Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 29
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremiah Riggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be non-notable. Riggs has fought only two professional fights at local/regional events. Very sparse coverage of him on the Internet (mostly fight records and blog entries about the two TV shows he's appeared on). Seems his biggest claim to fame is either a one episode appearance on The Ultimate Fighter or being a participant in the reality show Daisy of Love. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - definetly not notable as a mixed martial artist and I doubt his reality show appearances makes him qualify. --aktsu (t / c) 15:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Riggs has had plenty of fights. Some of the fights have not been picked up by Sherdog. He to me is a very notable mma fighter. I can understand why you would think he's not but to me and a lot of other people he is. Being on two reality shows doesn't make you famous but for Riggs I think there is an exception. He is known by a lot of people ranging from grown men to young girls. This article should stay but either way is fine. Justastud15 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not an over achiever, but he has fought professionally and that qualifies under wp:athlete. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The status of being a professional in MMA is not equal to being a professional in boxing or the NFL etc. Most states sanctioning MMA don't have amateur status so everyone is professionals. If you take a look at WT:MMA we currently have a discussion going as for what the equals status to being a professional is other sports is, and Riggs doesn't even come close IMO. --aktsu (t / c) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two fights in total, the last one over a year ago doesn't equate to competing "at the fully professional level of a sport," in my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, I'd classify myself as a deletionist. Even if we leave out the fine points debate about what is or is not professional, this one goes a little past that. Aside from the two pro fights, he's also appeared on 2 national shows. Neither of those appearences would qualify him by themselves, but adding them to the 2 fights and membership on a notable team (HIT Squad), to me adds up to being notable enough. I'm staying with my keep at this point. On a seperate note, I read the discussion about fine-tuning the criteria for MMA notability and I think it's a good idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Mentifisto 17:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elliott James Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a hox, though I'll admit the genealogy of the royals is hard to keep track of. That and the BLP implications have me bringing it here directly for consideration rather than CSD or Prod. I can't find any information to support most of what's in this article. The smoking gun for me seems to be that he claims to be the grandson of Prince William of Gloucester, with the 1972 plane crash being the link. I can't find any evidence that William had any children, which makes the rest of the lineage rather suspect. ArakunemTalk 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G3 The page has been recreated after being G3d once, going through the motions of AfD might be worth it. Line of succession to the British throne clearly disproves the claims. Only searches returned the cached deleted page and the user page of the author. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. And considering it's been recreated Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Page was speedy tagged three times by various people and deleted twice by Dank G3 and G3 hoax[1]. Creator is also currently displaying the content as his userpage User:Elliott567 so I believe he is claiming that he is the Duke of Earl.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the Prince William of Gloucester who died in the plane crash was a batchelor and had no offspringBBC report of his death]. The title passed to his brother Prince Richard of Gloucester, the second son of Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Princess Alice. Richard has three children (two girls and a boy, Alexander) Sourced direct from the official website of the British monarchy. Alice had only two children, William and Richard, there is no Henry for this chappie to be descended from. At the time of her death, she was survived by her son and three grandchildren - ie Richard and his offspring Obituary of Princess Alice in the Guardian. Can we speedy this now please.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA - note also that there is no Duke of Sussex listed at royal.gov.uk. This is because the last Duke died without offspring in 1843 and the title has not been awarded again. See Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex. The title Earl of Sussex has been awarded more recently. The last incumbent Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn died without issue in 1943. There is speculation that one of these titles will be awarded to Prince William, as he will not receive the title Duke of Edinburgh royal.gov.uk again which will go to his uncle, Prince Edward, when Charles succeeds to the throne.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a self-created fantasy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G3 - blatant hoax/misinformation. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the author has now cut the article back to a single sentence: "Elliott James Windsor, Earl of Hertfordshire is the only child of HRH the Duke of Sussex, who was born on 15th September 1960", but that is still fantasy - the title "Duke of Sussex" became extinct in 1843 - see Duke of Sussex. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 30 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 A7 (non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ewan James Melville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not sufficiently establish conformity to WP:N and WP:Notability (people) Intelligentsium (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, has been repeatedly deleted for failing notability, the person who apparently has a conflict of interest on this subject repeatedly recreates it despite warnings, which he removes from his Talk page without discussion. This is turning into a disruption. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An anonymous account is repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are zero Google news hits for "Ewan James Melville", "Ewan Melville" or "Ewan J. Melville". There are zero Google hits for "Ewan J. Melville" at all. All Google hits for "Ewan James Melville" are to myspace and youtube and such sites. There are 30 hits for "Ewan Melville", with several people of that name, none of them apparently referring to this person. The like to the New York Times goes to their main page, not to any news article about this person. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh. I just read through his talk history. This is at least the fourth version of this article. Speedy delete and salt or it will just keep coming back. Hairhorn (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming right up. User was reported to VIP anyway. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 29 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. SNOW Valley2city‽ 06:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Denaldin Hamzagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable soccer player; was drafted but not signed to a pro contract; no pro experience; no significant amateur achievements; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable player. GiantSnowman 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsigned draft pick. Has not played in any games for the Revolution, not-notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Was never signed by New England, hasn't been on their roster since well before the season started. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable footballer. --Carioca (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom as non-notable. --ClubOranjeT 10:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenta Furube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
BLP about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league that fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed with any references or support that article satisfied notability requirements. It is not enough to be a non-playing member of the team. Jogurney (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable player. GiantSnowman 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonnotable... worth mentioning that the deprodder was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, so it never should have even made it to AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE in never having made the field, non notable per WP:GNG. --ClubOranjeT 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yutaro Fukushima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced BLP about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league that fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed with any references or support that article satisfied notability or verifiability requirements. It is clear that no such person is on the playing squad of Thespa Kusatsu. Jogurney (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable player. GiantSnowman 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable player failing WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Player history thinks he played for Thespa in 2008, but never took the field in a competitive match, and even if he did Thespa appears to be in J-League 2 which is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and therefore Yutaro Fukushima fails WP:ATHLETE.--ClubOranjeT 07:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chzz ► 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A band that just does not appear notable. AFD instead of A7 since the article has been around a while, in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You don't appear to have missed anything. I see no notability or reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the best coverage I can find is being mentioned in a top ten list by Vic Galloway [1]. That's a far cry from the sourcing needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers. I'mperator 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weapons of Mass Instruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability of song is not indicated in article text; no references listed. Doesn't conform to WP:NOTE, WP:Notability (music), WP:SONGS, or WP:V. Pete (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to James Gordon (Canadian musician), per what is suggested at WP:NALBUMS for nonnotable songs, this is a plausible search term. FingersOnRoids 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per FingersOnRoids Kyle1278 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transfer path analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Context is vague, but not IMHO vague enough for A1 CSD. It was listed as a copyvio, but most of that has been cleaned out. But in the end, I just do not see any indication that the subject is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of technical papers on Google that might show notability, but a lot of what comes up is nearly as dense as the article itself. These might be useful for researching and creating a more comprehensive article, but right now the article doesn't seem to have that track in mind. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL seems to be relevant. BassoProfundo (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of the article made a comment (now viewable on the article's talk page) that s/he would like to work on the article in a non-public namespace until it is ready for inclusion. This seems to indicate the creator and primary editor's desire to temporarily delete the page. BassoProfundo (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, under criterion G7. (article has already been moved to the user namespace) blurredpeace ☮ 00:02, 30 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 as failing WP:N and WP:V. Since this discussion was opened, no changes or improvements have been made to the article despite several participants stating they had sources which could be used to make this article more than just a very loosely connected collection of information cribbed from other articles. As very little has been done since the similar discussion three years ago, this article (as it currently stands) does not meet the requirements for keeping. If someone wishes to have the article userfied to be worked on, I will be happy to do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Automobile ownership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is not a cohesive topic in its own right but is merely a loose collection of aspects, most of which have no bearing on owning a motor vehicle. There is no cohesive article that can be put together under this title - if everything unrelated were taken out, we would be left with a dicdef. Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Automobile ownership for more discussion on this point. The article was nominated 3 years ago but was procedurally kept due to being edited mid-discussion. Consensus then was that it was in bad shape but that we should "give it time" to improve. 3 years later and nothing has happened since then. Zunaid 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you say that this article isn't a cohesive topic in its own right, but there are sources that treat it as such. (Example 1 Example 2). Therefore there could be an encyclopaedic article on this topic.
While I was doing background research for this AfD, I came across Wikipedia's article on vehicle registration certificate which is an orphan and also much in need of help.
Taking all this into consideration, I'd like to suggest a merge of automobile ownership and vehicle registration certificate into automobile ownership with a redirect from vehicle ownership as well (plausible alternative search term).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point that there are some synthesis of the various topics on the web falling under "vehicle ownership", however I still feel such a topic is fraught with synthesis issues covering mostly irrelevant material. I semi-support your merge proposal, however into an article title such as vehicle registration as that is a much more accurate and well-defined term, which should keep the article tightly focused on the topic. To pick the current article apart piece by piece: the section on vehicle maintenance belongs in a how-to guide or user manual, which Wikipedia is explicitly not. The section on types of automobiles is in completely the wrong article, likewise rules of the road. License plates too, as well as the driver's license section. There is very little information left in this article as it stands that could form a nucleus of any cohesive topic. Zunaid 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I'm at a loss to understand why this has ever been considered a suitably notable topic; it's so vague. Driver licensing might be of value to compare systems around the world. And merging anything useful into vehicle registration certificate I wouldn't oppose, though not the other way, into this one. Do we have articles on "radio ownership" (as opposed to radio licensing, for example) or indeed on "fish ownership"? Not encyclopaedic. – Kieran T (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite significantly - it's not a serious article in its current form, but a loose collection of unrelated topics. I think it should focus on what automobile ownership means in the US (and other countries if different), what documents prove it, and perhaps how to go about transferring a car to a new owner, in a more coherent way. All topics related to registering, driving (including obtaining a driver's license!) and maintaining a motor vehicle should be removed. Alternatively, a shorter version (a paragraph) could go to the ownership article under "Types of property," but we do need to keep information on auto ownership somewhere. --CFHerbert (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no view on keeping or deletion, but this certainly shouldn't focus on "what automobile ownership means in the US (and other countries if different)". If there's to be an article under this title it should give no more weight to the US that to any similarly-sized country or region. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, the good old "keep and rewrite", my all-time favourite AfD !vote, which ALWAYS leads to the article being immediately improved by hundreds of volunteers just dying to do the work! I'm sure they won't take 3 years to get around to it this time...</sarcasm></rant> Seriously, would you consider changing your !vote to delete unless rewritten? You are basically asking for an article dealing with vehicle registration, which has been mooted as a possible merge/redirect target. Zunaid 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact is that this article in its current state is unacceptable and has been for three years, there is little if any thing to be salvaged. If someone wants to rewrite it they can do so at anytime, an AfD doesn't prevent this, it can be rewritten during the AfD and kept, or it can be reposted after the article is deleted. --Leivick (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a highly notable topic as vehicle ownership has considerable legal and social consequences. It is our clear editing policy to improve such articles rather than deleting them. 99% of our article are less than good. This is not surprising as you get what you pay for. We have no deadline and so no reason to delete this. If anyone actually wants to build the encyclopedia rather than just being a critic, here are several hundred sources on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A jaded, spoiled view common to upper-class Western living could easily lead one to think that this topic is not notable, but to the vast majority of the world's 5 billion human inhabitants this is a very notable and important topic. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fail to see how this is encyclopedic. It appears to be a navigation article about various US laws related to vehichle ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has a lot of information directly pertaining to the title. Some of the information should be removed, perhaps to a "see also" section. Sebwite (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mauro Vigorito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vigorito never played professionally. As no appearances record in Serie A nor Coppa Italia Matthew_hk tc 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - this site confirms his one appearance (in a fully-pro league) that the article claims. He therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no record in http://www.cagliaricalcio.net/ http://www.gazzetta.it http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/stats?id=115025&cc=4716 http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/clubs/cagstats.html Which match he actually played? Goal.com is sometimes reliable. Matthew_hk tc 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, Cristiano Lupatelli played 23 Serie A games in all-time or 2007-08 or 2008-09 season? Non of above. Matthew_hk tc
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was under the impression that goal.com is not considered a reliable source at WP:FOOTY. Unless a reliable source can be found to show that he has played a game, this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. King of the North East 14:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RFI - My Italian is not what it once was (and it used to be crap) so could someone decipher his role here please.--ClubOranjeT 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Guardian has him having never played a game for the club. This Source seems to place him behind Federico Marchetti and Cristiano Lupatelli in the pecking order at Caglairi, so unless a source other than the Goal.com can prove he has played a first team game, he is non-notable.
