depth", there have been state visits and over 50 bilateral agreements. With the greatest respect to the editors who have voted to delete, I believe it now meets the WP:GNG. That said, I would welcome any constructive criticism and any further sources anybody might have to offer. HJMitchell You rang? 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep based on expansion by User:HJ Mitchell - clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to easily meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wikipedia notability standards have been met. Concerns about BLP issues should be raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard SilkTork *^YES! 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood

I am Michael Flood, the subject of this entry. I did not create the entry, but once I became aware of it, I have occasionally edited it. I have been routinely frustrated at the inclusion of inaccurate, irrelevant, or defamatory material in this entry. For example, one quarter of the entry is devoted to my comments on International Men's Day, for me an utterly minor aspect of the work I have done, but clearly something important to whomever added the material. Anyway, I see that there is already some dispute over notability etc. Given that, and my own frustrations with the piece, I am proposing deletion.

Sincerely,

michael flood.

Completing incomplete nomination. I have no opinion on the merits of the case.Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our relevant notability guideline in the case of this article is wp:academic, at least one criteria of which appears to be satisfied here (the first, that the subject of the article has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline"). It's also worth pointing out the subject appears to be widely quoted in their field, at least according to a quick Google News archive search. That said, the subject of the article is the person apparently requesting deletion here, but for all the wrong reasons, so I'll address the next part directly to him... What you are bringing up are issues that can be addressed under wp:blp and particularly wp:undue. The best course would be to outline your specific concerns on the article's talk page or even create a draft of how you believe the article should read and post it to the article's talk page. We can go from there, but deletion isn't the proper (or justified) course of action, and I hope you'll reconsider and work with us to address your concerns. user:j (aka justen) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Satisfactory scholarly standard but as LP seems to imply that article is being used as attack page then I advise delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think "attack page" is too strong; it appears Flood simply doesn't like the way some people are characterizing his views, wants to exert control over the article, and is frustrated at his lack of success in this regard. This is not a reason to delete it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nomoskedasticity. Additionally a reading of Dr. Flood's published essays shows extensive and special emphasis on negative male behaviours, perhaps validly, which editors are within thier rights to cite. This does not amount to hate speech. If editors (including Dr. Flood) wish to balance the article by introducing male-positive statements -although demonstrably less frequent throughout his writings- they are welcome to do so as long as they are not given undue weight. I suggest a section be added about male violence against women as it appears strongly throughout many of Dr. Flood's writings. 123.211.246.13 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to meet all the relevant notability criteria (ie, WP:ACADEMIC). The issues that the nominator (who I presume is the subject of the article, although one can't be too careful) bring up are, I feel, best dealt with by working to remove bias, and enforcing the WP:BLP provisions rigorously, rather than through deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Seems to meet absolutely no relevant notability criteria. I would ask those who have the opposite opinion to present evidence of Flood's "significant impact" in the field of sociology. Or his "highly prestigious academic award" (WP:ACADEMIC). Or, indeed, any of the criteria established in that guideline. The first three paragraphs of the article establish nothing of that nature. The article seems to be a personal webpage, with a majority of the "sources" and external links pointing to Flood's own website, an apparent vestige from his defunct magazine. Blackworm (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep. Amended to reflect newly presented info on notability. I now agree that notability is established. Blackworm (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood again. (Apologies if I'm not following the appropriate format for responses to this discussion.) Blackworm's comments immediately above are a good example of why I'm frustrated by the entry. Blackworm mistakenly claims that most of the sources are self-published. Instead, most come from published academic sources: refereed academic journals, encyclopedias, and books. I have simply made such published pieces also available on my own site. Similarly, the new material in the entry on "Controversy" (which appeared only in the last couple of days) is a misrepresentation of the gist of the report in question. I don't believe I'm some kind of incredibly important scholar or public intellectual in Australia. I've made some contributions to scholarship, and I've got a profile because I've participated in public debate. (That also means I'm a target for attack, particularly from anti-feminist advocates.) But there are plenty of other sociologists (and others) who've done far more than me and who are absent from Wikipedia. Anyway, I continue to lean towards deletion. I take the point of those above that I could work to encourage accurate and appropriate information on the page. But I'm not very encouraged about the prospect of doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael G Flood (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Dr. Flood, for any misunderstanding. I realize that some of the article links to your website contain material originally published elsewhere; however as you seem to note, Wikipedia does not generally contain biography articles on academics published in reliable sources unless a "significant impact" on the field is also verifiable. Please understand that I say this not to disparage you in any way. Regards. Blackworm (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Wikipedia is a community. Many of us have differing viewpoints, and our goal is to reach a consensus. For example, I simply spent a few minutes searching for "Michael Flood" with various additional search terms through a few news archive databases, including the widely accessible Google News, and found you frequently quoted in secondary source coverage of important topics as a "specialist" in your field, as well as articles which discuss your research in particular. I believe the extent of this coverage more than satisfies wp:academic, while User:Blackworm apparently disagrees. Which is why we have these sorts of discussions in the first place (again, to try to reach a consensus)... user:j (aka justen) 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (with a prestigious publisher – Sage), currently in more than 350 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Also meets the more general WP:BIO criteria; the news coverage uncovered by j (aka justen) clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for vandalism control. Just remove slanderous content, and if the same editor persists, take that up at WP:AIV.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable from news coverage and influence on colleagues in sociology. If parts are given undue weight, then we can fix that by editing, not deleting. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foreign relations of Mongolia. Overly, consensus was to delete, but as Foreign relations of Mongolia now hold the content what I've done is delete and place a redirect. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Mongolian relations

another random combination. non resident embassies. Google news search shows up hardly anything, only relations seem to be in a multilateral sense [25] ie Mongolia-Europe. Mongolian Foreign ministry site says very little on Greece. [26] LibStar (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not establish notability. PMK1 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. I requested that the AFDs end so we could work together please Ikip (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great idea-- tell everyone that you think their opinions are irrelevant, and then say "let's all work together". Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random pairing that fails WP:N through lack of sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A Google news search turned up "Greece+and+Mongolia"&cf=all| almost nothing and "Mongolia+and+Greece"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en|practically nothing. But of course, that isn't relevant. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making new articles instead of the bilateral random stubs does not reduce the argument to delete them -- in fact it seems a strong argument to delete them in itself. Thanks -- I suggest that these be handled expeditiously now. All other than obvious real ones. Collect (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a soup bowl of nonsense. Nothing notable here, utterly random pairing. Dahn (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this combination. They don't even have embassies or consulates in each other's country. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notabilty has not been established. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Greece by country and Foreign relations of Mongolia by country. 203 article are better than circa 20,000 articles. See Foreign relations of Argentina by country for an example. Edison (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, circa 37,000. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An even better idea would be to merge "Greek-Mongolian relations" and all the others to Foreign relations of Argentina. One big article would be better than 203. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not, and probably cannot, establish notability of the stated article topic through sources. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Mongolia, which now holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Overly, the consensus was to delete (only one weak keep) Nja²⁴⁷ 10:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bergman