- Delete I can ensure he has never played a game in 2008–09 season, I have checked at Gazzetta, Cagliari Calcio and Calciatori.com, none of them show him having ever played a game. --Angelo (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Dank, CSD G3: Vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huner Buttonne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Limited notability. I don't even know if this character actually exists. gordonrox24 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Article has no claim of notability for its subject. Probably a joke page by the creators of this character, since a joking reference to the idea that he doesn't exist was added soon after this AFD. BassoProfundo (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. In fact, I was about to put this up for a speedy. I'm rather certain that this is a hoax. No ghits on "Huner Buttonne". Tim Ross (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Obvious hoax... Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete- Tagged it G3. What clinches it for me is one of the "writers", "Whargharble" is actually current internet meme featuring a dog trying to attack a sprinkler. There is no way in hell this is real. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. I can't tell what they're talking about, so I'm re-tagging it as nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Poof. It's gone (G3), but let me know if I'm reading the consensus wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 30 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 as failing WP:CORP (and therefore WP:N). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scarab Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable corp. References given do not support notability. Fails WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete After reviewing the "references", I doubt any of them meet WP standards. One is a site hosted/maintained by a single person on a .edu domain, one is a description of work created by the company (in the company's own words), and the other, while possibly about a piece of work the company created, does not even mention the company... Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not speedy, as it doesn't meet any of the criteria. However, it does appear to be non-notable, with no significant independent coverage that I could find. Note that there was an identically titled studio in London in the first half of the 20th century, however it appears to be unrelated to this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:22, 30 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. Please take the redirect discussion to the talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saint Evilasius (Executioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's exactly one Google hit on this saint. I would think there would be more than one for anyone canonized by the Catholic Church. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to Fausta of Sirmium
Comment--Searching "Evilasius" without the "St." yielded more than 600 Google hits. The reason seems to be that he is paired up with Fausta of Sirmium, the girl he is said to have tortured, rather than discussed separately. Here is a particularly graphic telling of the tale. He does seem to be a legitimate Catholic Saint and thus (I assume) prima facie notable.I haven't had a chance to read through if there isThere is perhaps enough to justify a separate article for Evilasius, but if not, I'd prefer redirecting it to the existing stub Fausta of Sirmium, which already mentions him, and which could be expanded as well.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep or redirect to Fausta of Sirmium. There are actually about 678 google hits for the name as per here. However, he does seem to be tied to Saint Fausta, so for the purposes of having articles of reasonable length, it probably makes sense to have them both covered in the same article. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both subjects are notable, but not independently of each other. i don't see how the two articles could ever differ in actual content. Thus I would say merge, except this is a very implausible search term. I have created Saint Evilasius and Evilasius as redirects to Fausta of Sirmium. If this closes as keep those will need to be re-pointed--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: upon further examination there are actually TWO Saint Faustas. The one who was tortured isn't Fausta of Sirmium so I have moved the article to Saint Fausta and corrected the info. Compare [2] and [3] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have redirected Fausta of Sirmium to Anastasia of Sirmium, as her only claim to notability is that she is the traditional mother of Anastasia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To Saint Fausta, as his notability is tied solely to hers. More detail on Evalasius can be found here: [4]. For the record, he is an Orthodox saint, not a Roman Catholic saint. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would be interested in knowing where the details of the story originate from - obviously it makes a big difference if the details weren't added to centuries later. Either way, they can be included in the Saint Fausta article, but I need know where they come from to properly write the article. If anyone finds anything let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To Saint Fausta, drop a note on the talk page in case someone can pick it up from reliable sources in the future Chzz ► 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Chzz. This article is unacceptable, but useful as redirect. American Eagle (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Saint Evilasius already exists as a redirect and no content was merged from Saint Evilasius (Executioner) so there really is no reason to keep the second page as a redirect --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To Saint Fausta Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At the very least seems to be a Saint in the Orthodox Church, probably Catholic as well.Tyrenon (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Saint Evilasius Every recognized saint found in classic sources is notable. We do not have to decide between the degree to which this is legend or fact-- Bede is reliable for what was believed in the early middle ages. That the deaths are linked is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aria (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod was removed. I am unconvinced this is notable enough and currently fails the general notability guidelines. Otterathome (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to have been recently updated, but needs a bit of polishing and sourceing work. Old Death (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not in anyway address the concerns raised.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and no. I do think indeed it might be notable enough for keeping. Also (just something that occured to me), it seems to be available in 26 languages, which is quite much. Maybe we could agree on giving the article some months more of time and reconsidering deletion at a later time? It sounds more logical to me giving the article a 'second chance' then deleting it directly. Old Death (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not in anyway address the concerns raised.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing establishing notability on the first few pages of Google search, CNET doesn't have anything about it. The sourceforge page says "It is being actively developed by Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa." Should qualify for A7. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge with future article about aria2), and what is the problem IF "this is not notable enough"? what is the problem with that? Sorry, but I don't believe in deleting articles based ONLY on notability issues (and there is not even any policy that says that articles should be deleted due to lack of notability). As a side note, this program is in the Ubuntu repositories, so that is indication of SOME notability. Besides, there are not so many download managers for Linux (if there were many many, maybe deletion was justified to do some clean-up, but that is not the case) -- SF007 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you don't believe on deleting articles based on notability, maybe you're on the wrong website. The article fails WP:V+WP:OR which are policies.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per policy, SF007; WP:DEL#REASON "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" Chzz ► 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, I still strongly think it does not make sense to delete an article based on "notability" (or lack of it). That way we end up deleting useful stuff, and we keep useless "fan-material" (pokemons/youtube_celebrities/joe_the_plumber/whatever) just because it is popular... it just does not make any sense to me. I don't care about blindy folowing rules without even thinking. SF007 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't a project devoted to documenting every piece of software someone makes available for download. Notability hasn't been shown - the article actually disclaims notability, saying it is defunct. Miami33139 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is not "defunct", this article is used for both Aria and Aria2, Aria2 is Aria, think of it as version 2. Aria2 redirects here, so it is not "defunct" ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of MXC episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, does not indicate notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t19:04z 19:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- As I understand it, a list of episodes of tv shows is a perfectly acceptable type of page. Not to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on this afd, but examples of other ones might be: List of Scrubs episodes, List of House episodes and List of The Shield episodes. Aside from the fact that they're different shows, I really don't see what makes this particular list any less acceptable than the examples. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles all have third party sources, tho I've put a NoFootNotes tag on the Shield article. wp:v states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The MXC list has no sources, not even a primary one. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-01t06:02z
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although this type of list is perfectly acceptable and I usually endorse a keep in these instances, but, the purpose of a list is to bring together like information for navigation to the related, Notable, Articles. Everything on this list is a RedLink with (IMHO) little hope of claiming notability of the individual shows. I dont believe a List of Permanent RedLinks is acceptable. If even a few of these episodes had BlueLinks, I would prolly feel differently, but they dont. I would accept a Merge to MXC. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- if you look at the lists I linked, you'll notice a lot of them don't even have blue or red-links, just an episode title and description. So if the episodes were de-linked, as Peregrine Fisher suggests, why would that make it any different? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but delink eps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a valid and verifiable subtopic of MXC that would be too large to merge into the parent article. Delink the episode titles if notability cannot be established for individual episodes. DHowell (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manhattan College. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alpha Sigma Beta Fraternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fraternity at a a single college. The only thing of conceivable interest is that NYC Mayor Rudolph Guiliani applied to it, but was rejected. Many trivial mentions in GNews, [5] but none that show significance. Thereare other fraternities of this name: This is the one at Manhattan College. DGG (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The non-entry of Guiliani is all I can really find too, other than organising a boat ride in the 1950s. Redirect to List_of_social_fraternities_and_sororities#Local_organizations (and include it there too). Fences and windows (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manhattan College and mention there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 18:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Manhattan College, seems like it could be significant in the context of the College - apparently active for over 100 years and one of only two fraternities. Guest9999 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Manhattan College if the information can be sourced, bare redirect otherwise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Tone 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources to support notability -- fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: this article is nothing but a wikified copyright violation of this web site. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well spotted - I just nom'd it for G12 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 29 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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of colour sorts of Platy fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
strange and pointless list. Highest Heights (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Is currently nominated for speedy deletion under A1 - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in to Southern platyfish - this article obviously does not have enough content to stand by itself. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no sources, probably not notable. Likely not any useful info for a merge. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've merged the article's content into the Southern platyfish article, so nothing more to do here I think. ArakunemTalk 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as merge confirmed. If anyone want a redirect, they can recreate it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 30 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) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dana S. Nau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is this professor particularly notable? And the fact that the article was created by an user named Dsnpost (talk · contribs) suggests some interesting conflict of interest issues. Unless notability shown, delete. Nlu (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just one of many marginal academics using wiki for vanity. Bonewah (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Accusations of vanity are against multiple policies on civility, assumption of good faith and biographies of living persons. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Full disclosure: I am not Dana Nau, but I am one of his many former research students; it should be obvious from my edit history that I have only a passing familiarity with Wikipedia. I assume (though I don't know) that Dsnpost was Dana Nau, and clearly any self-promotion in Wikipedia is fraught with peril. That said, I read WP:ACADEMIC, and Dana Nau seems to qualify for notability rather easily, both by criterion 1 (see his citation statistics, as well as the references to SHOP2 and some of his other work at Hierarchical task network) and, as a AAAI fellow, for criterion 3. Philosophically, though, I don't know where Wikipedia stands on articles that should have been created, but probably not by the editor who created them. Incremental Improvements (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. According to GScholar [6], this guy is cited like there's no tomorrow. It may be self-promotional, and tacky, but passes WP:ACADEMIC nonetheless - Vartanza (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yeah, I agree this guy passes WP:PROF by a country mile.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Auto eligible by WP:PROF Criteria 3. He is an elected Fellow of AAAI (1996), it's the fifth reference, this shouldn't come up for AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Citation impact clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Vartanza. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 30 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 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Social ERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A7 CSDed once, the second time A7 was declined as an ineligible subject. eligible subject or not, I see no sign that this meets the project's notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without references, this article is pure WP:OR. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references, claims of being a 'social movement' are always a bit dubious, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Firstly I must say that this article doesn't enlighten me as to what Social ERP actually is. It's like those horrible marketing brochures that tell you how a "solution" will improve your business but doesn't actually tell you what the product is that's being sold. At first glance a Google Books search looks promising but on further digging it seems that any potential sources, excepting those that have the accidental juxtaposition of the word "social" (in any language) with any meaning of the acronym "ERP", are talking about effective rate of protection rather than enterprise resource planning. The same goes for Google Scholar search results. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 31 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. Withdrawn by nominator / WP:SNOW keep. SoWhy 08:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald G. Fink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
President of a professional organization. Not listed on the organization page's listing of notable presidents. Thus, IMHO, not indication of separate notability for this person. Unsourced as well. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not listed on Wikipedia's page for notable presidents you mean? The man has numerous books, including text books, that he published and/or edited. There are over 12,000 ghits for him. In 1979 (30 years ago) an award from the IEEE was named in honor of him, per the organization, The award is named in honor of Donald G. Fink, distinguished editor and author, who was a Past President of the IRE, and the first General Manager and Executive Director of the IEEE. That alone is enough to make him notable enough for an article. The IEEE's bio of Donald. If you can read that and still conclude that the article fails our notability criteria...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: The IEEE's page looks like a wiki that uses the same software as WP, but it does not appear to be a wikiclone. I can't find the article or author on WP.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, the subjects work and the award are mentioned in numerous Wikipedia articles and references. An article would be a useful addition as a target for wikilinking. SpinningSpark 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you do that for a dead person? SpinningSpark 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- My guess is because the one-sentence "biography" doesn't bother to mention when the guy lived or died. Removed. لennavecia 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you do that for a dead person? SpinningSpark 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Snow keep, having read and checked Spartacus' post; I think Spartacus has absolutely slaughtered the argument for deletion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. As much as I hate "per-x" rationale, it's appropriate in this one. Especially given the article's creation edit summary states that the one-liner was being created so an IP could flesh it out, and there's clearly plenty of that to be had. ArakunemTalk 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On top of everything else (despite not really being an academic) he clearly passes WP:PROF #6 (as BDFL of IEEE) and #8 as editor of Proc. IRE. But the better reason for keeping is that we have plenty of material from the bio linked by Spartacus to expand this into a real and properly sourced article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the Bio I linked can be used as an RS... it looks like a wiki to me. BUT if it is a wiki, I give it more credence than I do most as it is monitored more closely by the IEEE.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but I think this one is sufficiently reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And this one even more so. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if we needed another, here's his NYT obit. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the Bio I linked can be used as an RS... it looks like a wiki to me. BUT if it is a wiki, I give it more credence than I do most as it is monitored more closely by the IEEE.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fink was one of the 20th century's most prominent electrical engineers. GreenGourd (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the original nominator, I'm now striking my original position. The article is no longer a "one line biography", as someone put it, and plenty of sources for his notability have been found. Good job, all. As there are no other Delete opinions, IMHO anyone who would like to snowball close this as Keep is welcome to do so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:56, 30 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 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lodekka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable artist MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep No. Some evidence of notability, worth to keep. Highest Heights (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the EP and other info. Highest Heights (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A quick Google search returns one relevant link on the first page (the rest are about 'Bristol Lodekka'), and that link is a MySpace page that is not independent of the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete changing my vote per JulieSpaulding. Highest Heights (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you forgot to actually change it... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not anymore... Highest Heights (talk) 21:45, 30 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. Only argument for retention was based on passing mention in sources, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unity Reggae Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I A7 CSDed this a while back, but was then persuaded that the local coverage was at least enough to be an assertion of notability, invalidating my A7. But even so, with only that one peg to hang notability on, I just do not see the group rising to the level of WP:MUSIC that is needed. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was nominated for deletion before. The result was keep because it met WP:BAND criteria for notability, as it had been covered in a mainstream newspaper.--Loodog (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you are misremembering the history. It has never been through a full deletion debate, and thus never closed "Keep". The history you are remembering was with me, and A7 Speedy Deletion. I A7 deleted it, you pointed the one local coverage article out to me on my talk page, and I reversed myself and restored the article. The point was that the one article was enough to invalidate my A7 deletion. but that was Speedy Deletion and this is a full AFD deletion debate. The key difference in this case is that the two have different thresholds of notability that must be passed. A7 Speedy Deletion just needs an assertion of notability to be invalidated. The local article gives that. AFD requires fully meeting WP:BAND. And it is my position that the one local article is not enough to meet that threshold.
- Anyway, I mostly wanted to correct the history of the page, that it has not been through a previous full deletion debate, but only shown that it was not eligible for Speedy Deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete coverage does not go beyond the trivial, no indication albums are on an important label. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 00:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple more. None have URB as the main subject though do mention them:
- Sunday News
- Washington Post
- New York Daily News
And anything turning up in A news search. --Loodog (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chapman Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previously deleted for copyright violation, the new version appears much better in that regard. But this time the only real claim to notability appears to be the NME references. These do not signal notability in my mind, but I'll toss this for AFD instead of A7 CSD in case I am missing something here. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 29 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) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Denmark–Georgia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination noting the external link put in by article creator refers to Georgia-France relations. Georgian foreign ministry notes no state visits by either leader, total trade less than USD12m, and only 1 bilateral memo of understanding (as opposed to real agreement) for cooperation for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which means they'll both implement Kyoto really. hardly any coverage, almost all is multilateral or about a place called Denmark in Georgia (U.S. state).[7] LibStar (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject of article is not notable, there is a distinct lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Do not redirect as is unlikely search term. Delete completely and absolutely. Drawn Some (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even though I am missing many, my position on this exercise is clear. Clear these out, then have real discussion on single country articles. Collect (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some information to the article. Denmark and Georgia have bilateral agreements in place, Denmark supports Georgia's entrance to NATO and the EU, and Denmark and Georgia have announced that they are finalizing a military cooperation agreement. Bilateral relations exist and are notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Denmark supports Georgia's entrance to NATO and the EU", most EU nations support other nations in the periphery joining, and they issue statements as such, it is not really a sign of actual bilateral relations, I once found a joint press statement where 2 nations in different 2 continents condemned terrorism...does that make bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the added information deal with these non-notable bilateral relations, as opposed to multilateral relations. Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' No evidence that the topic meets the criteria for a stand alone article. (WP:N). Yilloslime TC 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Denmark for "Georgia", and Georgia for "Denmark" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. This is the same message I have posted before, but I check that it is correct each time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and no clear decision on a target, so that is left as a separate editorial discussion outside AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evolution issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am completing this AFD nom for User:Nowimnthing, who added the {{subst:afd}} tag approximately half an hour ago, but hadn't yet followed up here. Nowimnthing wrote "almost the textbook example of POV forking" on the article talk page. (I'm still neutral, but will come back with an opinion on deleting once I've read more.) My opinion below. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have been BOLD and moved the article to a new title Current research in evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like it is sourced enough, and should be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivanda199 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at new title, should be the main article expanding on the material summarised at History_of_evolutionary_thought#Late_20th_century. This needs a rewrite focusing on the proposed hypotheses and the data that they explain. Presently it is a list of data (for some reason called "issues") and a list of hypotheses, with little connection made between the two. A very poor article, but one that does now deal with a clearly-defined and notable topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also be happy with Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. I agree with Tim - it's a mess right now, but it does make sense to have an article at Current research in evolutionary biology, even though the current one is not expecially good. I also agree that "Evolution issues" was a terrible title. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The new title is much better than the "issues" one, and does away with any suggestion of this being a POV fork - which it very much isn't. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. reading up on the discussion at Talk:Evolution I can see where editors in good faith may have started this article, but I think the subject is better served incorporated into the Evolution article. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of this material is already touched on in the evolution article and also in history of evolutionary thought, this article would expand on those summaries, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. But if you think this material should be merged, which of these two articles would you merge it into? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading your new intro, I kind of lean toward Modern evolutionary synthesis. It seems the critiques do revolve mostly around that. I will defer to your judgment since you are much more active on the evolution page than I am. If it does stay as an independent page I would like some kind of sentence stating that these critiques in no way call into question the fact of evolution just some of our understanding of exactly how it works.Nowimnthing (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these are all questions about which mechanisms apply and which are most important, but I have to say that even the current version of the article does a very poor job of making this point clear. On the other hand, this is a notable topic, even if the current text fails to explain that topic to its readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis.
Wikipedia should have lots of articles on different aspects of evolution, and it does. There's natural selection, speciation, evidence of common descent, evolutionary history of life, and history of evolutionary thought. There's also evolution as theory and fact, objections to evolution, and creation-evolution controversy to present alternative views. I could go on and on.
In fact, I think I will. We have evolutionary developmental biology, human evolution, genetics and the origin of species, inception of Darwin's theory, reaction to Darwin's theory, non-Darwinian evolution, and even evolutionary ethics.
This huge morass of articles for one subject is confusing and makes it harder for the end-user to navigate through and find the content they seek. (It's okay for experienced Wikipedians who can use categories proficiently, but I'm talking about end-users rather than editors. Few end-users are even aware of categories.)
More articles on the same subject also allows POV forking (accidental or deliberate) and makes it hard to keep track.
I'm convinced this content belongs within the articles we already have rather than in yet another new article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a merge target Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Further_advances is the correct place, but this article will have to be trimmed dramatically to fit into the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. That could be good for it, however, since much of the current content is unreferenced and very poorly written. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a trim would do it a great deal of good. :) I'll help with the merge if that's the eventual outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the title and direction added by Tim Vickers, I support keeping this article. The merge proposal by S Marshall (and the given reasons) is sound, but each related article is full of good information, and adding more would not be desirable. There are many people (such as myself) who are interested in the topic, but don't work in the field. Provided the article sticks to its current title (and doesn't wander into POV discussion like but what about irreducible complexity?) general discussion of current research trends would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with a telephone switchboard page. Frankly, I do not regard this as "Current research ine volutionary biology", more like a dozen poorly-understood ideas thrown onto the screen and inadequately described. The present content ranges from OK-ish to incomplete, unclear, quite wrong, and POV. The very idea that Altruism, which has tested the best minds we have for half a century, can be adequately summarised in a paragraph, is quite ridiculous: and that's one of the best sections... As for merging out, it would not help the relatively well-written articles to have to deal with this lot. Better by far to use the article as a swithboard to direct newcomers to the dozen or so best WP overview articles on evolution (many mentioned above), plus articles on specific technical concepts. No substantive content: each section would simply tell readers what they can expect to find if they look up a particular article. The basic justification would be to make sure a keen student would not miss anything relevant. All articles listed on the telephone page would be of B standard or above, and of at least mid importance. That is doable; mending this page, if possible at all, would divert scarce expertise from other, more fruitful, activities. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY or merge per WP:BEFORE. I could find a cite or two. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on your comment a bit please, I find it difficult to understand. In particular, what merge target would you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I kind of lean toward Modern evolutionary synthesis" per Nowimnthing. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on your comment a bit please, I find it difficult to understand. In particular, what merge target would you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. changed my mind, Tim convinces me this may work with some heavy editing. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think I understand the difficulty here. The question is: Does "modern synthesis" (AKA "neo-Darwinism") refer to a specific set of beliefs regarding the evolutionary process expressed in the 1942 book by the same name and typical of 1940s thinking on the subject? Does "modern synthesis" specifically exclude later concepts such as group selection and evolvability? OR does "modern synthesis" expand with new discoveries and really mean "current thinking" or similar, including at least to some extent group selection, evolvability, and gene-oriented thories. The latter view is what is conveyed by the evolution article. However, there are vocal scientific factions that currently believe in the former view (possibly including some of those reading this and possibly the authors of the modern synthesis article). That is why I suggested a separate article. As I understand it, the largest currently extant "issue" (please excuse the expression) has to do with the definition of fitness. Does fitness only refer to the ability of individual organisms to survive or reproduce or can it also include benefits to evolvability, groups, or genes? This in turn is driven by one's thinking regarding propagation of mutational changes. Post-1950 discoveries in genetics can be interpreted as dramatically complicating propagation. Some such (ref 45, 46) are mentioned in evolution. The material I submitted was intended to catalog in summary the observations that conflict with the individual fitness view and briefly describe the above-mentioned adjustments to 1950 thinking that have been developed in an effort to solve these problems. Igor233 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a suggestion, if you wish to write about the unit of selection, there is already an article on that topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From my college experience, Modern evolutionary synthesis is very much the current state of evolutionary research and a combination of a variety of different theories. It may of had its start in the 1940's but it has progressed far from that humble beginning. I think you would have a hard time making a case that the most common usage is the early view. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a suggestion, if you wish to write about the unit of selection, there is already an article on that topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kimberly Kash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No notability established. Hasn't won a championship in a notable promotion. No third party sources to help indicate notability. Nikki♥311 15:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:ATHLETE says that people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable. I did some sleuthing and found that Kash does meet this guideline; [8] contains an interview that the subject of the article has been in Elite Pro Wrestling, Adrenaline Rush Wrestling, NWA Indiana, Fight Sports Midwest, KOTC Charity Show - the NWA is the National Wrestling Alliance. According to the Wikipedia article on the NWA, The National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) is the largest governing body for a group of independent professional wrestling promotions and sanctions various NWA championships in the United States - it seems to me that this qualifies as a 'fully professional level'. So, yes, I would say that Kimberly Kash does satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE and I think this should be kept. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, professional wrestling is different from being a normal athlete, as the "professional" part isn't as clearly defined. Working in small time independent promotions does not make someone notable. Yes, the National Wrestling Alliance itself is notable, but not every promotion within it is. I would compare it to the restaurant chain McDonald's being notable, but not the individual restaurant that is down the street from my house. Or, you can consider small-time promotions equivalent to a "farm league" in baseball. I'd like to point out precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Madison. Madison, like Kash, only competed in a few small-time promotions and did not have any reliable third party sources when her article was deleted. It was continuously deleted as non-notable for months, even after she joined Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (the second most high profile wrestling promotion) and wrestled on television several times. Nikki♥311 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi Nikki, OK, so you're not objecting to me saying that WP:ATHLETE says 'people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable, but you're concerned over whether the NWA is the professional level of wrestling? JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear, so hopefully I can explain it a bit better. Kash competed in NWA Indiana, which is a minor promotion within the control of the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). The NWA itself just oversees the territories (from minor to a few bigger ones, see List of National Wrestling Alliance territories), but is not a promotion itself. Also, the NWA was a lot more notable in the past than it is in the present. Not every promotion within it is considered "notable". What I'm saying is that Kash hasn't worked in a "fully professional" capacity because she hasn't worked for any larger promotions or held any championships, within the NWA or elsewhere. She has, however, worked for Shimmer Women Athletes, but only in their Sparkle division. According to the official website [9], "SPARKLE is the pre-show at the live SHIMMER events. It serves as a method of trying out potential new female talent for future appearances on the SHIMMER DVD series without putting their matches on the main show, or releasing those matches on video in any form. Since the SPARKLE matches exist specifically to be dark matches, and to give opportunities to new talent before appearing on our DVDs, we do not release the SPARKLE matches on video." Therefore, I wouldn't consider that meeting the requirements for "fully professional" either. Nikki♥311 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then, so are you going delete on this one? JulieSpaulding (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I nominated it. :) Nikki♥311 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then, so are you going delete on this one? JulieSpaulding (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear, so hopefully I can explain it a bit better. Kash competed in NWA Indiana, which is a minor promotion within the control of the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). The NWA itself just oversees the territories (from minor to a few bigger ones, see List of National Wrestling Alliance territories), but is not a promotion itself. Also, the NWA was a lot more notable in the past than it is in the present. Not every promotion within it is considered "notable". What I'm saying is that Kash hasn't worked in a "fully professional" capacity because she hasn't worked for any larger promotions or held any championships, within the NWA or elsewhere. She has, however, worked for Shimmer Women Athletes, but only in their Sparkle division. According to the official website [9], "SPARKLE is the pre-show at the live SHIMMER events. It serves as a method of trying out potential new female talent for future appearances on the SHIMMER DVD series without putting their matches on the main show, or releasing those matches on video in any form. Since the SPARKLE matches exist specifically to be dark matches, and to give opportunities to new talent before appearing on our DVDs, we do not release the SPARKLE matches on video." Therefore, I wouldn't consider that meeting the requirements for "fully professional" either. Nikki♥311 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi Nikki, OK, so you're not objecting to me saying that WP:ATHLETE says 'people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable, but you're concerned over whether the NWA is the professional level of wrestling? JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see no notability within the article nor in my search for enough information to justify the article. Will probably become notable one day. Once she is covered by more reliable sites and works for either ROH, TNA, or WWE. Though if she is very pretty I see WWE picking her up since they couldn't care less about anything else. Anyway, once then, she may be notable, but for now, I don't believe she is. Unless she is related to Kid Kash, and then....she will still not be notable.--WillC 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable womens wrestler. Afkatk (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- XBT Client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The latest version was released back in 2006. I found no signs of notability or widespread use. — Rankiri (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreeing to previous comments. Also, the article is not worth anything, except for a feature list that could be easily copied from some description page in case ever needed again. Old Death (talk) 20:27, 29 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 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TorrentVolve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sourceforge page says "The TorrentVolve site is coming soon.", internet software without a site seems to fail notability directly. Nothing on Google search except for links to freeware sites. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Last released version was "Beta 1.4" and the SVN repository hasn't been touched in over a year - I call "dead project". Zetawoof(ζ) 22:46, 29 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 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Torium (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google[10] shows no signs of notability whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability and the article composes itself of exactly 2 phrases. Old Death (talk) 20:32, 29 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. Article was deleted before concensus could be generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Tyler (talk • contribs) 29 May 2009
- ZOMG! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No imporvements in notability since last afd. Still only appears in press releases. Last afd seems to have been closed without any valid reasons to keep. neon white talk 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Website that makes no assertion of notability whatsoever. Does look like fun, though. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:18, 29 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 popular culture. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Very silly XKCD fanwank. Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It may be possible, with all the varying opinions of Wikipedia, to find some sources that actually talk about the idea of "In popular culture". If that's the case though, then they are almost certainly editorials or opinion stuff. If the article is kept, the xkcd will go in the "In popular culture" section. XD Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia should avoid excessive amounts of metacommentary on Wikipedia :) It smacks of ostentation. RayTalk 15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to WP:POPCULTURE. This was slightly amusing the first time someone did this when the cartoon came out. It got progressively less funny every time it was created. This is technically a re-creation of previously deleted material, as well. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to popular culture, which was the rationale for the original article. --Stephen 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Not notable, nothing to merge. American Eagle (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into popular culture. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere for the moment, probably to xkcd. Somehow, I think that we probably will be able to justify articles of a good umber of the individual numbers of the comic, but whether we actually should do so, might be another another matter. DGG (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to popular culture as before. A fan of xkcd trying to be funny. Should have been amended on first creation in March. At the time I could see the funny side, as it was relevant. But that joke's passed and no-one cares any more. Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Popular culture per above, not enough here for an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW, fails several criteria. Better a speedy close. Tone 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Third Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
War is not certain, good candidate for speedy delete as unsourced future conflict A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crystal-ball comment - I have no issue with creating an appropriate article such as Korea, DR, v Korea, Rep, war (2009), if war does come to pass. Should that happen, the new article would not lack for sources. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion, no proof, no sources. Delete. Intelligentsium (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TNXMan 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced crystal balling. This would end up in Wikinews first. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Caspian blue 16:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wow. I don't think "Crystal ball" even applies here. Closer to hoax. If we started a new "Korean War" article everytime the North or South talked tough, we'd be well into the hundreds by now... Dekkappai (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is my understanding that the "old" Korean War-- the one from the '50s-- was never formally ended. So even should hostilities break out again, it would be a continuation, not a "Third Korean War". So here is an article on a future event that likely will not happen, with a fabricated and incorrect name. Speedy Delete. Dekkappai (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the article is about some novel or comics based on an imaginary plot.--Caspian blue 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right-- it reads like imaginary literature. "It happened after..." as if it's already occurred... Let's hope no news organization picks up this story before it's deleted! Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the article is about some novel or comics based on an imaginary plot.--Caspian blue 17:19, 29 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 Withdrawn by nominator weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- R.A. the Rugged Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
One-referenced BLP, tagged for notability since March. Has been edited by the subject, but no sources for various claims (mostly removed) have been provided, despite several requests, so COI issues as well. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, لennavecia 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Independent sources lacking for significant in-depth coverage to support notability. Drawn Some (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - album(s) released by actual non-vanity record label(s); collaborations with other notable artists. DS (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One album released on Nature Sounds records.[11] Can you please explain how that passes WP:MUSICBIO's requirement of Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)? لennavecia 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination upon new sources. Specifically, per http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1587402/ and WP:MUSICBIO criteria 10, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. ... performance in a ... notable film. Wrote and performed "Bottom Feeders" in Bully (film). لennavecia 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No deletion argument referring to our policies or guidelines, and arguments that only seem to be extensions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Latin American Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- List of Argentine Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Chilean Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Brazilian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Venezuelan Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete. These lists are nothing more than a dumping ground for red links (over half of the content), promotional material (Edit Comment: "remove promotional material,"), relatives (Edit comment: "Levi Marrero was my grandfather"), etc...
"Clean up and keep" doesn't make sense here unless you want to tackle the cleaning up, as there's a reason its been stagnant for 3 years, averaging about 15 edits per year, most of them by one-time users who just want to add an obscure name. Nobody wants to tackle it because its impossible to tackle: more than half the names have few (if any) sources actually showing notability. Sourcing for Judaism is nearly more impossible because so many names can only be found on Spanish websites. For the sources that do exist, many are un-heard-of and few are strong.
Some names that actually have been given articles were speedily deleted. "Removing backlinks to Alvaro Bayona Gomez that has been speedily deleted per (CSD A7);"
For most of the blue links, the people are not truly of that country-ethnic-origin. For example "Geraldo Rivera" and "Joaquin Phoenix" are somehow Puerto-Rican Jewish Americans through a completely different method than you would expect. Their Caucasian relatives were Jewish.