Fails WP:Notability. Despite a lot of attention over several years the only sources for the article are something he wrote himself and a couple of court records of a lawsuit he filed. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to be notable for only being fired from his job and filing a failed lawsuit, which incident hardly registered in the media. Borock (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: does merit a paragraph in The Creationists, but doesn't seem to rise to the top of the pile of self-proclaimed creationist martyrs in terms of over-all coverage. Insufficient reliable secondary-source third-party coverage to merit an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have no independent knowledge of this guy (and my only previous edits to this article were related to his connection with Columbia Pacific University), but upon reviewing the article now, looking up sources, and adding a few items to the article, I conclude that he is weakly notable for his criticisms of U.S. academia (for example, see the Toledo Blade article). Although two of his books appear to be self-published and his excellence in writing award is a minor award, the existence of the books and award contribute to notability. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched Proquest for other citations. "Jerry Bergman" is a common name, so I'm not sure I found everything. The most notable citations appear to have been two columns on ID printed by Journal - Gazette. Ft. Wayne, Ind. The articles include Bergman's background and instructions on submitting columns, so I'm guessing these were unsolicited. He's quoted at length by the Toledo Blade about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. And back in 2004 he was quoted at length in The Independent of London about Firpo Carr (and described as Carr's "main enemy") on the topic of Michael Jackson and Jehovah's Witnesses. Will Beback talk 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak scholarly record. Fails on academic grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I don't think he deserves to be evaluated as an academic, but rather as an author and/or celebrity-type. Unfortunately, it's easier to be notable as a small-time celebrity than as an academic, but that's a topic for another conversation. --Orlady (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustaining notability as "an author and/or celebrity-type" (would "pundit" be a better term?) would require a solid body of material discussing his claims/opinions in prominent mainstream sources. No solid evidence of such has been presented to date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Some news coverage, but way short of indicating notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Overall, consensus was to delete Nja²⁴⁷ 10:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Montenegro relations

Another random combination from User:Groubani. No assertion of notability PMK1 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only third party coverage [27] is in multilateral sense or if they competed in the same sporting competition. 12 Jews in Montenegro is hardly a basis for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; relations are not established or notable enough to deserve their own article. One (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recognition recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro; other than that, little to be said. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "montenegro+and+israel"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en turns up some articles that indicate that Israel tends to think of their friends in the region as "Serbia-Montenegro" -- spin that either way you wish. Mandsford (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a scintilla of notability here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of GIsrael by country and Foreign relations of Montenegro by country. 203 article are better than circa 20,000 articles. See Foreign relations of Argentina by country for an example. Edison (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article is short, there is an option called STUB !. Just because the Jewish population is small does not necessarily mean the article does not have it's place on wikipedia. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub isn't an option on these things, which were cranked out at the rate of every couple of minutes with no thought whatsoever. For something that is inherently notable (for example, an incorporated community), a stub is acceptable. For everything else, there's no Mastercard. Mandsford (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jay Gatsby lied and claimed that Montenegro gave him a medal. And some people thought he might secretly be Jewish and... Nah, i find no reliable sources that discuss this bilateral relationship and there are none in this unsourced stub.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of the article topic itself; fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Bali ultimate. I'm sure there are 12 Jews living in a lot of places, it's not a claim to notability! There's not a shred of evidence to support,well, anything! If someone could come up with some kind of significant, useful, source, I would suggest merging to a yet-to-be-created "Bilateral relations of Israel" and/or the same page for Montenegro, but, so far, I see nothing. HJMitchell You rang? 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Montenegro, which contains the main info. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians in Japan

The article does not seem to meet notability. PMK1 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles about minor communities in many countries.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but in those cases, the group has generally received academic/journalistic attention as a community (rather than as background material in the context of academic/journalistic attention to an individual notable person who happens to be a member of that nationality group). cab (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Apcar family in Japan. This is a perfectly good biography which suffers from being forced to masquerade as an ethnic group article. The Apcar family are notable and their branch who ended up in Japan seem like a reasonable subtopic given the various newspaper colums & academic journal papers about them which this article already cites, and more which can be found on GBooks. (And if some people feel there's not enough, they can always propose a merger).

However, per WP:NOTINHERITED, one notable Armenian family in Japan doesn't make Armenians in Japan notable as a community; there don't seem to be any non-trivial sources which address the Armenian community in Japan as a whole outside of the context of the Apcar family (not surprising, considering how few Armenians there are in Japan). cab (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't cover the subject, family is not notable, zip. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 20:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines flight 31

This is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. While major incidents like plane crashes are notable, I don't think a plane having a semi-minor mechanical problem and returning safely to the airport merits an encyclopedia article. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP, besides not being news, is not storage space for a list of minor incidents. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone was OK and the plane was intact when it came back. There's no news here beyond the usual 'Airline Flight #1234 made an emergency landing and all are well' AP boilerplate copy, and thus no article. Nate • (chatter) 09:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no encyclopedic significance and fails WP:AIRCRASH (yes, it exists). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wow, you learn something new every day! Thanks, my nomination explanation could have been a LOT shorter :). --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing happened, planes make emergency landings more often that people think and most of the time...nothing happens. Spikydan1 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; Wikipedia is not a repository for every news item in existence, much less minor ones like this one. One (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine handling of an anomaly. That airliners take events like this seriously is by all means a good thing which contributes greatly to the excellent safety record aviation has, but an event like this does not have the wider impact on the aviation industry which would extend its significance beyond newsworthiness and justify an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia – South Africa relations

another random combination. non resident embassies. Only could 1 article but it's a "would like to cooperate" type article [28], otherwise most coverage is based on relations on the football field. [29]. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relations between the two aforementioned countries are not notable enough to deserve their own article. One (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no need to yell, mr. caps. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too slight a "relationship" to pass WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact there is no established embassy in South Africa.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the news search turned up articles about sports. When the South African FM swung through central Europe, she (diplomatically) said that the relations "had plenty of room to expand". [30], kind of what one would say about a vacant lot. Mandsford (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the bilateral articles into one Foreign relations of country X by country article per country. Edison (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article topic not shown to be notable through independent coverage. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship. Good news is there's nothing of "value" to lose here (unsourced stub without an assertion even of notability).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pidgin (software). Stifle (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier (software)

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Cannabis (drug) cultivation. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCROG

Contested prod. Unreferenced, non-notable cannabis growing technique. The {{underconstruction}} tag is stale. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cannabis (drug) cultivation. Also the article seems to have vertical and horizontal confused. Drawn Some (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it appears to be notable. Please check Google Books before nominating an article for deletion next time. --Pixelface (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those three books are completely trivial mentions (definition only). I'm not sure about the third. This appears to be nothing more than a technique used with "sea of green" which doesn't even get its own article. Originally when recommending "merge" I was going to say merge with sea of green but that article redirects to the cannabis cultivation article. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first book, 13 pages mention SCROG[31], and on page 112 lists ScrOG as one of the "three most common types of advanced indoor growing." From a regular search of Google and Google Groups, it appears to be a widely used growing technique. There's also this result from Google Scholar related to a patent --Pixelface (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the "sea of green" technique apparently did have its own article as early as April 2004, until someone strangely thought the term might refer to the song Yellow Submarine in August 2005 (that phrase apparently occurs twice in that song). --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information with Cannabis (drug) cultivation. Otherwise, delete. Trivial mentions in two books are not enough to make this notable. Tim meh ! 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I concur with Timmeh. If "sea of green" isn't worthy of anything more than a redirect, I fail to see how this can be. HJMitchell You rang? 19:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't think (if anyone's counting) three Merges and one Keep with comments attached to it is really sufficient debate to merge the article. If a clear consensus begins to show up in the next day or two, then I have no issue with this being closed early. One (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 23:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArticlesBase

No media coverage -- not speedy as nobility asserted by this edit Greedyhalibut (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under 1000 traffic rating on Alexa, #2 article base, and lots of coverage in Hebrew media. Doesn't that considered notable? --NetHunter (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed pretty high alexa rating. In the top 1000 which is pretty good. -- Northern (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed the 3rd party media sources given in the article and they confirm what was written in the article body. --Arikfr (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)— Arikfr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

::Keep - Article has sources from 3rd party media, establishing at least some notibility. More hebrew-language media references can be found than english, so maybe one or two of them should be listed here as "guides" --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hebrew sources: http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000435454 (you can see the link to ArticlesBase even if you can't read Hebrew) and http://www.calcalist.co.il/internet/articles/0,7340,L-3103009,00.html (also mentions ArticlesBase with a link in English). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.192.184 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — 62.90.192.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is this page still nominated for deletion? It's been included in the Israel WikiProject. --NetHunter (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – From what I can see, it has several new reports (in various languages), and appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Just barely, though. American Eagle (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be somewhat notable. a little insignificant 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look at the Alexa Ranking peoples of Wikipedia. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since my earlier comment, some additional references from third party, hebrew-language, media have been added; establishing a firmer foot-hold on in regards to notability. Yes this is English Wikipedia, but the language of the source shouldn't matter, as long as it can be confirmed as an accurate reference. Alexa Ranking, while a weak argument in and of itself, helps to bolster existing notability claims. Given more time, its possible this article can grow and addition, perhaps english-language, sources can be found and added. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arthashastra. Sandstein 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven ways to greet a neighbor

Keep I actually do not support the deletion of this article, but an editor has questioned the notability of this concept. This is an important concept and has influenced modern day views on policial legitamacy, and overall is a useful article to have. -down load ׀ sign! 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the moment it is a copyviolation of its reference [32] so is a speedy deletion candidate. I42 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the moment it is not a copyvio, as I have rephrased all the statements in the article. In addition, the descriptions were assumed to be copyvios though they were actually direct translations from the ancient Indian text. -down load ׀ sign! 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are, however, copyrightable. And, since there was a copyright notice on the website, it was a copyright violation to copy and paste things directly from the other website. either way (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-phrasing or paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. Drawn Some (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? — neuro^(talk) 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a copyvio. -down load ׀ sign! 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, before anyone assumes that this is something from the late Mister Rogers, this refers to the Arthashastra, a text of the 4th Century BC, in ancient India, and it has to do with strategies for one nation dealing with another. From that article, it says that "The Arthashastra is divided into 15 books: I Concerning Discipline II The Duties of Government Superintendents III Concerning Law IV The Removal of Thorns V The Conduct of Courtiers VI The Source of Sovereign States VII The End of the Six-Fold Policy VIII Concerning Vices and Calamities IX The Work of an Invader X Relating to War XI The Conduct of Corporations XII Concerning a Powerful Enemy XIII Strategic Means to Capture a Fortress XIV Secret Means XV The Plan of a Treatise." My suggestion is that the article author should determine which part of the Arthashastra this comes, if you want to save the article from the copyvio referred to (and missed by me) above. Mandsford (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my information, this concept is actually spread amongst the separate books of the Arthashastra, particularly books 12-14. It merits a separate article as it has had a great influence on political rule and legitimacy. -down load ׀ sign! 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen no evidence that this is "an important concept and has influenced modern day views on policial legitamacy [sic]." As I pointed out to the author on my talk page, I can't find these concepts in a text of the Arthashastra, and a Google search (yes, I know, probably not the best gauge for notability on a 2000+ year old concept) reveals that it's taught in some schools, but little else. either way (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is proved, being part of the Arthashastra. This has little to do with the fact that it is "taught in some schools." -down load ׀ sign! 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just being part of it does not prove its notability for a standalone article. It can be merged/mentioned in the article on the full work. either way (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity is NOT inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I phrased my comment in such a way that implied that I meant that. As I stated before, it is notable as it has a great impact on political legitimacy. -down load ׀ sign! 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep restating this but haven't proven that it has a great impact. Can you please give sources that show its impact? either way (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why I have contacted WikiProject Indian history for some help with that. -down load ׀ sign! 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add further to my comment. This is currently failing one of the key needs for an article on Wikipedia: verifiability. The author has a general idea of where this comes from within the text, but can't point to a specific location. A specific point in the text where this concept exists needs to be given in order to verify this. either way (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a copyright Violation. You would need to completely rewrite the section in question. I'm sorry, Download, but this won't do. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a copyvio. -down load ׀ sign! 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio, and aside from that its notability isn't established. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this with copyvios? I see nothing that is copied from the source... -down load ׀ sign! 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who said you rephrased an article, which is a copvio. Drawn Some (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it, which is why it's no longer a copyvio... -down load ׀ sign! 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have A Look:

Wiki Article	Source
The seven ways to greet a neighbor are an excerpt from the Arthashastra, an Indian treatise on government from the fourth century B.C.E.^[1] They are the seven strategies Kautilya recommended to Chandragupta Maurya in dealing with neighboring powers. Strategies Sarnan - Appeasement and sweet talk, treaties and non-aggression pacts Danda - Exerting power, being well-armed Dana - Bribery or gift-giving, agreements to share the spoils of war Bheda - Dividing the opposition to defeat them using treachery or treason Maya - Deceit, illusion, diplomatic deception (e.g. when a Japanese diplomatic mission went to Washington, D.C. in 1941 while aircraft carriers were already traveling towards Pearl Harbor Upeska - Overlooking or ignoring the enemy until one has decided on the proper course of action Indraiala - Military maya^[1]	Description This excerpt comes from Arthasastra, a fourth century B.C.E. Indian treatise on government. It offers advice on how a ruler should handle neighboring states. Content 1. Saman: Appeasement, sweet talk, soothing words, conciliatory conduct, such things as non-aggression pacts; 2. Danda: Power, military might, punishment, violence, being well-armed, aggression of whatever kind; 3. Dana: a bribe or gift, a donation, an agreement to share the spoils; 4. Bheda: Divide and opposition so as to defeat them, splitting, cause a breach in the opposition, sow dissension in the enemy's party, use treachery, treason; 5. Maya: Deceit, illusion, fraud, a diplomatic feat (for example the Japanese mission to Washington offering appeasement as their bombers were readying for the attack on Pearl Harbor); 6. Upeksa: Overlooking, taking no notice, ignoring the enemy until you have decided on the proper course of action; 7. Indrajala: Military maya, creating an appearance of power when you have none.