With similar categories, there's truly no point for these lists and they just stick out ugly..ly. Bulldog123 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: I'm not sure why we have ANY of these lists. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of WIkipedia lists in general, but somehow labeling people for the purpose of placing them on a list just seems wrong. But that is more a personal opinion than anything else. --Susan118 talk 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Pointless lists that don't seem to be relevant to anything else. Checking out what links to this list, most of it is other "lists of Jews". Do any of these lists tie in with articles? If not, what is the point? --Susan118 talk 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep No valid reason provided for deletion of a list. This list of part of an entire structure of such lists, which provide info to WP readers. Lists are perfectly acceptable types of articles in WP. POV opinions about lists are not. Lists need improvement? Then work at improvement, not these deletions. Hmains (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then improve it. Be my guest. If you were to, which I know you won't, you'd see it's a virtual impossibility to properly source these lists. That's why no one has. What is the point of keeping useless, ugly material on wikipedia that just causes problems and will sit in limbo forever? Also, your argument is against the deletion of "all lists" - which is not what this AfD is about. We're talking about these specific lists. What does "lists are perfectly acceptable types of articles in WP" have anything to do with what I wrote in the nomination? Bulldog123 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It should be mentioned that Hmains and I have been in numerous content disputes over ethnicity lists together. So, needless to say, his is not necessarily the most neutral of viewpoints. Bulldog123 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about POV and I've crossed out my comments that reflect POV. However, I still fail to see how any of these lists are useful. --Susan118 talk 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Encyclopedic and sourced; constant proposals of deletion of quite reasonable ethnic-related articles is becoming increasingly disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to start.. "encyclopedic" - No, it's not. "sourced" - No, it's not. "constant proposal of deletion ... become increasingly disruptive." You want to just get rid of the AfD process then? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani This is relevant to bring up concerning Badagnani's radical view on ethnicity lists. Bulldog123 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The meaning, as usual is those in the group with articles in WP or obviously qualified, and where both the nationality and the Jewish identification is demonstrated in the article. If it is, the items are sourced. We could of course copy the references to that establishing them, though frankly it seems just a little silly, because that's what internal links are for. Bering a Jew in a particular Latin American country is very often culturally relevant, so the list is not a meaningless intersection. DGG (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you haven't addressed anything I listed as a reason for deletion, I assume that you plan on sourcing these lists properly for every entry. I'm looking forward to seeing you there if the lists are kept. Bulldog123 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew nomination with no user favouring deletion (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Far Out Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Article is lacking any substantive content and is basically just a list of internal links. in violation of WP:NOTLINK. The only third-party source currently included makes a passing reference to the subject, but is not enough to establish verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. The references brought to our attention here do, in my opinion, surpass the requirements of WP:NOTE. The page does need some cleaning, but I intend to help with that myself. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable label for releasing albums by many notable artists. Far-Out-Recordings google search returns 43 million hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosprings (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Number of Google hits is a fallacious argument; "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It is the quality of hits that count. If the subject is indeed notable, then some of these Google hits should be reliable, independent third-party sources that can provide the necessary depth of coverage to prove verifiable notability. So far, I'm not seeing any hits that provide the coverage needed per WP:ORG. Vicenarian (T · C) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a follow up, I'd also like to note that notability is not inherited, so the fact that the label may have published notable artists does not necessarily make the label notable. Vicenarian (T · C) 16:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Strong indications of notability via The Independent,[12][13][14] CBC,[15] and the BBC.[16] 86.44.32.209 (talk) 17:28, 29 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 to speedy keep. Article is well-referenced and should not have been nominated. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gospel hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable company RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The hospital is notable given this Google hit in Korean newspaper 239 for 고신대학교 복음 병원, and some English sources[17][18]. The hospital is reported to have the best cancer center in regions below Han River (outside Seoul and Gyeonggi area). The number of cancer patients in the hospital ranks the 8th populous position in South Korea. The hospital in Busan, is designated as one of the 6th best hospital in South Korea by the government.[19]--Caspian blue 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not understand the AfD nomination by RadioFan (talk · contribs) since it was already referenced by reliable Korean newspapers before the nomination--Caspian blue 17:45, 29 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. Discussion indicates that there is a possibility of the book being notable, but the notability of th individual is not established. Given disagreement over the notability of the book, WP:PRESERVE cannot be applied by me for a move or merge result - this discussion therefore lends itself to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David Stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete: minor academic who meets none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. No WP:RS coverage forthcoming to date, and none adducible from a {{find}}. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP (Note: I am the original editor of this article.) David Stack is a leading scholar on Evolutionary theory and the political left (See Review of The First Darwinian Left) as well as victorian figures such as George Combe and Thomas Hodgskin. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the source for the review, The Human Nature Review, is not a particularly reliable source (see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Is Human Nature Review a Reliable Source? & WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Capture bonding), and so it gives negligible support to notability. Further WP:INHERITED diminishes the extent to which a review on a book supports the author's notability, and it does not offer any biographical information for this biographical article. The George Combe article makes no mention of Stack, the Evolutionary theory and the political left &Thomas Hodgskin articles merely cite him as a source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the article can be resued. As it stands it is completly inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. He seems to be a successful academic, but the article presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF and it's not clear how to find such evidence if it exists. I tried searching for "social darwinism" in Google scholar to see whether his book ranked highly among scholarly publications on that subject, but it doesn't, and other searches also failed to turn up anything that could be used to show a pass of WP:PROF #1 (academic impact, usually the easiest to satisfy). He may have appeared in a documentary on atheism but his role in it is apparently sufficiently minor that he isn't mentioned in the seven paragraphs of our article on that documentary. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (interposing Comment) Are you not overlooking criteria 6 of WP:PROF, since someone had to have appointed him or elected as the departmental director of Teaching and Learning at Reading University? --Firefly322 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if that is significant. Departmental chairs are not appointed because of their notability and, at least in the US, are rotating posts that many tenured profs occupy at some time or the other. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Doesn't his appearance in the show The Trouble with Atheism also give some weight to noteablity? (The Trouble with Atheism. First appearance in part 5 of 7 at timestamp: 6 minutes, 48 seconds of 8min09sec. Trouble with Atheism. Second appearance in part 6 of 7 from begining.)--Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd Comment: I've added material, somewhat better explaining the importance of his work. Could you please review the article again?. ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article quotes a review saying that his book represents a quantum leap. A quantum leap is the smallest possible measurable change in some quantity, not unlike a least publishable unit, right? More seriously, I think the writing and balance within the article is improved but it doesn't really convince me to change my opinion, and I have the vague feeling that this is a bit problematic according to WP:CANVASS. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had little difficulty adding a source and there seems to be good alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you cite the source (which is bibliographic, not biographic) only for minimal content (no "depth of coverage" per WP:BIO), nor articulate what these "good alternatives" are. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving this to an article about the book is one possibility as there seem to be several reviews and context within which to set them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a single WP:RS review has been discovered to date -- insufficient to meet WP:BK. And it's not as though this article provides any substantive coverage of the book in any case (only its title and the title of the book it was in response to). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another review in Albion (history journal): DOI:10.2307/4054413. But two reviews is low for a humanities book, and I don't think either review satisfies the "at least some of these works serving a general audience" clause of WP:BK. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and help to improve (finding sources) to this meritorious figure. PTorg (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Senior lecturer" is scarcely a major title in academia. The "reference" from "HighBeam,com" shows only that the book was reviewed by someone (quite unfavorably indeed), and nought else. As for the book being "scholarly" the review states " This is a politically engaged work (Stack uses, for example, "our predecessors" to refer to earlier generations of leftists)" which, to me, suggests that is it more a tract than a scholarly work. A minor left theorist, without any actual faculty position. Does not meet minimum notability at all. Collect (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete
Delete- persons below the rank of Associate professor rarely meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Senior Lecturer in the UK is very much the equivalent of Associate Professor in the US. This also means that Collect is incorrect in stating he has no faculty position. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- em..er.. that's not a very good comprasion - the title itself doesn't mean much about the impact of someone's work and if they meet WP:PROF. In my first position after finishing my PhD, I was an SL and that's because it was old poly that has become a university and they can be pretty slack about such things. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. What does "Departmental Director of Teaching and Learning" mean? Is it akin to a department chair or program coordinator? Bearian (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- em..er.. that's not a very good comprasion - the title itself doesn't mean much about the impact of someone's work and if they meet WP:PROF. In my first position after finishing my PhD, I was an SL and that's because it was old poly that has become a university and they can be pretty slack about such things. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Nature and artifice the life and thought of Thomas Hodgskin, currently in more than 750 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WorldCat holdings provide no direct (i.e. without improper, and highly suspect, WP:SYNTHESIS) indication of "significant impact". This therefore devolves to merely a WP:BIGNUMBER argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support your deletion nomination here Hrafn, but I think you should be careful not to make specious arguments. Synthesis and original research are not forbidden when we are attempting to determine notability. If it were, we'd have to find a source that specifically stated each subject was notable... an impossible standard. Gigs (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A scholarly book would not be in this many major libraries (> 750 WorldCat-listed libraries) if it had not had a significant impact in its scholarly discipline. Also (addressing a previous comment), many scholarly books reflect one or more political views, which do not make them non-scholarly.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the book might be notable. That doesn't particularly establish notability of the author. Gigs (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Delete I do not see the exceptional impact that is the spirit of WP:PROF being met here. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Again, doesn't his appearance in the show The Trouble with Atheism also give some additional weight to noteablity besides just the books he wrote? (See the links in earlier comments to view his appearance in documentary.)--Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd Comment: Again, I've added material, somewhat better explaining the importance of his work. Could you please review the article again?. ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our standards for professors are superficially higher than general notability standards, because professors, even run of the mill ones, by nature of their profession, publish lots of work that gets archived in reliable sources or published as books. Nearly every professor is the "leading scholar" on some very specific and often obscure topic. When they are the leading scholar on a wide ranging or important topic, we generally always include them. I will amend my opinion to "weak delete". Gigs (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Academic of uncertain notability. A book published in the area that has been reviewed by peers does not establish notability since many academics publish books that are have little, if any impact. No honors or awards have been mentioned. Does not hold a named chair. Senior lecturer is not the highest post in academia. No evidence of significance in the field. No evidence of being highly cited is provided (and I could not find mention of the person in either Scopus or Web of Knowledge). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. also seems it may have been withdrawn but ran its course so might as well keep. Valley2city‽ 06:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Duncan (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN individual. Fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC) per fellowship. Passes WP:PROF. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, he's been in Scientific American and on 60 Minutes. At the moment, I don't see that he's made the news for his contributions to science, but he apparently has a knack for explaining things to laymen. Not voting to keep, since the article doesn't indicate much. But I won't be surprised if he becomes more notable in the future. If he can't be proven notable at the end of the 7-day debate, consider bringing him back if he becomes a regular on news shows. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Last week the following people were on 60 minutes in just one story: Christoph Westphal, David Sinclair (biologist) (possibly written by the subject or someone close to them), Ricki Colman, Richard Weindruch. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hipocrite, as per WP:VAGUEWAVE, can you please explain why you want this article deleted? It's not enough just to link to WP:PROF without explaining why you want to undo someone else's work. Thanks. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want this article deleted because it fails the guideline on the notability of academics. You know, because the guy dosen't have the cold fusioneers eagerly watching his biography, or, heaven forbid, he changes his mind on cold fusion, it's just another target for the greatest engine for personal defamation of all time. Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: I find this deletion request a bad faith one. quite a few news stories mentioning this guy I think a speedy keep would be appropriate. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:PROF is not the only notability guideline to be considered, but also a general notability guideline.93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for assuming my bad faith. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome. Deeds speak more than words. Thank you too. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vice-Chancellor doesn't cut it according to WP:PROF criterion 6, since it's not a top post. I don't think his press coverage counts under criterion 7, since, according to my search, he's not "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" nor has he "authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects." Cool dude, it seems, but not Wikipedia-level notable.Vicenarian (T · C) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]Delete simply fails WP:PROF, which seems to be the only bio guide that applies to this BLP. Verbal chat 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find anything on google scholar. also fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage [20]. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. By going through this primary source, he appears to pass WP:PROF. Also, this is one of his papers which appeared in Phys. Rev. Lett. His author abbreviation seems to be R. V. Duncan. Salih (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Results on Google scholar. Salih (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Web of Science does list 10 research articles and 13 proceedings papers. The highest-cited one is a Phys. Rev. Let. paper from 1997 (37 citations), but this output is not particularly prolific for physics. His UM website indicates he has a very responsible position, but I agree with Vicenarian that it is not sufficient by itself. The overall picture does not seem to add up to one of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Please be aware, there is ample recent reliable source on Duncan, due to his recent appearance on CBS Sixty Minutes.
Please also understand that the nominator here and at least one !voter are heavily involved with an anti-Cold fusion agenda, andDuncan is now prominent as a physicist who was retained by CBS to investigate the topic, and came up with a reversal: originally skeptical, he is now convinced that the matter is worth investigating, and there is not only the CBS article and video as a source, there is also a prominent lecture that he gave to a major conference at the U of Minn, and other sources mentioning him, such as a press release from the American Physical Society. The YouTube copy of that video (link was just removed) was made when the U of Minn temporarily took down the video (I'm sure they received a firestorm of complaints) and there are people who don't like censorship....) But I've received email that it is back up, the original, I'll cite it later, here and in the article. --Abd (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009
- Missouri Energy Summit notice the prominence. There is a video there. The CBS special, which talks about Duncan, it doesn't just mention him, he's much of the focus, i.e., his journey. He organized a seminar today, it's going on right now, and the speakers include most of the major figures in Cold fusion. The Missouri Energy Summit put up a bio.[21]. I believe there is other source on Duncan, but I certainly know of him from the CBS special. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator bias is not relevant to whether or not we keep the article, but it is relevant, sometimes, to the credibility we assign to uninvestigated evidence. Consider me biased.
BothI have been very active with Cold fusion recently. So are Hipocrite and Verbal. It is not some random accident that Hipocrite nominated this and that Verbal showed up to !vote. (I'm not alleging canvassing.) I created this article because there was another Robert Duncan, and I'm sure a lot of people were, because of the CBS special, googling his name, and they were getting the article of Robert C. Duncan (astrophysicist). (That was originally Robert Duncan (physicist),I think. Hence I believed that a stub was useful, and I didn't have time to make the article deeper with more sources. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Not that it proves much, but this is a link to today's seminar. Duncan, whatever he was in the past, is now most notable for his "conversion" to Cold fusion. The APS was exercised to issue a press release that, contrary to the original CBS video, the society itself had not "recommended him." That was technically correct. CBS had asked a prominent member to recommend an "independent scientist," and Duncan was on a list provided. (A copy of the press release: [22]) I'd say that before this, he was marginally notable. With the CBS special, he's definitely notable; people will be looking for our article on him, and I was originally confused by the other Duncan, for some days I thought they were the same person, and that the astrophysicist had simply moved to Missouri. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR is a bluelink. If Dr. Duncan is only notable for his 60 minutes appearance, then BLP1E applies. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. IMHO, the purported agenda(s) of the nominator and/or any !voter is completely irrelevant to the discussion of any article deletion. Deletion discussions and decisions should based only on the merits of the article and not the editors involved. Thank you. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The article at present is an inadequate stub. Scholarly publication record seems very average. Position as administrator does not, of itself, confer notabilty but cold fusion connection could do so if the article is improved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. His contribution to the field of "Low Temperature Physics" as seen from the number of publications (as key author) in Google scholar is sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as noted by Salih, he's made a significant contribution to the field of "Low Temperature Physics". In addition, while Vice Chancellor of Research isn't the highest post available, it is a major post; the "Gordon and Betty Moore Distinguished Scholar" position is not enough to establish notability in itself, but is a reasonable honour; and he is a fellow of the APS. Taken as an overall picture, he seems to meet WP:PROF well enough to justify inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the combination of a strong WP:PROF combined with the 60 Minutes piece creates a strong enough case to justify inclusion. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence for the "strong WP:PROF". Verbal chat 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is point 3. fellow of major society, namely in this case American Physical Society. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fellow of the APS is sufficient. A further examination of the career would no doubt justify it in more detail, but is not really necessary. His views on cold fusion if relevant need to be properly discussed in the article, and regardless of their fringe nature, his prior accomplishments make him notable. DGG (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article now clearly shows that he passes WP:PROF #3, #5, and possibly #7, and doesn't give unbalanced weight to his cold fusion work. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Switched !vote. It is now clear from the discussion that the subject does, indeed, pass WP:PROF. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly as a member of APS, criteria #3 of WP:PROF is definitively passed, even if this article is notable for no other reason. It seems that Duncan may be notable for any number of other reasons as well. Krellkraver (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:PROF now. Good work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dunno what the article said when it was nominated, but it now mentions 2 memberships, in CalTech and APS, that make him pass WP:PROF#3 with flying colours. Good job. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recreation, not even with the same amount of content, userfied some time ago -> deleting this one. Tone 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th nomination)
- Wikinfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has been removed trough AFD before around a year ago - Currently has no indication of notability, context et all. We still have an old version of it here. AFD to see if consensus on this article changed since the last removal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truely Neutral, Only nominating for establishing new concensus, no personal opinion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of AFD'd article. andy (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previous AFD is a year old, so i doubt it qualifies for either a G4 tag or salting. Consensus and notability could have changed in the mean time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that after seven AFDs and seven recreations in three years it's time to slam the door shut. What could possibly be in the article that overcame the objects in six previous AFDs? (Is that a record?) andy (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previous AFD is a year old, so i doubt it qualifies for either a G4 tag or salting. Consensus and notability could have changed in the mean time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on the current state of the article... it cites A) Wikipedia and B) Wikinfo. At some point we decided to stop including this article just because it was related to Wikipedia, accepting that to do so was bias. So unless there are new sources, which there's no evidence of, it needs to stay deleted. And honestly, should go through WP:DRV not AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I have tagged this for speedy deletion as it simply doesn't assert any importance. It probably falls under the "no context" speedy deletion criteria too. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining speedy deletion, unless/until consensus to speedy is reached at AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It meets the criteria as far as I can tell... this AFD is unneeded process. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I have tagged this for speedy deletion as it simply doesn't assert any importance. It probably falls under the "no context" speedy deletion criteria too. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Non-consensus-based recreation that does not address points brought up in prior AFD.--WaltCip (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:27, 29 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 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is essentially a vanity page for a minor political candidate with little possibility of making an impact. This is the second time this candidate has run for governor of Maine in 2006 his candidacy received no official votes and raised only $420.00. Highground79 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bernie Sanders was also a quixotic political candidate once. A candidate that had no chance of winning. Then, he won. Maine has had a history of electing independents to office. While conceding that this is no Jesse Ventura, there is a populist anger sweeping the country, and if this guy is any kind of politician at all, he might be able to take advantage of it in a way that he wouldn't have been able to before. In 2005, this probably wouldn't be notable. However, it is 2009 and the world has changed. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006 Alex's candidacy received only $420.00, due to the fact that his campaign was derailed by a major auto accident in which he was struck by a pickup truck while a pedestrian, which occurred in Nov. 2005 approximately one month after he announced his campaign, and landed him in the hospital for for 29 days (and almost a year on crutches). As a write-in candidate in 2006 his vote totals may not have been required to be submitted to the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.64.29 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2009
- The above comment was added by a user who vandalized this AfD by deleting the original nomination. I have retained the comment without judgment as to how much weight it should carry. I am neutral on this AfD but will continue to monitor it for vandalism. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I amended it, keeping some of the negative information but trying to put it into some context. If it is ok, I am trying to put out a basic starting Wikipedia entry with information that others may not typically have, which can then be modified etc. as the larger community wishes. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexforME (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not sure what kind of monkey business is going on here, but there are no references to support notability per WP:BIO. BLPs must have references for verifiability as well. Drawn Some (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We can't keep the article on the presumption he might become notable in the future. Robofish (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTE, WP:BIO. Not notable, unreferenced, and we just can't keep it there in case he does become governor (If he does, then we can restore the article). -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet either WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 31 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravium Computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
moving from declined speedy deletion request. Non notable local computer store. No indication of notability. RadioFan (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bravium Computers is the only computer manufacturer in South Africa that exclusively develops desktops and servers powered by Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.96.68 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. --RadioFan (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Essentially unreferenced article about a local tech business. The fact that it equips its products with a freely distributed operating system does not make this business notable under the applicable guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. this article lacks 3rd party references to establish notability of the business. Dialectric (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has now been re-written, to exclude business content and include important information relating to computer manufacturers and the open-source community in South Africa. Addition of references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#Vendor_support, http://wiki.clug.org.za/wiki/Where_do_I_get_Linux_and_open-source_software%3F -- -- 41.145.43.228 (talk) 14:37, May 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Are there better sources available to help demonstrate the notability of this company? Wikipedia is not an appropriate reference and the other one is self published. Also the rewrite now calls this company a manufacturer. Can you expand on that? I'm still not convinced that this is more than a small business selling preloaded linux systems and not notable as a result.--RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment below which essentially agrees with you. This is nothing more than a local tech business assembling and selling PCs. Zunaid 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Drawn Some (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Selling hardware with a free operating system does not qualify as notable. Article needs to provide sources on the company which treats the company as the primary topic and gives it in depth coverage. Being South African and a computer geek I can also comment that I have never heard of this company before (not that that is a deletion criterion). Note that the company is also less than a year old so is hardly likely to have established Wikipedia's required level of notability in that time. The article thus comes across as self-promotional. Zunaid 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To put this into a bit more South African context, the company is a local PC vendor of which there are literally thousands in South Africa operating in shopping malls, main streets or business parks. They are not one of the major PC wholesalers such as Rectron or Sahara Computers, nor are they one of the big PC retail chain stores such as Incredible Connection. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they have achieved the required level of third party sourcing to meet WP:CORP in the one year they've been in existence, Google backs me up on this observation. This Google search brings up only the company's website, the Cape Linux User Group's wiki and listings on various retail and business directories. Zunaid 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article revised 02 June 2009. Addition of 3rd party reference by consulting company, Adroit Consulting. Addition of extra information regarding South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's requirements for articles on corporations. The article you cite is about Ubuntu Linux in a South African context, and in the last paragraph mentions Bravium Computers as a vendor in no more than a few lines. It is not treated as the main or even a significant part of the subject matter of the article in question. Zunaid 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Virtual On. redirection simply as a plausible search term Fritzpoll (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtuaroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Non-notable list of robots in a video game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diocles777 (talk • contribs) 2009/05/29 01:49:12
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article won't stand under the current bylaws of wikipedia, But I don't think deletion is the appropriate course of action. I'd say move it to userspace, institute a redirect to Virtual On, then transwiki it or merge it with the list under the parent article. 75.39.15.195 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me. I forgot to log in. Tealwisp (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - content is not within WP:VGSCOPE (excessive fictional details, list of gameplay concepts), also dotted with WP:OR. Contributor may wish to move this content to an appropriate game-specific wiki. Marasmusine (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. Plausible search term, but little more than a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, never mind WP:V. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dominik Hofbauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. The article was originally PRODded by myself with the rationale "fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-pro league." The PROD was removed by Varbas (talk · contribs) who claimed that "plays in the fully proffesional FA Premier League WP:Athlete." However, as the player in question has yet to make an appearance – simply signing for a team is not enough – he still fails WP:ATHLETE and the article should therefore be deleted. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Straight forward delete. Another youth player who has yet to make an appearance in a fully-professional league and/or competition, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE and he also fails general notability at WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article about non-notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the user contesting the original PROD (Varbas (talk · contribs) ) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Reserve / Academy player hasn't yet played first team. Age group caps for his country are not enough per ATHLETE, not as subject of RS for GNG --ClubOranjeT 08:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted snowball, no likelihood of a consensus to keep, moreover this is a CSD A7 speedy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meghna Rajshekhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While it is amazing that this girl was fortunate enough to survive the Indian Ocean tsunami in the manner she did, I do not feel that this makes her notable enough for her own article on Wikipedia (although at the time, a Wikinews article might have been appropriate).
My first thought was that the article should be merged into a bigger article about survivors of the tsunami, but it does not appear that one exists (nor do I personally think one should), so I think deletion is the most apropriate course of action.
Note that the article contains no inbound links apart from one page in userspace that appears to simply be a list of articles edited by that user. Also note that although the article is in need of a rewrite (it looks to be written by someone whose first language is not English), this is not part of the reason for this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP1e. Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' Admirable as the girl's survival is; unfortunately it is of no encyclopedic value. There are bound to be 100s (or 1000s???) of such survivor stories in the Tsunami of 2005. The story has to be really , really, really exceptional and should have had wide coverage to deserve an article. --Deepak D'Souza 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP1E. لennavecia 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there are 100s (or 1000) tsunami survivors, please give me references how many and which Indian ocean tsunami survivor were covered by world media. If somebody is from India, he/she might recall that almost all TV channels had given wide coverage, live interviews of this girl. Why don't you give google search to check whether reputed media has covered this story or not?
- India is country of one billion people. How many survival stories from India you find on internet or wikipedia?
- If the person who nominated this AFD is going by edit summary, 'creating article on Indian' then let me tell you that I was supposed to type 'creating article on Indian Ocean Tsunami survivor'. But somehow 'enter' key was accidentally hit. I seldom use computer. I post to wikipedia through mobile. If the article needs to write to meet wikipedia standards, I will improve this article.
- But if you want to delete this article, go ahead and delete it AbhiJeet (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who nominated this article, I'll clarify that edit summaries are completely irrelevant to the this nomination. I noted at the start that the style of writing was not a reason for the nomination - indeed if this article is kept I will do some copyediting and other basic improvement on it. Equally the availability of reliable sources for Meghna's survival is not the issue. The issue is that she is notable only for this one event - there has not been follow-up about her, as far as I can tell, in the years since the tsunami. In this respect she is no different to any one of millions of survivors from hundreds of thousands of disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, bombings, air crashes, mud slides, floods, ferry sinkings, etc, etc) worldwide over the last hundred years. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fisrt you nominated this aticle for deletion claiming that this girl 'Meghna Rajshekhar' do not deserve notability criteria. Now you are saying that 'reliable sources' is not the issue. On Wikipedia, we decide notability criteria from third party reliable sources.
- Follow-up? What follow-up you want of this survivor Alcides Moreno? And what follow-up media is taking of this survivor? This 13 year old girl was out there in sea clinging to door without food, water for two days, rescue helicopters didn't spot her 11 times, she was swarmed by snakes on the beach, entire print and electronic media in India covered her story and you are saying that she is "no different" from millions of survivors? Applying your logic, please explain how this Alcides Moreno deserve article. Because quoting you, "In this respect she is no different to any one of millions of survivors from hundreds of thousands of disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, bombings, air crashes, mud slides, floods, ferry sinkings, etc, etc) worldwide over the last hundred years.": Do you want me to dig Wikipedia and show articles on porn females created only because their names were mentioned few times on websites claiming those websites as reliable news paper sources?
- Why exactly you nominated this article for deletion? [1] Is it because of notability criteria? [2] Is it because article is not written in standard way? [3] Do you have some problems with Indians?
- Make up your mind. And if you are Administrator, go ahead and delete it. If admin want me to improve article, tell me. But don't waste my time.--AbhiJeet (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I nominated this article is solely because of your point 1, notability criteria. As I have said before, points 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the deletion nomination.
- Regarding Alcides Moreno, I was not aware of that article before now but it was itself nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno - which ended in no consensus. I would have voted delete on that article, as like this one, I don't think that simply surviving an accident or disaster does not make someone notable enough for a wikipedia article. I don't have time now, but I will be nominating Alides Moreno for deletion again later.
- As for porn actors and actresses, there are specific notability guidelines for them, see WP:PORNBIO. If there are any you feel do not meet the criteria, then please nominate them for deletion. The existence of one article that does not meet notability criteria, does not mean that others that do not meet the criteria should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. While Meghna has been mentioned in some contemporaneous news stories, they were focused on the tale of her survival rather than her biography. There has been no follow up coverage as far as I can see. Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somehow criminals like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Philip Abramo and these criminals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_murder_by_the_United_States_federal_government have notability criteria. Clearly, I am seeing either your dislike towards Indians or you have not taken tour of wikipedia. I am reporting this on admin board.--AbhiJeet (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP1E. And note to User:AbhiJeet, you are not helping your position by countering every single Delete !vote here, nor by making accusations of "racism" here or at WP:ANI ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kingdom of Perpetual Muin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Keep. It is clearly the first step in documenting the activities of a long term art project. The exhibition referred to is a first public showing and the project seems intended to continue for years. The entry does not disguise the fact that it is an art project but gives full detail of who and what is involved. I don't see why this should be different from any of the existing entries for an artist or a band on wikipedia.The project has it's own website and clearly exists and so should be documented. [francis mckee] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blimp77 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real secondary sources. I feel it fails the Notability guidelines. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination; original fringe research and a non-notable neologism. In case you're curious, this is about a made-up esoteric art movement based on the Ogham letter 'M': The Kingdom of Perpetual Muin is an esoteric artistic movement which began in Glasgow Scotland, in the late stages of 2008. The word Muin literally means the Letter "M." It comes from the Gaelic alphabet of Ogham. Representing the name of the founder....Muin, according to legend their once existed an ancient Kingdom of Mu, but disappeared at the dawn of human history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only secondary non-blog source I can find is a single mention in a list of dozens of other artists taking part in a one night exhibition. ArakunemTalk 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 29 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—early closure by nominator. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone Fishing (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previous afd closed as no consensus due to sockpuppet taint. I quote from the prior nom: "Non-notable mixtape with no coverage of substance. Everything I could find amounts to "this band released a free mixtape, here's the tracklist, artwork and link". (OK, one Belgian entertainment blog/website wrote three paragraphs about it—still, insubstantial.) Fails WP:NALBUMS." TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As in first AFD which closed less than two weeks ago, this is an official release from a notable group and sufficient coverage exists to justify an article. The nominator hasn't specified whether or not they searched for sources before re-nominating but a Google News search found this from Chicago Reader, and this from FFWD, in addition to the existing sources cited in the article. That's more significant coverage than most album articles in Wikipedia have.--Michig (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have found more, including a Pitchfork review, and expanded the article. Perhaps notability is clearer now?--Michig (talk) 07:50, 30 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 15:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moldova–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination. the article is largely uncited and contains trivial coverage. almost all Moldova-spain relations is in a Moldova-EU context. and very little coverage of actual bilateral relations [23]. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non encyclopedic article with no sources or references. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I count over 10 sources now used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure synthesis. Non-notable subject, lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The minimal bilateral trade and relations appear unimportant to these two countries. Drawn Some (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet the relationship is notable enough for the BBC to repost Moldavia news sources on their International News site on diplomacy, and there are multiple news sources on Spain's effort to mediate the Transnistrian conflict and on Spain's energy company that bought part of Moldova's energy distribution network. Remember the topic isn't only about diplomacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Drawn Some Bulldog123 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and directory. Also per Drawn Some. Edison (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real bilateral? No article. Collect (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The existence of bilateral relations is established by the existence of bilateral treaties. Contains at least cursory sources which could be expanded. Obviously, the bilateral relations between countries with bilateral treaties is a notable subject.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- no there have been bilateral articles with minor agreements that have been deleted. If there is substantial third party coverage of these agreements then perhaps there is notability. One of the agreements is "Highway International Transport" I don't know how that works given that they don't share land borders and driving from Spain to Moldova...well that's a massive distance on roads of other countries.LibStar (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, such articles should be restored. But of course, you are using an argument under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which I think you previously said doesn't apply in these situations here). Of course, that's just an essay and not wikipedia policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- in that case I was referring to you stating Ethiopia Qatar relations for other stuff existing. If you believe articles should be restored then request deletion review. please explain to me how this highway international transport agreement would work? I've only seen it between countries with a land boundary or within the EU (as EU requires common motoring standards). LibStar (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s absolutely excellent recent improvements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reference better. Verifiable and notable, surprisingly well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and lacking citations from reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what the ref tag is for, not AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I count over 10 sources now used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete actually the absence of reliable independent sources that discuss the topic is in fact a reason to take something to AfD.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - aside from being started by a banned activist and being dreadfully boring ("This guy met with this other guy. Then some other guy met a bunch of other guys. Then this guy..."), there really isn't anything substantive here. A few millions in trade, a couple of pieces of paper signed (and no, Cdogsimmons, WP:PSTS isn't thrown out the window here; we still require secondary sources to validate the importance of those documents), no embassies, and, conspicuously, no third-party sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul Talk 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be unfamiliar with WP:GNG, which requires sources "independent of the subject"; Spanish-government sources cannot be used to validate the notability of activities of the Spanish government. Moreover, as the present article is a direct translation of p. 23 ff. of the linked PDF, it's also a copyvio, and thus liable to speedy deletion. Actually, thanks for giving me that idea - I'll tag forthwith. - Biruitorul Talk 05:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any depth, regardless of how much can be written about non-notable primary documents and raw data dumps. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Moldova for "Spain" shows that Spain is one of seven countries where Moldovans have sought work. Searching Spain for "Moldova" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Heroic efforts have attempted to rescue this article. However, I believe those efforts are fundamentally misguided because the result is simply a list of various non-notable events: In September 2000, two people met; in November, someone traveled to Moldova; in 2005 a Spanish ambassador visited Moldova, and more. In any other article, we would ask for a secondary source that indicates the events are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be aware that Wikipedia is not meant to be a source for information to write other Wikipedia articles. You should never be using a tertiary source for research to create another tertiary reference work. You are using a self referential argument. You argument appears to be, and correct me if I am wrong, "It doesn't already exist in Wikipedia in other article space, so it should not appear in Wikipedia in the future." It is the Johnuniq Self Referential Paradox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to point out that you are confused over primary sources vs. secondary sources. When two countries sign a treaty and a government run news agency announces it, that is a secondary source. The primary source is the text of the treaty itself. And there is no ban against using the text of the treaty, just a caution to not engage in original research as you interpret it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have misunderstood my comment about the fact that "Moldova" does not appear in Spain. Let me explain: Spain is an excellent article and its contributors have covered everything they consider to be important. They clearly believe that matters relating to Moldova are not important to Spain. Of course that does not prove anything – and at any rate it's rather difficult to prove something is not important.