You paraphrased very lightly from the source, still a copyvio. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the source is a direct translation. I was under the impression that direct translations were allowed as the Arthashastra has no copyright. -down load ׀ sign! 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good essay on copyrights and translations. Read the sixth paragraph, in particular (it starts with "There are translations that..."). It essentially states that while the original text is in the public domain, a new translation of it can be considered original content. either way (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -down load ׀ sign! 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You should have cited the original document then, instead of the website. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a copyvio. -down load ׀ sign! 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's okay to violate copyright as long as you pretend later that it isn't? I have a problem with this. Drawn Some (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's try to keep cool here. They used it as a source. They dramatically changed it so it no longer came close to violating copyright. That matter is resolved. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the descriptions of the seven methods were translations. While the original text was not copyrighted, either way showed that some translations could be copyrighted. Therefore, I cut down even more on the descriptions. -down load ׀ sign! 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Speedy Keep because my issues have been resolved. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe that notability and verifiability are expressed in this article? If so, how? Thanks, either way (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable because the document is. I can nominate for merge into the main article about this book if you prefer. I trust that source, however if someone wants to re translate... T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The document may be, but as pointed out above, the notability is not inherited. You'd need to prove why this section in particular is notable enough for its own article. either way (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the topic is notable. M C 10 | Sign here! 22:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it notable, as shown through reliable, independent sources? either way (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, after seeing the other responses, I decide to Merge this article as a section of the original article. M C 10 | Sign here! 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are only a few Google hits and only one of them seems to be non-trivial reliable resource. Can someone provide non-trivial reliable resources in another language? Otherwise, this is non-notable and non-verifiable and should be merged with the parent article. I don't see the potential of this ever becoming a full article in English with available resources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using printed sources? -down load ׀ sign! 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using printed sources? You are the author of the article, and the onus falls on you to prove notability and provide sources to establish it. either way (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. I was saying that it could very likely be possible to have the article become at least a C-class. -down load ׀ sign! 23:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should hardly fall on editors at AfD to come up with printed sources in another language. If you can name some books I'll see if my local library system can get them for me because it just doesn't have any now. Otherwise, you could have someone translate them and then make them available. Otherwise, even if this concept were notable, and verifiable, given existing discoverable resources, it can't be made into a full encyclopedia article without WP:OR. I'm going to go ahead and say Merge to Arthashastra. When it becomes significant enough to be an article it can be spun out. 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the merge template to the main article. T3chl0v3r (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I searched for the title and got almost nothing. I also searched for some of the phrases alongside Arthashastra, and found no sources that discussed these principles in particular. There is no notability on its own. Fences and windows (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete to make this more than just a direct translation it would need to have some sourced critical commentary. And wikipedia is not the place for translations.--Salix (talk): 11:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is too generic and lacking in notability to stand by itself - too like innumerable self-help slogans (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) and the like (Seven Deadly Sins). Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. There is too little here to justify a separate article from the parent, and the article is anyway lacking in context which the parent would provide. The title is too vague to provide a meaningful redirect; it doesn't appear to be a formal name anyway, rather a heading coined by the authors of the reference article (even if it is a formal name, it would be a translation and could therefore take many forms). I42 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arthashastra. Not enough information to require its own article. There is nothing wrong with combining it with the main article. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, too generic, nothing to merge. Verbal chat 08:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Close

Have we reached a consensus to merge? T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If so, I will merge the article and Speedy Close this AFD. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is there to merge? We have an article with no verifiable information. Why would we merge that into that article? either way (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info is verifiable from that source and would do just fine in the main article on this document. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be an appropriate non-admin closure - there is not concnensus on merge/redirect vs merge/delete vs outright delete, and any deletion if so actioned would require an admin. I42 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way I would support a NAC, and I would certainly not like for this to be closed so early on with such an unclear consensus for action. — neuro^(talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Arthashastra. It's really more interesting there where it is in context and will find some extra readers so nothing is lost. (At first I thought it was about Mormon church outreach. :-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect, this is verifiable but not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as non-notable, unless secondary sources are found discussing this material. As it stands, there's nothing upon which to base an article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Arthashastra. Would have more standing in context, which everybody knows is nice. a little insignificant 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Arthashastra. Consensus to close now? Bearian (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good compromise, as there is not enough for a standalone article, but still seems to be worthy of inclusion. --Susan118 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would appear we all say Merge. If this is the case, we should go ahead and do it. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One^{two^three...} 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Barbados relations

the awarding of an oil contract does not in itself mean notable relations between the countries. in any case, it should be reported here Economy_of_Barbados#Mining. the fact that Australia moved its embassy off Barbados says something about the notability of relations. The Aust govt also notes that Barbados is Australia's 134th biggest trading partner. and there isn't any other relations except on the cricket field. [33] LibStar (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not fulfill the requirements of WP:N. Should relations between Australia and Barbados become significant at some point in the future, an article can be started at that time. Until then, pffft. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent article with excellent sources. Absence of an embassy is a red herring, the US doesn't have one in Iran and doesn't have one in Cuba. And oddly enough this article also includes a sporting relationship. it is not just about diplomacy.

doesn't the recent moving of an embassy say something? US doesn't have embassies in Iran and Cuba for vastly different reasons. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News is news is news. If a media outlet chose to write about the moving of the embassy, it, by that same fact is notable. That is the definition of notability, when the media takes notice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS --BlueSquadronRaven 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and widely reported. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely" is for notability, not verifiability. No one is suggesting the the moving of the embassy should be a Wikipedia topic as a stand-alone article. It verifies a fact in this article.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's contrived. What is being debated here is the notability of the relations topic, as per LibStar. The "trivia + trivia = notable" formula supposed to "address" and "satisfy" that notability is a remarkably counterproductive form of special pleading. Dahn (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia is a subjective term used to denigrate what one personally dislikes. Newspapers publish news, it is perceived as trivia by people with closed minds. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the sporting relationship is more Australia and West Indies not Australia and Barbados. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article that meets the standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent sources discussing the relationship as such; surely the oil bit can be covered elsewhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. Just needs expansionDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourcable if properly researched - instead of the desperate attempt to expand it by the chaotic addition of trivia. In fact, the letter process has also made it nonsensical and unreasonable. Dahn (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The bilateral articles into one Foreign relations of country X by country article per country. Edison (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article all refer to the fact that Australia moved its high commission away from Barbados to another place because. Not because of a diplomatic dust up or anything, just because there was nothing much important going on between the two.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. This campaign against bilateral relations articles is becoming a farce when articles like this one are put up for deletion. The article is referenced, contains encyclopedic material and meets the general notability guideline. No valid reason, based on relevant policy or guidelines, was given in the nomination, merely an expanded version of IDONTLIKEIT. The two nations share a common colonial background and interpersonal ties including dual citizens such as Gary Sobers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with respect, I don't see this nomination as a farce. I'll happily explain further. we could look at a number of things that makes relations notable, firstly, economic and trade, as the source I provide in the nomination shows that Barbados is 134th biggest trading partner, hardly notable. Secondly, we could look at diplomatic relations, non resident embassies, and it is important to note that Australia chose to relocate their embassy away from Barbados in recent years. there is as far as I know no bilateral agreements either. The Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs provides a country brief explaining history and bilateral relations on their website www.dfat.gov.au this is non existent for Barbados. Lastly there are cultural or other relations. there appears to be no significant migration between the countries, you mention Gary Sobers, one notable sportsperson that is a dual citizen doesn't cut it as some measure of notable relations. Australia has had a history of granting citzenship to highly talented sportspeople (esp. from Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union). and in the cricket context, it's more Australia and West Indies not Australia and Barbados. and as for WP:GNG, check the google news search I did, there is no significant coverage of bilateral relations. If there is, please show me some reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of the topic as a whole with regard to establishing notability among others. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis that there exists multiple articles discussing this relationship in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - multiple sources demonstrate a notable relationship that meets WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Korka

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable subject fails all 3 tests of WP:ENTERTAINER. Was deleted per AfD debate in 2007, but appears to have slipped back in through the cracks. (In fact, the article has been deleted 6 times previously.) I can't detect sufficient change in circumstance that would warrant inclusion now anymore than before. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been repeatedly deleted and recreated. It needs to be deleted and salted. For that matter, its probably a csd eligible delete. 75.38.59.250 (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. One (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous deletions were all in 2007 when her supposed notability was all still based on the TV show and a big crystal ball. Those concerns no longer apply. She finished second in a major televised competition and is part of what appears to be a notable band. The real question is whether reliable references can be found other than the fansite listed in the references. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Little has changed since 2007 that affects the subject's notability, so those concerns do apply. She finished 2nd runner-up – another way of saying 3rd – in a televised competition in 2007; just how "major" is debatable and tangential. In fact, that was a subject of the 2007 article and of the first deletion debate. Now, she sings in a nightclub act. All of the references in the subject's article, as well as in the nightclub act's article, are self-published; none meet the reliable-source requirement. So, even looking at this in the most favorable light, nothing here approaches the bar for inclusion. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the IP. Absolutely no notability even after things have changed in the two years since the last afd. No reliable sources whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No improvement since the last afd. As for the notability, a google search reveals nothing more than myspace pages and photos. The article has been deleted many times so it should be salted so it isn't recreated.Acebulf (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a blip of coverage during her run in the reality TV and then nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is okay, I don't understand why are you gonna delete this article. This girl is in a group (Paradiso Girl), a serious group who has a single and a official website 96.21.20.97 (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Unsuccessful TV game show contestant, who now sings in a group of extremely questionable notability. Given the repeated recreation, this should be salted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt: Lankiveil has it right, and "questionable" doesn't begin to describe The Paradiso Girls. If that's her only claim to fame, she's doomed on Wikipedia, because the article on The Paradiso Girls just got deleted at AFD.—Kww(talk) 04:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pompton Lakes School District. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Middle School (NJ)

Non-notable Bdb484 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - author is going to work to get it up to standards. 24.224.98.16 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Is the other Lakeside Middle School really notable? Why isn't that nominated for deletion? This article is still a work in progress, I'm going to work on it tommorow. --3yoda (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the other Lakeside Middle School is a Blue Ribbon School, and as such is notable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability for Primary/Middle Schools has been getting more lax recently. If the author chooses to build this out, I don't see why we must delete it. --Mblumber (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge I don't think we're loosening up at all--we've been merging every one of them that comes along, except for the very few where there is something really important, such as blue ribbon schools, which is national level recognition, or something really distinctive -- which is quite rare. What we have here is a listing in Schools to Watch, and the question is whether its comparable to the Blue Ribbon program: I'm not sure we want to count it. Here's their web site: http://www.schoolstowatch.org/Home/tabid/80/Default.aspx -- perhaps someone should do an article on the program. They cover 18 states, middle schools only, and listed 79 schools in 2009.The awards seem to be based upon impressions at visits, not quantitative evaluation. DGG (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge I'd rather see it deleted for complete lack of encyclopedic relevance, but with the persistent misunderstanding all schools are notable without any sort of case-by-case assessment, that has zero chance of success. The program mentioned in the article is a local state chapter of the national program. Both use subjective criteria and don't appear to be a major award. Cut all the obvious crap about the mandatory subjects and the common choice lessons before merging in the school district or locality. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

almost nobody thinks that all schools are notable,certainly not me. That's a straw man. What I understand most people think is that all secondary schools should be considered notable. DGG (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect what can be sourced to Pompton Lakes School District. I appreciate that the creator is hoping to source this up but my own searches are not encouraging. This is not a Blue Ribbon school and I can't trace sufficient material to make a convincing case to meet WP:ORG. However, if I can be proved wrong I shall be delighted to change my recommendation. Finally, I would add that bringing this for deletion 8 minutes after creation, and while it was still being written, is a real bad idea. TerriersFan (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect what can be sourced to Pompton Lakes School District. School apparently does not have any sourced criteria that makes it stand-out with any distinction. Our consistent manner of treating such primary schools is to merge them with an appropriate district or regional authority article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Paradiso Girls

Non-notable band of non-notable "singers" with no records, just hype (and that feeble) Orange Mike | Talk 02:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass either WP:MUSIC or WP:N. Sources are YouTube, MySpace, and the personal website of one of their songwriters.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While claiming to be signed with a recognized label, this article is a fluff piece. Essentially no substance. No notability. No verifiable sources. I've no prejudice toward recreation of a proper article in the future if this group becomes notable, but it doesn't belong within a country mile of here today. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - in all fairness, the closest thing I see to an assertion of notability is that they have some kind of connection to an obscure "reality show"; but it doesn't seem to have created notability for them. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Patron Tequila (song) is a redirect to this article, so I added it to the AFD.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment A little late to add to this AFD, but Crazy Horse (Paradiso Girls album) just got created. Hopefully, someone will remember to speedy it as an A9 once this AFD closes.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment don't forget to add the template {{The Paradiso Girls}} to the list of deletions when this closes. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. One (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their official website has launched www.paradisogirls.com they are signed to Universal Music Group & Interscope, If you do delete it's likely another page would be made shortly as they are starting promotion for their music. --Mahmud 2000 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - that's a form of the "up and coming next big thing" argument, and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If and when they become notable, then and only then we can create an article. That's how it works. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Redirect to Robin Antin. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 08:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, the group has quite some fan following on the web, which does make them notable. Sure the article needs some improvement on the sources but the group itself is notable.--Whadaheck (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Paradiso Girls is a notable group, signed by a huge label (Interscope is the property of Universal, the biggest one). This article is in 4 languages and accepted in these ones... why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.20.97 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia – Czech Republic relations

another random combination. I could not find any real coverage of bilateral relations [34]. also a search on Prague's English language newspaper shows up nothing on Colombia. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Spanish language link -http://co.vlex.com/vid/43676269 - to an international jurisprudence peer-review site, discussing Checa, Colombia and Santa Fe de Bogota, dated 1997, in regard to Internacionalizacion de la Economia. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Chamber of Commerce, http://www.camaracolombocheca.com/ , link added to External links of the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent, in-depth coverage of the topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced stub (just the embassy websites) of no expressed notability and none that i can establish on my own. The problem? Absence of reliable sources that discuss this supposed relationship in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The bilateral articles into one Foreign relations of country X by country article per country. Edison (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep According to the Czech sources there is important economic and political cooperation between Colombia and CR. This link (already added in the article) contains also futher detailed references (unfortunately in the Czech language). The topic is notable for Wikipedia, and may be an interesting reading. The problem is rather with sloppy editing of some users here. They create articles like robots, without care and without knowing, where the problem is and what the topic is. This is really damaging and unencyclopedic. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Excellent article, notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you define "excellent"? would it qualify for good article? LibStar (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, only government ones. No indication anywhere of the notability of the article's topic to make it stand out from the other 20 000. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of well-sourced material - far too much to be replicated and maintained in the tables in both Foreign relations of Colombia and Foreign relations of the Czech Republic. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, their relationship has developed over many years and is now clealry notable. Smile a While (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't bother commenting in it before, when the article was first nominated, but seeing it now, I have to say Keep. It does now have some valid content to it, showing a notable relationship does exist between the two nations. Dream Focus 19:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Unger