- Now we have some editors saying that the Moldova–Spain relations are sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If so, why not explain in Spain how important Moldova is? The answer is clear: there is nothing about Moldova that is worth saying in Spain. All the "keep" side have is a list of some non-notable facts (there is not an embassy; there is significant investment; a letter was sent; some people attended a NATO summit; various meetings occurred, one of which was about a conflict and was held in Spain; someone hopes something; there is an intention to open an embassy).
- Let's see what WP:SECONDARY actually says: "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."
- Articles should be about notable topics. Sometimes common sense applies (we don't wait for a secondary source to analyze a disaster before writing an article). In general, however, you need a secondary source (or a defined procedure like WP:BIO) to decide if something is notable. If there is anything notable about Moldova–Spain relations, can you suggest something that could be added to Spain? Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If this were another one of Groubani's spastic creations, I might feel differently, but this was started by an editor (User:Moldopodo) whose field of interest is topics involving the Republic of Moldova. The original reason for looking at notability was to see whether some of the Groubani stubs had potential for expansion, and we've gotten rid of a lot of stubs that had been mass-produced. I don't view notability as a judgment about whether an editor's nation of interest is big enough. Although I have a great deal of respect for Biru, I certainly don't agree with the suggestions of a copyvio or a speedy delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a direct translation of a spanish government document. Who cares who created the article? The topic isn't covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. Just to note (not that anyone cares anymore) some canvassing going on here [24] [25][26] [27].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore -- you cared enough to share some of my talk page with everyone else. But there's a difference between "canvassing", and asking someone whether they can suggest improvements for a particular article. Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the message as sent was a request for "help" but one need only look at those sought after for help. Editors with some great interest in spain or moldova? Or a group of editors who vote "keep" more or less without fail on this class of afds? And what was your response to the request for sourcing help? To come and make a keep argument based on the article "not having been written by groubani." I wrote "not that anyone cares" because it appears the canvassing restrictions aren't enforeced anymore. I think they should be, but understand that's a minority position now.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore -- you cared enough to share some of my talk page with everyone else. But there's a difference between "canvassing", and asking someone whether they can suggest improvements for a particular article. Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "editors who vote "keep" more or less without fail on this class of afds"? You don't know me too well. Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- People would ask you to help find references if you had a history of contributing to these articles, I only see you on the AFD pages, I don't see you contributing to the article space except to add a delete tag. You only contribute to the deletion effort, I haven't seen you adding sources to these articles. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonesense. I wrote Australia-East Timor relations which is an actually notable bilateral relationship supported as an encyclopedia article by multiple reliable sources independent of the two nations. I definitely don't vote to keep articles that are absent reliable, independent sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I apologize, you did participate in one, with your last entry before today on May 14, 2009. I count at least 10 delete votes in the two weeks since you added info to the Bali article. It is not one that I contributed to, so not on my watch list. The first page of your user contribution list is almost exclusively participating in AFD votes. I think any reasonable person would assume your are not a person to contact when requesting help in doing research, but would be a good person to contact for participation in an AFD debate. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't ask to be contacted and I don't want to be contacted. I noted the canvassing in the hopes that it would stop. Yes, the vast majority of these bilateral articles are non-notable in my opinion (an opinion supported by the paucity of reliable sources, as in this case). Again, my complaint about your canvassing is not that you failed to canvass me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- People would ask you to help find references if you had a history of contributing to these articles, I only see you on the AFD pages, I don't see you contributing to the article space except to add a delete tag. You only contribute to the deletion effort, I haven't seen you adding sources to these articles. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford, I have two points to make. First, the article text is actually a direct translation of the linked Spanish government document. That says "copyvio" to me. Second, while Moldopodo was indeed interested in Moldova, this link may give you a hint as to the nature of that interest. - Biruitorul Talk 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of Moldopodo's indefinite block (kind of a Modopodo-no-go) and I appreciate that you brought it to my attention; as stated, I respect your concerns about a possible copyvio -- I hate plagiarism-- but the factors of attribution of the source, uncertainty about whether its copyrighted, and the use of a machine translation would offset that. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines before referring to them, so you are more familiar with the concepts involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you're playing the fool. So be it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please behave. There is no need to make personal attacks on me even if you do not like my contributions to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When the sources are actually looked into they show very little relationship between the two countries. The mentions are incredibly brief, that may serve for purposes of verifiability, but not notability (multiple reliable sources talking about the subject matter in depth). The article at present is also quite deceptive in the manner it which it synthesises information from the sources. For instance, from the lead, there are 3 sources to back up the claim that Spain is a mediator in the Transnistrian dispute, but none of the sources actually say this. These trumped up claims of notability make the article unreliable. (I know this isn't totally relevant to the AfD discussion, but a cursory glance of the article without checking the sources may give an incorrect impression of the relations between the countries which are pretty insignificant). Quantpole (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was asked earlier today if I could help source this, but I think it unnecessary, for I think it already adequately sourced to show notability. I find it strange that people do not realize that the establishment of relations between counties, are enough good sources already What is needed is an explanation that countries establish diplomatic relations for a purpose--its a Big Deal. If they do it, it implies that both of them thing that there are significant relations between them, enough to justify the trouble and expense. The formal relationship between these two countries is rather new, but that does not mean it is un-notable. The article goes on to discuss some of the actual matters that made the formal relations appropriate. The article would be justified by the economic relations alone, and they are fully explained in the article. If one country makes significant investments in another, there are significant relations between them. That's the very meaning of the words "significant" and :relations"! I admit i was not happy initially with the thought that most of these pairs could be justified this way, but so they can. The only actual argument is that it would mean a great many articles, but thats what we're here for. It's a positive, not a negative, indication. If we come to realize we can do 10 or 20 thousand articles we hadn't realized were significant, that's actually an excellent thing. I look forward to many more of them. The idea that we're running out of topics is disproven, unless there are people who think we ought to limit the number of topics. I'm reluctant to think there are, for I thought we all realized the implications of NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- there have been a number of articles about the bilateral relations about peripherally related nations. Those articles have been trivial, and there deletion was no loss. But this is a significant, and interesting, article. Also worth noting -- Moldova, and its neighbor Romania, are the only two countries in Eastern Europe where the major language is a Romance language. This is a significant tie to Spain. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- significant tie to Spain based on being in the same language class? do you actually have reliable sources for this? In Mozambique they also speak a romance language (portuguese), therefore it should have a relation to romania which speaks another romance language. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Come on, people! I know at least as well as anyone how crap a lot of these articles are, but, seriously, babies and bathwater! Having viewed the revision history, I'm not surprised, given the form it was in when it was nominated, that it was brought here but, in the light of RAN's brilliant work on the article, I believe this discussion is now redundant- that said, perhaps it needed to happen- no skin off the nose of LibStar. HJMitchell You rang? 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's too bad no multiple, independent, reliable sources actually discuss "Moldova–Spain relations", and that the "brilliant" work you mention consists of plucking random bits of out-of-context trivia (which would never attract our notice outside this series of nonsense articles) and dumping them in here, which can never actually substitute for in-depth coverage of a topic. - Biruitorul Talk 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't believe that this article has been nominated for deletion! I think the nominator will nominate Greece–Turkey relations for deletion soon! Anyway, the relations between Moldova and Spain are obviously notable. I searched it on Google and I found lots of sources. I'll add them to the article in my free time. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment on content not contributor. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to add content to the article, or fix grammar to be considered a contributor to the article. You added the AFD tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- can't help yourself, can you? LibStar (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Greece–Turkey relations article just mentioned, and Australia – East Timor relations mentioned earlier, are excellent examples showing what a real article looks like. Reading any comprehensive work about Greece shows plenty of mention of Turkey, and vice versa. Same with Australia and East Timor. By contrast, no one has found anything more than trivial mention of Moldova and Spain in the same work. All we have is a directory listing of random events related to the movements of politicians. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to add content to the article, or fix grammar to be considered a contributor to the article. You added the AFD tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is enough valid content to warrant its own article. There are references to back up the facts presented. It is clearly notable. Dream Focus 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of this article, User:Moldopodo was never notified of the this Afd by the nominating editor User:LibStar as is strongly suggested at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been banned for the troll he was for the past 297 days; I doubt notification would do much good. - Biruitorul Talk 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolute synthesis of trivia, not an independent topic by any definition. Dahn (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Foreign relations of Moldova which doesn't seem to mention Spain at all. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems more like synthesis than actually discussing the topic itself - on that note I agree with this comment by Biruitorul (talk · contribs) [28]. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of university-educated footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This turns out to be a list representing a very unusual cross-categorization which, in my opinion, fails WP:NOT#DIR. In addition, due to its own definition, it is hardly maintainable due to serious potential issues with WP:V and WP:RS. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of University-educated footballers for a more thorough discussion about its notability. Angelo (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Trivial intersection, education has no bearing on notability of a footballer. List is generally non verifiable as information regarding whether a player is higher educated is not readily available. List likely to become overly large if proper research is done into it - 90 000 plus articles on footballers, it is not unreasonable to assume that 10% of them are educated, particularly in parts of the world where they do not earn millions of dollars a year and they'll require a living after their football career. List will only ever be a partial information snippet of no reliable value. A list of this sort will not reliably tell me if <insert any random footballer here> has a degree.--ClubOranjeT 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very much a trivial intersection. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivia G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - Trivia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, pure trivia. GiantSnowman 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Also pretty funny, in that all U.S. "footballers" playing professional U.S. football attended some college. Any who went from high school to professional football would be quite unusual, and have considerable press coverage of the fact. Edison (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bryan Arguez? Signed a pro contract at 18, doubt he went to college...GiantSnowman 11:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The most famous example is Otis Sistrunk ("from the University of Mars" was just a joke). Deor (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:SNOW. Highest Heights (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the United Kingdom, at least, it is extremely rare for any professional footballer to have had a university education, and it is something that is remarked upon. I don't have time to look for sources at the moment, but I'm sure that before the seven days of discussion are up I'll be able to find some that show that this is a notable subject, so please don't use WP:SNOW when none of the delete !voters above have given any indication that they have looked for sources and failed to find them. As an aside, I'm surprised that Albert Camus and Karol Wojtyła are missing from the list. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. Here's an article in the Daily Telegraph that confirms that this is a noted subject. I see that the writer came up with the same two examples as I did of very notable people that fit this criterion - I don't often find myself agreeing with Boris Johnson, but we seem to think alike on this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is likely to be an article on every subject somewhere, but that doesn't mean it is practical or even desired to have a list of every occurrence, it just becomes listcruft. Can you reliably verify which of these people have ed-quals? when you have done that, step up to these people, and keep going until you have done all those listed under these subcategories, because that is what it takes to make this reliable information - and if it can't be reliable information, it should not be included in an encyclopaedia. Having a university education is not in and of itself notable, and therefore it usually isn't noted. Where it is by exception add it to the players' articles--ClubOranjeT 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivia. --Carioca (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Venture Capital Investment Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy deleted as a7 (no assertion of notability) - overturned after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 23 and now listed here as a largely procedural matter. Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When that many notable schools are involved with this, it makes it notable. Dream Focus 10:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I !voted "overturn" at the DRV, because that wasn't a correct speedy; but we don't consider questions of notability at DRV, and at AfD, we should. By any reasonable yardstick, this is not notable.
I want to specifically challenge Dream Focus' reply, because Dream Focus is apparently arguing that notability is inherited from the schools to the competition, but notability is not inherited.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wonder if Dream Focus thought of inheritance, I mostly paid attention to Phil Bridger's comment on the DRV that sources easily can be found. Phil's Gbook search [29] returns 6 books, I would say that The psychology of entrepreneurship [30] is a WP:RS although the mention is not in-depth. A regular Gsearch returns all the participating business schools' homepages and newletters (and perhaps more, haven't checked them all), like Wharton [31], ad libitum, but also no-US like Oxford UK [32] where the competition is said to be prestigious - unless we consider them plain POV pushers with a vested interest - they came second in the competition ;-) . It's also mentioned on Reuters [33], and in a Tech Journal [34]. To me, a clear pass for WP:V and WP:GNG with plenty of WP:RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and an academic journal [35] located on Gscholar. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Mentioned at an official site of University of California, Irvine, this seems to be notable enough to pass despite the fishy looking title. The external links contain reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: RS are found, notability established. Nja247 08:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- James deaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable. One google news hit and that is [probably] a PR release by the company. ("NEW YORK -- Rapt Inc., the industry-standard provider of advertising yield management solutions, today announced the formation of its Advisory Services practice."...) Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - according to WP:BIO, a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All I can see in a Google search of Deaker is a whole bunch of Facebook and Twitter profiles. Additionally, the part about being the son of a sports broadcaster does not establish notability - see this guideline - 'notability by association' appears not to establish notability at all! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can anyone tell me what "reserved media monetization" means? The only ghit for it is this article. He does appear to be head of "Publisher Advisory Services" (whatever that is) at Microsoft, but they employ a lot of people and there will be many heads of departments of varying degrees of notability (or otherwise). He's probably doing a good enough job - Microsoft took him over with Rapt.com and kept him - but is that notable? Hardly. Peridon (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit made to address the concerns of Peridon on use of "reserved media monetization". Included additional external references. Tried to make it clear that the claim of notoriety is based on the reputation as an expert in digital yield management. Not on his relationship to the sports broadcaster. Given that the claim of notoriety is based on being an expert in a very tightly defined space, request an opinion from an expert in the digital media space on whether this meets the threshold for notoriety prior to a deletion decision Phiman NZ (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Much clearer. However... I'm still not convinced of notability. BTW, I think that Phiman NZ might have made an interesting Freudian slip here. We are looking for 'notability' rather than 'notoriety', although the latter may ensure the former. In the case of someone connected with banner ads, I wonder.... Peridon (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability not established, Google lends nothing. لennavecia 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected back to Les Misérables per WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot of Les Misérables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comprises a overly detailed but well written, and well sourced plot summary and outline of Hugo's Les Miserables - and that's it. While a sufficiently detailed plot summary is useful in an article about a notable piece of literature, and is necessary to place literary criticism, impact, and any applicable controversy in context, not only does Plot of Les Misérables over-duplicate a very well written plot summary already in Les Miserables which serves the purposes stated above very well, it is also too overly detailed to be encyclopedic.