Reason Syntheticlife4m (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) This doesn't apply to Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety for living biographies. Looking at the references provided, this appears to be a momentary person of minimal local fame, not a major political figure or celebrity with any potential of lasting importance.[reply]

Object Don't blow up the house before its built. Article needs more citations and references; not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.157.254 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above. Also, it looks a lot like this was a false alarm - the user who created this is a brand new user whose only contributions are a few select AfD's. Ulterior motive? Luminifer (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with the other instances of Syntheticlife4m's recent AfD spree (many of which have other single-purpose IP's with "object" comments), this one was not linked into the daily AfD logs (step 3 of an AfD nomination). I have done that now. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either founding a notable organization is notable enough for inclusion or it is notable enough to warrant a redirect to said organization from the name of the founder. Deletion would be improper either way. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 24.105.157.254, sources seem good to me. Taelus (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep´This AfD looks like a vendetta.201.65.92.42 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria – New Zealand relations

non resident embassies. even the NZ govt describes relations as "not extensive" and "New Zealand's trade with Austria is small". info on tourism workers could equally to Australia. young NZers can work in most Western European countries under a working holiday visa, doesn't actually indicate much of bilateral relations. Most coverage is on a sporting or multilateral context [35], the first item of this search is a minor tax agreement. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Australia-New Zealand relations??? Are you kidding?!!! They're neighbours! They've been.... oh, what's that? Austria? In Europe? Oh. Never mind. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets the minimal number of references to make it notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The proper search is [36] Without the + for Austria, it gets Australia, which is why so much seemed multilateral. (I have not yet checked them, but some seem usable) We've been finding good stuff about half the time. Perhaps in the others, the problem is just bias in what we can search. DGG (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No assertion of notability. PMK1 (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as usual, delete. No assertion of notability, just spewing out of as many articles as possible. Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your improvements for the "Foreign relations of ______" articles are good, but they don't make any of these debates irrelevant. Sometimes, a bilateral relationship is notable enough for its own separate article. Sometimes, there is little information beyond what was already referred to in the articles for the two nations (in this case, Foreign relation of Austria and Foreign relations of New Zealand). There will always be room to discuss whether the relations between two countries are notable enough for a "main article" link. Mandsford (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - government documents cannot masquerade as reliable sources; there are no such sources establishing the notability of this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject is notable. Just needs expansionDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should Wikipedia have articles on relationships between every single possible combination of countries? If so, I suppose this should be kept. Otherwise, how is this notable?--Susan118 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability, with ample room for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic, and, contrary to the recent hype, adding cruft on administrative trivia sourced from primary sources does not in any way establish notability, nor "rescue" the article. Dahn (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The bilateral articles into one Foreign relations of country X by country article per country. Edison (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other day, I actually met someone from Country X. She said that it's inhabited by mutants. Mandsford (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that some austrian's in the winter tourism industry (i.e. skiing) spend northern hemisphere summers in some southern hemisphere ski resorts, and that some smaller subset of these austrians elect to work at New Zealand ski resorts during the southern hemisphere winter, says nothing about this bilateral relationship. It might support an Austrian winter tourism workers abroad article. The primary sources in the article are mostly from the Austrian government explaining how foreigners -- among them new zealanders! -- can apply for a working holiday visa.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage on the significance of the topic of the article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator did not explain why they believed Choi didn't meet inclusion criteria. Commenters mention Emmy nomination which is clearly part of the "notable award" criterion. No proper rationale for deletion given. Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Choi

Reason Syntheticlife4m (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems to be part of a group of Wikipedia entries from the same set of users. Whiile this person has some national exposure, I do not believe she fits Wikipedia's criteria for long-lasting fame, notority or importance.

Object Choi is a TV host who has appeared on national programs on PBS and NBC and is hosting "Top Chef" on Bravo. Clearly a person of prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.10.224 (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — 166.217.10.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Serious Objection! I work in entertainment business in L.A. and out here, everyone knows Kelly Choi is the real deal. She s about to break really big when Top Chef Masters hits this summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanFranBlondie (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — SanFranBlondie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

MUST OPPOSE THIS DELETION 'nuff said. Its Kelly Choi for goodness sakes! If people stop you in the streets in NYC, you definitely deserve a page on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterboymichel (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — Waterboymichel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete - Only two citations at present: One that the article describes as "a few months in 2006" and one for an upcoming show (see: WP:CRYSTAL). The article properly deserves to be speedy sourced per WP:BLP, but if that doesn't happen, it should be removed at least until after Top Chef Masters gains significant independent coverage. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a new user that's been nominating a number of TV producers, and is then followed by a number of IPs "objecting" to the AfD in all caps. I'm not sure what's going on, but these are notable individuals. Emmy nominated major TV producer in a major market. A prominent role on Top Chef... quick google news search reveals a lot of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is a notable individual, as her shows have actually aired on national daytime television (is that still in the article?). Just because no one has bothered to find sources doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means it should be improved. A lot of work has already gone into finding this information - we just need to find sources now. Luminifer (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another part of the pattern of Syntheticlife4m's noms is that they are not properly listed in the daily deletion logs (step 3). I have just listed this one. Unless this is to be a speedy keep on the basis of a bad-faith nomination, it should extend seven days from now. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Dragonflysixtyseven, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt track

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and Google returns nothing of use. It's a shame, too. They're pretty good. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never heard of 'em (and as a local, this is a valid delete reason) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, only you would say that. Its a no-brainer with the new references, and this one is going to get SNOWed under. Ironholds (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i've added links to non-trivial published articles on the talk page. I think it meets the A7 criteria. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteFAQ (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establish notability. Article links are Myspace and Last.fm, talk page links are a non-notable zine and a blog. Tomdobb (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one article is from the telegraph you hippy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteFAQ (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me names please. I agree, the talk page sources aren't enough. And Ironholds, do you really think that's a "no brainer"? Ha. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •

^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well i do apologise. i think it meets the criteria. you wiki mods are hard to please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteFAQ (talk • contribs)

I'm not a mod. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madvac

No reliable sources found, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only does it fail notability with no reliable sources covering the subject, it also fails verifiability. Claims are made in the article that the subject co-produced I'm Serious and Trap Muzik. All Music Guide entries for I'm Serious and Trap Muzik shows no credits for a Madvac or Jeffrey Watkins. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC, and as above, there are questions about the truthfulness of the article that need to be settled. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooty Sapperticker

AfDs for this article:

Re-created article, deleted at AFD two years ago. Now, as then, there is a lack of reliable sources that indicate the article meets either the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for singles and songs. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Despite the Dave Barry nomination (I am not making this up!), no coverage in reliable sources. Found a couple one-sentence mentions in ancient issues of Billboard but nothing trivial. Weak delete only because there might be some print sources given the song's age. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spammy tone can be dealt with, but the notability is there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pari Passu Realty Corp.

Reason Gioindo (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional spam. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Weak keep. Very spammy, but there are some sources:[37][38]. Not sure if this is enough to establish notability. Fences and windows (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, and full of unsubstantiated grandstanding statements such as "in the vangard". More suited to a real estate column in a local newspaper. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious advertising: The firm is at the vanguard of a trend in the real estate brokerage industry away from the commission and fee structures that dominate that industry. Oonh, it's a vanguard that we are now, is it? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be alone on this, but as they've been Bloomberged, I'd suggest a Keep. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Bloomberg piece is actually about Realogy, which unlike this appears to be notable. Several of the other references to reliable sources that are in the article have similar flaws: they say little or nothing about this business, and are added to explain how its "vanguard" business model differs from others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the NYT article, which is in large part about this company.DGG (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based upon a useless and non-existant nomination rational. If a nominator will not take the time to make a nomination rational (even if it requires a second edit), the Article should speedy close default keep IMHO. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note; Intrestingly, the nomination of this Article is the only edits User:Gioindo has ever made, which makes me think there is something more going on here than meets the eye. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no verifiable evidence of notability, and the lack of sourcing shows in its promotional tone and undue reliance on the views expressed in the company's own website. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this is spammy. I cannot read the NYT article without subscription, but judging from where the inline cite is placed in the article it appears to be there to verify that they have a NYT article! Everything else - all things factual - are referenced to their own website, not WP:RS, sorry. SpinningSpark 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose BMW Motorcycles

Non-notable corporation, borderline advert, and very limited google news coverage. JCutter (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement without encyclopedic content or potential. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Delete would qualify for speedy delete as clear spam. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Balter

Unreferenced BLP that makes no claims of notability. JaGa^talk 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Troutslap Nominations that mention an article as not being referenced, should indicate what efforts were made to find such sorts or give a reasonable explanation why they can't be added. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The problem seems to me, that even if sourced, the page is nothing more than a Resume of a non-notable person? I don't think any of it comes to even a claim of notability. He is a regular Rabbi that sits on a number of Rabbinical boards - if that is all, i say delete as non-notable.Yob Mod 09:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No assertion of notability. Just seems like a regular rabbi. — Jake Wartenberg 00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's some mention in the Jewish Post over a perceived snub:[39]. That's the only non-passing coverage. Fences and windows (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Murray

The subject of this article seems to have been noted only for going missing. Since it is possible that she is living, I feel that WP:BLP1E applies. Kevin (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - still a very notable case in New Hampshire, especially with the recent cold case legislation. Jrclark (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per jrclark.--Judo112 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. The case is notable, but the presentation and level of detail is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The timeline should be converted to prose, and the referencing needs improving. Even if she is not alive, WP:BLP applies to her relatives, boyfriend, the police and any potential suspects. Fences and windows (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs to be improved the Timeline I think is unnecessary. Afkatk (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PHWOnline

Non-notable website, disorganized page, lack of references.User_talk:LDMythos 0:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passed notability in previous deletion challenge. Bad writing but WP:Deadline; someone will clean it up eventually. -Moritheil (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I reverted some vandalism but even before that it didn't seem to have a deletion template. Just an oversight? -Moritheil (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears now to be fairly inactive, last comics were added in 2007, the forum sees VERY little traffic. If kept the article needs a complete re-write because it makes it sound like an active and functioning site. More like one on life support in a nursing home. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a reliable source that mentions the site as part of an article on "gamics" (games and comics):[40]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. No sources where it is the primary subject or even discussed in depth, no apparent notability. Article appears to exist primarily as an excuse to dump an enormous bunch of external links at the bottom of the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is rather sad that not a single reference has been added since its last AfD in 2005, although there are a few reviews out there eg [41] and [42]. According to Alexa they seem to be pretty inactive right now, but six months ago they had daily traffic in the many thousands of page views. 2007 seems to have been their peak period when they got into the top 50k which, while its not going to worry Disney, is quite reasonable. This seems to be borne out by the narrative in the article, that there best days are in the past. However, a website being semi-defunct is not a reason to delete its article - after all, we don't delete a BLP's article if the subject dies. If it was once notable, it is notable forever as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. Besides, this one is not quite gone yet. SpinningSpark 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jhene

I'm not sure this article satisfies WP:MUSIC. Although I do remember her appearing on a few songs years ago, I can't find any more info than that; and it doesn't help that her debut album was never released. Moreover, her supposed official website loads up for not even a full second (literally) and then switches to a dead link, as do all the other links on the site. The only other info I can find are Twitter pages, blogs, a fan site (which hasn't been updated for years itself), and databases listing lyrics for supposed songs off the shelved album. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the charted single. Barely qualifies her per WP:MUSIC, not sure on the sourcing though. (Why do people insist on giving a Hot 100 column even before they've ever charted there?) Did you try checking under Jhené? That's how she's listed on Allmusic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the supposed charted single doesn't appear on the Billboard website. There isn't even an artist chart history page for her on the site, which is standard for any artist that charts on even one Billboard chart. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It turns up for me. Sometimes the artist chart history page misses low-charting songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. At any rate, that link doesn't say anything about an album. A similar discussion took place here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A borderline case, but a charting song and collaboration with B2K are enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would appear to meet criteria #2 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Silver

1 sentence stub giving no context on an apparently non notable book. No WP:RS thrown up in google search. Possibly worthy of a note in another article but there is no information to merge, thus this would be improper. HJMitchell You rang? 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC) HJMitchell You rang? 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be notable, but that isn't demonstrated by reliable sources. A quick google search doesn't throw any up. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable Warhammer 40K book - no coverage in reliable sources. If anyone fancies a read, here's a excerpt:[43]. Fences and windows (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's only one line and that line can go in another entry. -moritheil^Talk 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever fate is reserved for this article, the following should get the same:
- The Guns of Tanith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sabbat Martyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Traitor General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  - -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and non-encyclopedic. JCutter (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, no actual notability. Resurr Section (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aventura. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Up 2 You

Fails WP:NSONGS, no assertion of notability. No awards, no charting. Doesn't appear to have been released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball RadioFan (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aventura; hasn't even been released yet (WP:CRYSTAL). JJL (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aventura as per WP:CRYSTAL. Merge the mention of the awards performance if it can be referenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Socha

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:Entertainer

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article lists 3 roles Socha played and the nominator appears to have made no effort to follow WP:BEFORE. Three roles meet inclusion criteria for entertainers unless one or more can be shown to be minor. The nomination also fails to include WP:GNG in their reasoning which supercedes WP:ENTERTAINER and appears to be met by two of the notes and one external link. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to have had roles or even significant roles if the production or work is not notable. These efforts to count roles in high school performances and little theatre or local productions to make someone notable for a Wikipedia article is distorting any meaning that the guidelines for notability have. Sorry to pick on you, I realize that you're not the only one doing this and it may be that you didn't investigate in depth. It is plausible that a 19 year old has had multiple significant roles in notable performances but it just isn't the case with Miss Socha. Drawn Some (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much as it pains me, I concur with Drawn Some. I'm not seeing anything that satisfies the GNG, or WP:Entertainer. The role in Spring Awakening is significant- the play is notable but there is just not enough of anything else- either information on her or other significant roles to justify a WP article at this time. If more information were to come to light, and I'll do some digging, I would swing t'other way. In the meantime, I'd be inclined to say delete it and recreate it when she has other significant roles to her name. HJMitchell You rang? 13:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The role in Spring Awakening led to some press coverage, including commentary about her performance in The New York Times and the Daily News. I've added those references and some others over the past few days. There's enough there now to meet the general notability guideline, the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber (BDD Framework)