Although very well written and sourced, this does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that any amount of reworking or addition of criticism will produce something encyclopedic that won't duplicate what is already in Les Misérables, or supplement it without being redundant, in fact, material from this summary has been used to improve the main article (see explanation below).
This was deleted via AfD two years ago, and its deletion was upheld in a successive deletion review. Since it was determined that the material in the article could be used to improve Les Misérables, a history only restore was opted for. About a month ago with no prior discussion, a user reverted to the last revision prior to the redirect being put in place, his only explanation being that the original AfD discussion and deletion review were invalid and in his opinion, consensus was overridden. No improvements or work have taken place to address any of the original concerns since then. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki somewhere... Wikia Annex? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I intend to expand this with literary criticism. In any case, the original AFD actually had a majority in favour of keep. There is no valid reason for deletion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of the hazards of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that you can edit an article to write the perfect explanation for something, and moments later, someone else will edit your version. This applies whether you're explaining the plot to Les Miserables or to Police Academy 4. Since the article about Les Miserables contains a large description of the plot, I suspect that this page was created out of frustration with the editing process. Understandable, but Wikipedia is not Cliff Notes. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 29 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 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme
[edit]- Articles for deletion/Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme
- Articles for deletion/Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme/VfD 2004-03-30
- Articles for deletion/Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme (2nd nomination)
- Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page has been sitting for 5 years untouched and orphaned. It doesn't assert why it is notable, and I can't find any references that support its notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the VfD from 2004 is sitting on the talk page. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OK, it's real - a quick check of google.fr throws up plenty. But is it notable? Mais non. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Eddie, you got in just before me :) As Eddie said, a Google search does bring up quite a bit, but it isn't really that notable as those links are simply reviews or links to buy from eBay, etc. and there aren't any independent reliable sources on the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:36, 29 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. Delete is the consensus. If someone wishes to wikitionary it fine, ping me and i'll provide the source Nja247 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uberveillance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism. Not a word. The barrage of references are the result of a campaign to try to popularize the word and get it voted by some organization as their Word of the Year. None of this makes "Uberveillance" actually a word, or notable. Tempshill (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, ditto. The main difference between uberveillance (ubersurveillance) and sousveillance is the existentiality axis ... (Oh, that.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism until it appears in the OED. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put it in Wiktionary! - as the nominator said, 'uberveillance' is in the running for Word of the Year, but I have found places such as this article about microchips about uberveillance. Although it appears to be a word (even if it is a buzzword), Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I think this should be moved to Wiktionary. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:40, 29 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 08:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of tree species common to Cuba and Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An arbitrary list of species common to two areas... seems to me to fail WP:NOTDIR. Vicenarian (T · C) 06:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From what I gather, this was an attempt to find those trees that are in Category: Trees of Cuba and Category: Trees of Florida and then put them into a list. It's a bad idea, and I'm not sure what type of context this could be put in (unless there was a Juan Pepita de Manzano running around). Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an exceptionally bad idea as precedent. We don't need a list of x that are in x and y. What's next, a list of insects common to New York and New Jersey? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopaedic. As Hipocrite points out, it sets a poor precedent for further articles. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth. I've just made the list/article a decent affair(the previous votes were prior to these changes). I've also put a Note on the Talk page of the article.(And I did Not know there was this Rescue Flag available: (Nice)(I used Google Scholar) (By Author)..Mmcannis (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that you've added sourcing, but it's the topic that's the problem. A list of tree species common to place #1 and place #2 can have endless combinations (Cuba and Florida, Maui and Oahu, Great Britain and France, etc.). Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phytogeographically, Florida is extremely interesting as a transition zone between a temperate flora and a tropical flora. Since tropical floras are much richer than temperate floras, the places where they intersect are usually dominated by tropical elements. Florida is different; the tropical elements are relatively recent (mostly within the last 5000 years) and have had to colonise the peninsula across water. The major sources of colonists have been Cuba and the Bahamas. While the Bahamas are low-lying and relatively young (and thus, relatively species-poor, and relatively low in endemic species), Cuba is very old geologically/topographically complex, which means that it is species rich, with a lot of endemics. The issue of shared species between Cuba and Florida is phytogeographically interesting. It has been addressed in the literature, although often in the broader context of relationships between the Yucatan, the Caribbean (especially the Greater Antilles) and south Florida. It's also interesting to the wider public because of the cultural links between Cuba and Florida, and simply the general question of how the tropical elements got into south Florida. I think there's a pretty strong case to keep this article...it isn't simply a random list of shared species between two random areas, as Hip and Eddie Willers would suggest. It's an issue that's of interest both in terms of Caribbean phytogeography and in terms of the biogeography of south Florida, and it's certainly encyclopaedic. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, just rename the article "Caribbean phytogeography" and nobody will notice it, let alone nominate it. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. consensus clearly delete Nja247 07:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A completely unsourced and unverified fancruft. The creater is resorting to vandalism of the other articles of this singer by inserting this article continnuously. This should be deleted. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Major violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Wish we could find a way of stopping these before they are created. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 06:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Fame (album). WP:BALL does apply, but it's still a (non-notable) song on the album. In retrospect, I should have explained more clearly to the creator why I did the redir in the first place, but it should be clear to them by now that their behaviour is not acceptable. decltype (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a delete of the page followed by blocking of the page creation should be appropriate since inspite of the deletion tags the user is still continuing to resort to vandalism. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete it plz and i was confirmed on interscope and in her interview i had with her ok plz don't get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. You need to provide reliable sources for it. Or else it will be deleted. And a blatant attack on my talk page doesnot help things either. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TDTH here-Look i have contacts who have contacts in which my friend just called up interscope and red one verifying it's contents in which they claim it is a true single and most proberly the last since Gaga is already producing her new album in which is claim on a red one interview ok i have contacts if you don't believe me i will come to you personaly to explain ok it is true and i never lie.(that interview was true she was doing a competion on her tour in USA with was a interveiw in which i won ok) Soz about the blandishment but it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.74.142 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TDTH-Plz i beg you it is true im telling you plz don't get rid of it i lov Gaga don't delete her plz oh and i saw paparazzi its a hot video so far and poker face is 3rd for me 4th is just dance with her visachies 5th bdr and 2nd love game and good is eh eh but any way, plz don't deleate something of her(well it's not hers but it is her next single and a song she made on the fame). I lov Gaga and its one of her personal favorites ok i know the record companys and lady gaga I beg you plz don't get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.250.137 (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we got a case of a fanatic. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TDTH-Whats fantic??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TDTH-Im not frantic and what will it take to keep it non-deleted and to post it on the fame and stuff becuase i told you the truth ok im dying to keep it and to enhance the fame and stuff ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TDTH-PLZPLZPLZPLZPLZPLZ[PLZPLZPLZPLZPLZ dont get rid of it for it is the next single even people i know have seen it i posted it on my myspace and over 367 peolple have seen it and started gettiong it ok it's not a hoex and not lies it TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. (I had to take it of beacuse of you you know ok just keep it and let me put it in the fame article and stuff ok thats all i ask i beg i will do anything im telling the truth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a simple case of WP:CRYSTAL. FFMG (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references, delete as per WP:CRYSTAL Trevor Marron (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL violation.—Kww(talk) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not only is it non-notable per other editor's reasonings but if what TDTH says about the comments coming from a personal interview then it's an unhealthy dose of WP:OR too. --WebHamster 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'll concede that in its present form it violates this "Crystal" policy. However, instead of proposing that it ever be deleted, did anyone ever consider simply deleting the parts that brought it into conflict with the policy in the first place. I wonder why people seem so eager to delete everything as soon as it is created. That kind of response could have a chilling effect on people even submitting articles. I do feel that this topic is notable because Lady Gaga is a very prominent entertainer right now, and, this does seem to be a song on her album. So, clean up the parts of the article that violate "Crystal" and leave it up. It is a notable topic and deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was tried. Also, according to WP:MUSIC, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I do not know the subject matter very well, but since the nom (who has worked on several Lady GaGa-related articles) endorses the deletion, I would assume that the song is relatively insignificant. decltype (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry but there is not at all anything that will allow to keep this article. I personally edit the Gaga related articles and people there know my work. Hence I myself state that this needs to be deleted asap, a deep case of a fanatic devicing imageries to support statements. If this indeed would have been a single, then why no media representation? And is it not clear from the creater's rantings that how much a case of fanaticism this is? --Legolas (talk2me) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverified single. Violates WP:BALL, WP:V and WP:NM. There's nothing in the text that merits an article for this song. — Σxplicit 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable song and no sourced content to merge with the album. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, nothing to merge due to the lack of WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be a spam or promotional article with little or nothing to merge or reason to redirect Nja247 07:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dawnay Day AV Analytics Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication of notability for this company. Article borders on advert; created by SPA. Searching for potential sources turns up only press releases. Jfire (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing suggesting the company is of note. Personally I would have sent this to speedy. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - spam. multiple Single Article Editors makes me think there is multiple COI's editing here. Merge to parent company (the UK-based Dawnay Day Group) if necessary. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dawnay Day. This will preserve the history so that any sourceable content can be merged in. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 31 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 deleted G12 as copyvio, no prejudice against re-creation. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Valplast Flexible Partial Dentures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant product placement, fails notability. Listing to see if people think stuff can be salvage from this. Would personally send to speedy. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advert. Tempshill (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With a re-write to make it less promotional as there is some interesting bits about how the dental appliances are made etc. Or perhaps someone knows somewhere the relevant bits can be merged into. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advert. Non notable product. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepwithacleanup It's somewhat promotional, yet it's actually notable. All it needs is a good cleanup and some antispam. [flaminglawyer] 23:59, 29 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 - copyvio (non-admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven Editions of the Divine Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This purports to be a Christian theological concept, but I can find absolutely no coverage of it in reliable sources. It appears to be complete original research on the part of the author. Robofish (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I do not recognize this nor can find any reference to it. I suspect as well that it is original research. Vicenarian (T · C) 06:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails NOR and V. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:OR springs to mind. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, apparently original research. John Carter (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – unreferenced essay that appears to be the writer's conjectural interpretation of the Bible. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I actually like this, as a tract or sermon topic. It remains original theological speculation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This information seems to come form the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible [36] [37] , which would make it a copyright violation, not original research. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on the above information, I've tagged for speedy, G12. Vicenarian (T · C) 04:56, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fiddlers' Bid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not pass WP:MUSIC, awards mention are not major ones, album releases are not on major labels. RadioFan (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry, but I do believe that it passes WP:BAND criterion #5 (released 2 records on a major label). It has like 5 albums released via Greentrax, which
is... probably notablesatisfies the WP:BAND criterion #5. [flaminglawyer] 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Since when do we require musicians to have album releases on a major label to be included? riffic (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment its not a requirement but its one way to pass notability rules. As flaming mentions. WP:BAND has several ways a musician can be shown to be notable, thats just one of them.--RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Screw the guidelines then, keep, IAR riffic (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced those are major labels. Riffic and flaming seem to be familiar with this band and those labels, can you explain more on why you feel they are major? --RadioFan (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't major labels, there are only four major labels. oh notable. yes it probably is notable, see discussion over at the other afd riffic (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So... The outcome of this AFD depends on the outcome of this one. [flaminglawyer] 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say not, notability isn't subjective riffic (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the result does not depend on that outcome. wp:music does not talk about notable labels, it talks about "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Two different things. Labels can be notable without releasing a single thing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, got it. So (if I'm reading this right) this label does satisfy the criteria listed there, meaning that the band is a keeper. [flaminglawyer] 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. The label's article does list a lot of artists but some are of questionable notability, others there is no evidence they are or were on the labels roster. More checking would be needed to be sure. I think I have now enough sources to make it not matter here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, got it. So (if I'm reading this right) this label does satisfy the criteria listed there, meaning that the band is a keeper. [flaminglawyer] 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So... The outcome of this AFD depends on the outcome of this one. [flaminglawyer] 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't major labels, there are only four major labels. oh notable. yes it probably is notable, see discussion over at the other afd riffic (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced those are major labels. Riffic and flaming seem to be familiar with this band and those labels, can you explain more on why you feel they are major? --RadioFan (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- allmusic link (includes two album reviews). Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some more sources [38] [39] [40] [41]. Articles covering international tour, The Age 04-11-2002 [42]; The Sunday Mail, Austrailia 03-11-2002. And if this is the same Fiddler's Bid then criteria 8 may also satisfied. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy Sindane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable per WP:BLP1E. لennavecia 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. The subject is a private citizen who is not likely to be written about in the history books, and deserves to be allowed to live the rest of his life without the first web search result for his name to be a reminder of troubled times. I refer to WP:BLP rather than WP:BLP1E because I mean that it is the spirit of this policy that dictates deletion, not one clause that is more often misused that used in the correct spirit. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 31 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. Per WP:SNOW PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The frederic algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
very recently created by a student, no sources, no suggestion of any applications outside of the students program or any recognition outside of the program. Beach drifter (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: original research doesn't belong. Alexius08 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no references or sources, nothing to even verify this algorithm even exists. No real claim to notability, and no claim of use outside one university. JIP | Talk 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — article states that this algorithm has just been written by a student at Adelaide University, and is only used within the university, so it hasn't taken the world of data-sorting by storm yet and is thus not notable. (I suspect that this article also has just been written by a student at Adelaide University, and is mainly going to be read within the university by him and his mates.) pablohablo. 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. But best wishes to Fred in all his future endeavours. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Incidentally when I saw the title of this article I thought it was going to be one of these. pablohablo. 14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:MADEUP comes to mind and this certainly seems like WP:OR, as well. Vicenarian (T · C) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm tempted to suggest WP:CSD#A1 speedy deletion as there is not enough context to distinguish this algorithm (whatever it is) from any other sorting algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Not that my support will change the result.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)/[reply]