This article is about a nonnotable BDD framework. I've looked around on the internet (the place where this would be most popular) and I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that discuss this product in a nontrivial manner, as required by WP:N. The external links are to the official website and an ad. Them From Space 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frankly, I've no idea what this is. WP is about as technologically advanced as I get. However, there seems to be a lack of sources. The article doesn't help me understand what it is, nor does anything I can find on the web. Saying that, since I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, I'm reluctant to cast a "delete" vote. HJMitchell You rang? 19:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy delete for having so little context as to be unintelligible. We do have an article on behavior driven development which is enough to tell me that this article is about some non-consumer programming development or supervision software or philosophy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, what little content there is is a copyvio of the official website (linked in the article). SpinningSpark 20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Douglas

Procedural nom as I am unsure of what to do with this. This article was tagged as WP:CSD#G7 by User:Talentmuse with the edit summary (Delete page I submitted per Brian Douglas' request. Thank you.) which was correctly declined as multiple editors had contributed to it. User:Talentmuse then added an afd tag without completing the nom. The reason I am completing the nom is that the article had already been tagged for notability and COI concerns and a significant contributor advocates its deletion. Please note this version of the article as a lot of content was removed before it was tagged for CSD. I have no opinion either way. ascidian | talk-to-me 18:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is assertion of importance, it is almost the only content there is! The question is whether 20 years of being on US radio results in notability, which seems likely, if game-show losers are notable, so i say ~~weak~~ keep.Yob Mod 11:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to be a lot of sources, and he has done more than radio (making pilot of CM chaneel, worked for CNN). I added some refs, then removed them, as there seems to be more than one:This guy from the photo, and this one worked 20 years.Yob Mod 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, many claims of notablity have been removed in the past, although sourcing for them is trivial, that's why he looks non-notable at first glance.Yob Mod 11:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand Yobmod's points - WP:OTHER, and some vague claims of notability but no sourcing. All I can find is a very few bits of trivial coverage in the LA press. Fences and windows (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to say Keep because somebody requested deletion on behalf of Brian Douglas (apparently), but, no assertion of notability, even before User:Talentmuse touched it, so, reality says Delete--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enikeev

What is it? No context, no links, no references, no nothing. HJMitchell You rang? 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a trout. WP:BEFORE requires nominators to make an effort to determine all these things themselves before nominating. You have not shown you made an effort to look it up before nominating. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If legitimate, and not a hoax, it can be a worthy history stub, but it really needs at least one reference. I say lets tag it and give it some time to be verified by a reliable source. [44] is a possible source though I can't make sense of it. There's also this book [45] but again I don't know what to do with this. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia can help. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I found the same sources as OlEnglish, nothing more. So the family exists, but that's all we can verify. I tried looking up the general, but got nothing. Fences and windows (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a wealth of sources, given the role of both Temnikov and Murza families of Yenikeevs (unrelated) and their offspring, but most of them in Tatar language, and a few in Russian, so they have no place in American wikipedia. BTW, in an interesting twist, one of these Yenikeys could've been the ancestor of Alexander Kuprin (not to mention countless Yenikeyevs and Kugushevs) (Russian translation of an article in Tatar). NVO (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC) `[reply]
- Comment - The English-language Wikipedia is for articles in English about all notable topics world-wide and from all countries. If sources are available in English, wonderful. If sources are only available in other languages, that's not a problem. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of editors willing and able to dig up those sources it is a problem. No, babelfish won't do. No prospects of improvement - delete. NVO (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for six months or so based on the sources mentioned by OlEnglish and NVO, to see if someone can source the article, probably from non-English sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm totally unconvinced. The first two sources are not independent, one forum post references the book, and all it states is that the family name is one of Tatar nobility. Again, the source in Russian merely mentions the name, no detail:[46]. What exactly are we supposed to write an article about? The assertion of abundant sources in Russian/Tatar is at present only an assertion. Please present sources! Fences and windows (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't guessed it, "ENIC" mentioned in the "translated" title and further down the text is the original Turkic name discussed here. Amirkhan Eniki (Tatar: Амирхан Еники, Russian: Амирхан Еникеев), the title subject, was a Tatar writer and translator (1909-2001) of the Yenikey lineage. He's a sort of icon among Tatar literati. NVO (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Link to his works at googlebooks [47] NVO (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that Enic and Enikeev were equivalent. If there are sources to the family under variant spellings, list the spellings and give the reliable, secondary sources that cover the family in more than passing. Fences and windows (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator claims at User_talk:Natalya#Hi Natalya! I have a question! that it's her own family history that she's personally translated and also that the article exists on Russian Wikipedia. I left a message asking if she could quote the source she translated from or maybe do a transwiki from the Russian Wikipedia article. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Russian article:[48]. Also an unsourced stub. Fences and windows (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Princely families are highly notable. We should start with List of Russian princely families - not too long! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spring Awakening. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Pritchard

Fails WP:Entertainer

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 May 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, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has had a significant role in what appears to be a very notable play, she is recording a solo album and has won an award, all of which mean she meets the GNG and probably criteria 1 and 2 of WP:entertainer which, for the record, is superseded by the WP:GNG HJMitchell You rang? 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some trouble with this. The Grammy mentioned was the one given to the musical as a whole for "Best Musical Show Album" and was given to the composer and lyricist of the play. Laura is neither of them and this article appears to be using said award to make her notable by association.[49] The solo album is irrelevant since it is being recorded (notability requires release). With the release date delayed, it might not be released at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think outright deletion is a good idea. If the above issues can't be addressed by obtaining more sources to meet WP:GNG, a redirect to the article about the musical until the issues are resolved is better. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I would agree to a redirect. She has had one role in one play and is certainly not notable but the role is verifiable. It is plausible that someone might search for her. Drawn Some (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahçe SK Achievements

This "article" is a completely unnecessary list of sports achievements. It is nothing but pile of statistics in a list- no introduction, no prose and no context. It would be of little interest or use to anybody unfamiliar with the subject. HJMitchell You rang? 16:38, 4 May 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, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no attempt to even explain what it is about or why anyone should read this list of stats. It is totally redundant to Fenerbahçe S.K.. Fences and windows (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content about footnalling acheivements already covered on club's main page. Giant Snowman 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is probably redundant as the football club's honours are listed on the main article, and the honours of the club's other sports teams are listed on the relevant articles. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its a redundant article. John Sloan @ 12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant content that suits much better in the main article. --Angelo (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject appears to meet WP:MUSIC by virtue of two albums on the Drakkar Entertainment label. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grantig

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. No charted singles or albums. Recordings are self produced and lack any label backing major or otherwise. No indication of any awards, influential style or anything else that would help it pass WP:BAND RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator may have misread the article. The two albums were made with the support of a label, Drakkar Entertainment. It's the demos that were self produced. Drakkar looks good enough for the band to satify the two album criterea of wp:music. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the German version of the article- I see no reason to delete it. a little insignificant 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ ^a ^b "Seven Ways to Greet a Neighbor". AskAsia. 2009. Retrieved 3 May 2009.

[AskAsia-1] "Seven Ways to Greet a Neighbor". AskAsia. 2009. Retrieved 3 May 2009.

[1]