- WP:SNOW Let it... Vicenarian (T · C) 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hans Ongelungel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced BLP, fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. لennavecia 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy Delete No evidence of any notability whatsoever. Nothing relevant on Google except WP mirrors and the family website [43]. No actual reason to be sure even of his real existence. DGG (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Truth or Dare (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's awfully hard to figure out what source are out there given how common the phrase "truth or dare" is but I find next to nothing on this film. Per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I can find no confirmation that this has commenced principal photography (although it may well have). Furthermore, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I find no indications that the production itself is notable. Once released, this may well be a notable film, but its production is not currently notable. Cool3 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as one of several hoax articles created by User:Tai Michaels in order to promote Melissa McCarthy. Nice that she has a fan, but this isn't the way to do it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourceable, nothing to prove notability. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:34, 29 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. Hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Limbo (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Am unable to find any sources that the film even exists... nothing indicationg it might have been made in 2003 or that it has a 2009 release date. User:Taimichaels seems to have a COI in creating a few articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IMDB gives a completely different story! I couldn't even find the actors/director/writer on IMDB. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:28, 29 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. Nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only One Will Survive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Am unable to find any sources that the film even exists... nothing indicationg it might have been made in 2003 or that it has a 2009 release date. User:Taimichaels seems to have a COI in creating a few articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I too have also checked around to see if there any information about it, but I can't seem to find it. Alfred Lau (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article will not survive, as there are no sources, and the alleged blue-linked actors are a long-dead Serbian uprising leader, a Motorola engineer, and a hip-hop producer (they walk into a bar and...you know the rest). Nate • (chatter) 07:22, 29 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. Hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cook-Off (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as apparent hoax. Can't even verify such a film exists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Am unable to find any sources that the film even exists... nothing indicationg it was or will be made. Sadly, and even assuming the best of good faith, this seems yet another User:Taimichaels imaginary film article (see diffs). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 29 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 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- San Remo Summer Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Spam for a non-notable two-week class. No independent sources provided. Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently there are three listings on Google, two of which point back to this entry and the associated user page. The course is apparently run by "Association for Prevention of Torture", per their 2007 activity list, the org may (or not) deserve a page, but not a two week program run by them -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as I understand it the sponsor is actually International Institute of Humanitarian Law, a very poor WP page, but probably notable, based on their web site. [44] But a specific summer course? No. Possibly merge among their activities.DGG (talk) 05:33, 29 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 00:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hannah Lay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable BLP. Has only held minor roles. لennavecia 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Her website lists her filmography, mostly uncredited/no-name roles, just 11, she might get some good roles soon, and gain entry then. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: May be notable someday. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:15, 31 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 deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) as A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Non-admin AfD closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dreamtrybe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No 3rd party sources providing evidence of WP:MUSIC notability criteria; article barely asserts notability. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Doesn't assert notability at all, Myspace can't be used to pass WP:MUSIC. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:36, 29 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 00:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ernestown Courses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No brainer really, this list info isn't even notable enough for schools pages, WP:WPSCH/AG. ForgottenManC (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was the one who proposed a merge, but I agree that as it stands now there is no reason for this to even be merged into the main school page. 7 talk | Δ | 02:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just a list of a school's courses. JJL (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletenothing mergeable, and no need for a redirect. DGG (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This collection of courses is very informative. Anny attending students and prospective students would prosper from this information. There are currently ~650 students at ESS, and every year +~160. This audience is surely large enough to allow this page to be helpful, and not deleted. When ever researching a school, I always what to know what courses it offers. Most school pages on Wikipedia don’t show this information, but I encourage them to. (Regular mario (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Disclosure Note - comment above from original article author. 7 talk | Δ | 22:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issues have been addressed, deletion does not seem an option here. Tone 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Douglas v. City of Jeannette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a rambling personal essay presumably presenting the background for a court case which isn't discussed. It's just a story about Jehovah's Witnesses passing out brochures. There is no assertion of importance or significance. Wikipedia is not a legal textbook or a directory of court cases. Only one reference is given. Drawn Some (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Amending to request Speedy deletion as copyright violation per author's admission of the source and the copyright notice at that source: "Copyright © 2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved." at bottom of page where author below admits to taking material. Drawn Some (talk)
- You may wish to consider this. Just because a company slaps a copyright notice on a web page doesn't mean that they own the rights to everything on the page. Some of it may be public domain and putting up a copyright notice doesn't change that fact. --Richard (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: Apparent copyright-infringing material has been eliminated and there is now assertion of importance or significance in the article. I am willing to have this case closed but I am concerned about the hundreds or thousands of legal cases collecting here half-finished, bloated with rambling copy & pasted copyrighted text, lacking explanation of importance, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've actually seen these hundreds or thousands of articles or are you just casting aspersions because you've seen one and are now assuming that hundreds or thousands more exist? This is really a disguised insult but I will refuse to take offense and assume that you meant it in the best of faith. Since you're concerned about the multitudes of poor articles on SCOTUS cases, perhaps you would care to review the cases listed in United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. This comment is only half snarky. I attempted to create articles for each of the cases listed in that article. Some of the articles are better than others. Some are quite stubby and in need of expansion. Not all of the articles were created by me so some of them may even be quite good. I'll let you try to figure out which are the god-awful ones that I created and which are the high-quality ones that were created by others. If you have the interest, feel free to critique these articles and suggest areas for improvement. After that, there is a longer list in List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment. Most of those were not created by me (except perhaps some of the JW-related ones). And then, when you get done with those, you might consider looking at Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. That'll keep you busy for a while. However, you will at least have a chance to assuage your concerns about the "hundreds or thousands of legal cases collecting here half-finished, bloated with rambling copy & pasted copyrighted text, lacking explanation of importance, etc." Hey, if you look hard enough, you might even find some that are not notable. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff, join WP:SCOTUS. We're looking for a few good men (and women). --Richard (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep an incomplete article on a US supreme court case. such cases always have hundreds of references. A place for a nice quick speedy non-admin close. DGG (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Only one reference is given but it is a reference to the actual Supreme Court decision. That ought to be plenty. This is an incomplete article but that argues for completing the article, not for deleting it. All U.S. Supreme Court cases are inherently notable. If the Supremes chose to accept a case, it means that it had sufficient merit to warrant their consideration. (They decline to hear many, many cases each year.) The only part of the article that has been "written" so far is the "Facts of the Case" section and, although it may seem like a "rambling personal essay", it is actually a verbatim copy from the actual decision of the Supreme Court. Because the decision is effectively a publication of the U.S. government, the text should be in the public domain and so no copyright violation should exist. I do admit that the verbatim copying of the text from the decision does not yield the ideal prose for an encyclopedia article. However, that is an argument for rewriting the text, not for deleting the article. (NB: I'm an admin but I won't speedy close this AFD because I'm the creator of the article and closing the AFD could be construed as a conflict of interest.) --Richard (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you assert that ALL Supreme Court cases are inherently notable and should be included in Wikipedia or only United States Supreme Court cases? This article makes no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. I probably went too far out on that limb. I'm sure we can find some cases that aren't really worth much of an article. However, if you let me off the hook on that somewhat rash assertion, I would point out that this is one of the Supreme Court cases having to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses and I definitely assert that every one of those cases is notable (see United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses) because of the impact that the cases as a group have had on First Amendment constitutional law. (really... read the article). This particular case that you have nominated for deletion is one of four cases known in constitutional law as the "Jehovah's Witnesses cases" because the Supreme Court ruled on four JW-related cases on the same day (May 3, 1943) This day is important because the rulings on these four cases mark an important reversal on the part of the Supreme Court where they went from saying that the need for patriotic national unity trumped First Amendment rights to asserting the opposite. --Richard (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you assert that ALL Supreme Court cases are inherently notable and should be included in Wikipedia or only United States Supreme Court cases? This article makes no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perhaps not the most notable SC case ever, but books and journals have discussed it enough that it seems clear a good article could exist here. If the current article sucks, in this case it's a reason to edit it, not delete it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Yes, all U.S. Supreme Court cases are inherently notable, and this one in particular has significant resonance in regard to the Jehovah's Witness movement. The article needs editing, but it does not deserve deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I stubified and removed the cut-and-pasted text (which I mistakenly identified in the diff note as "copyright-infringing," and which, to be honest, wasn't particularly helpful in understanding the issues in question). My hope is that someone with the appropriate expertise will expand the article appropriately. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to relevant subsection of United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses unless the article is sufficiently expanded compared to this section. NVO (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. I'm glad that the original author chose to write an article about the case, which is a good (and hitherto overlooked) topic. Wikipedia isn't limited to people whose writing skills are perfect. It is a good place for people to perfect their writing skills. Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is the US Supreme Court case that established that the Federal judiciary will not enjoin the enforcement of local criminal laws on constitutional grounds. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Harper's Island characters#Christopher "Sully" Sullivan. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Christopher "Sully" Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable minor fictional character. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Harper's Island characters#Christopher "Sully" Sullivan.FingersOnRoids 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to appropriate target. --EEMIV (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. This probably is going to require a mass nomination, since we have a mass creation of articles by an editor who started contributing when the show came out [45]. Whether it's an overzealous fan, or a CBS employee, no, we do not want a separate article about every character on CBS's intriguing new television show that everyone's talking about-- well, not anyone I'm aware of, but everyone else, I'm sure. Unlike the TV show, there is no need to get rid of those articles (creepy kid's voice) "one by one". Mandsford (talk) 14:19, 29 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 before AFD nomination could finish. Non-admin closure.FingersOnRoids 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgotten hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Add on for computer game - I can't see any particular notability Passportguy (talk)
- Response- This mod is in the top 3 for battlefield 3 and features more content then bf2 itself. There are almost 100 servers running this mod. This mod is a comperitor with another mod that does have its own page. (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Reality)
01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The articles shows no sources for the notability of the add-on. Also : The text is a copyright infringement and hs been tagged as such. Passportguy (talk) 01:52, 29 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 Transwiki with soft redirect. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaungoikoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is totally ethymological, so it would me better fit into wictionary. As far as I can see, it does not bring enough encyclopedic information to foster an entry Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Did the nominator try to find references for the article on the internet? --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Yes, there are many references. But that's not the point. I think that this article is in its currents form unencyclopedic, because it features no stand-alone information. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki as dicdef. So tagged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see an encyclopedic article being made out of of this. It's not an English word, so en.wiktionary doesn't have a place for this. The word is listed as an unverified translation on their page for God. Hmm, that said there is a very brief entry for Dieu.[46] Let Wiktionary work out what to do with it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to wiktionary. Outright deletion's inappropriate because someone who doesn't know the word might very well look it up on Wikipedia; plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:05, 29 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) 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Awake (Skillet album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:CRYSTAL, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source in the article does not verify the album's title. In fact, the title has no been announced has a possible release date in August 2009. At this point, this article is nothing more than speculation. — Σxplicit 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is not a reason to delete all articles about upcoming events or product releases; it is a warning to avoid speculation. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." The last album of the band was Grammy-nominated, the producer is Howard Benson, and once it is released the album will definitely have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, Explicit, did either you look for sources? (see WP:BEFORE). This article verifies that they are releasing an album in August 2009, but doesn't give the name:[47]. These articles confirm the name and that it is finished recording, and give some info about the recording process:[48][49][50][51][52]. Seven sources is enough to verify this release, due in a mere 3 months. Fences and windows (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material. Still, I have struck my comment above. — Σxplicit 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I too wish that editors creating articles would provide some sources. It'd save us all a lot of trouble. Fences and windows (talk) 02:38, 23 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) 00:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Fences and windows, the sources absolutely make it notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The quoted WP:CRYSTAL certainly does not apply here; that guideline is for articles that are primarily speculative about future topics. The album is confirmed and covered by multiple sources, and I believe I removed all prior original research from the article. Jamie☆S93 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The References are from an official website. It is not speculation--Qwertluis (talk) 23:23, 31 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 Rawtenstall#Transport. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rawtenstall bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find a single real RS for this piece of nn buscruft. Even the picture makes lack of notability startlingly apparent. Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find 4 sources. 3 mention crimes that occurred there, the 4th just implies the station has a terrible reputation. All are casual mentions of the station (although they convinced me to avoid the place). Delete based on this evidence, not enough sources for a proper article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They refer to the same crime, that occurred there in July 2007. The fourth is only in a "user comments" section, not in the news article. —Snigbrook 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments shouldn't it be a mass nom ? I mean there are scores of bus shed stubs, what good is wasting time on each? NVO (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In general mass noms can become trainwrecks fast and often have to be re-run as individual nominations. People either object to so many articles being nominated at once, or see one or two legitimate articles in the lot and vote to keep... and consensus becomes unreadable in a hurry. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rawtenstall: some coverage exists[53] but only from one source and unless others can be found this is unlikely to be enough for a separate article. Sources are cited and content is relevant to the Rawtenstall article, so it should be merged. —Snigbrook 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (as last two comments). Surely the bus station in NN in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite all the naysayers, I found plenty of non-trivial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources and added them to the article. Please consider the merits of the arguments and not just the !votes when closing the case. Clearly notable. Drawn Some (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination.
- Merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. Despite Drawn Some's best efforts in expanding this, the fundamental problem remains - this bus station is not independently notable. The coverage is all from the local Lancashire press. Fences and windows (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rawtenstall#Transport. Most of the article is about replacing the bus station if all that was pruned out it could be just a mention in Rawtenstall. Really needs more coverage or heritage listing to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 05:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obamaball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-invented game, non-notable Passportguy (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:WHYCANTMADEUPCRAPLIKETHISBEDELETED. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Capitalismojo (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete made up one day. JJL (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, definitely feels like WP:MADEUP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs)
- Speedy Delete - Points already well made by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
- WP:SNOW, please. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 29 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. Please carry on improving the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of art cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is unreferenced and there is no identification that these "art cars" are "well known". There is no clear way to determine what goes or does not go into the list. The lead does not identify the criteria for determination. Most affirmations of notability include fark.com and slashdot, which are not reliable sources. There is nothing in this article that could not be better dealt with at the main article of Art Car. Logical Premise Ergo? 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NeutralIt seems to just be a list of art cars that the article creator knows of.Any particularly well-known examples could be mentioned in Art car, but I don't see the purpose in listing them all, especially as most of the sources seem self-published. Fences and windows (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article creator did give these thoughts on the talk page: "Most of the cars in the original list were featured at Petersen's Automotive Museum. Inclusion criteria should in my opinion be fairly high: been on exhibit in a notable gallery, show or museum, are well-known like Batman and Wienermobile, are by famous artists or designers... not someone who has hot rod flames on their GTO or the like but seriously notable vehicles." So there is some attempt at rigorous inclusion criteria. The sourcing is terrible, but could be improved, so that's not an argument for deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 21:58, 22 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, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the articles is improved and some sources added GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I changed the lead to read: "This is a list of art cars which have been exhibited in a notable gallery or museums, or become well known by their appearance in the media." That'll clear up any confusion as to why everything on the list is notable. Dream Focus 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list compliments the main article and the lead now explains what is the criteria for inclusion. --Jmundo 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are movies, books and many articles written about these. I think even festivals deadicated to them. This is a great use for a list article. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 30 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 07:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plastec Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable plastic pipe company. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anyone can find references in Bulgarian I'll work on the article, I don't see any sources in English. Never before has my browser been taken over by an animated plastic pipe commercial in Bulgarian. Drawn Some (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:34, 22 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 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete . notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 29 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. Nom and comments support delete Nja247 07:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Svetlana Stepankovskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Person whose claim to fame is to have been "Miss Krasnodar". Lost another pageant and is a contestant in third contest. But as she hasn't won a major prize, I'd say she does not pass the notability threshhold. Passportguy (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 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 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think. I'm not sure how to gauge the notability for pageant girls, but if it's similar to athletes, competing in the Miss Russia pageant is probably worth something, especially coming in second. Representing Russia in a world pageant is surely notable (Olympics of pageantry), of course it isn't until December. لennavecia 04:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment the problem with the Olympics comparision is that there are a large number of competing "world" pagentries, so the level of lnotability is not comparable to that of being an olympian. Passportguy (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given this more consideration and considered Passportguy's point, she's marginally notable at best, but without a guideline on what determines notability for pageant girls, I'm going to have to lean to delete. Considering also that such competitions, or participation in them, rarely leads to significant coverage in reliable sources, there is no article to write here. لennavecia 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Moving Jelly Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band that appears to fail WP:MUSIC. There are some very tenuous links to White Town, but notability is not inherited. sparkl!sm hey! 08:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl!sm hey! 08:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find any references supporting notability for this band. It may be due to the era in which they were active (pre-internet), but Google books also show no results either. Based on the text in the article, the band appears to have made it as far as up-and-coming before flaming out, so the assertion of notability itself is rather weak. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find anything on my own other than a few blog posts, and references to other bands members later joined. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Nja247 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtroom View Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
May be ad or not meet the notability rule. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost certainly a spam article with the authors attempting to get this division of Courtroom Connect (see Google search) off the ground. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. sources exist and I am not in any way affiliated with CVN. This does not WP:AGF.--Loodog (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom. Notabilty and it sure looks like and advert to me.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does have some notability, specifically for what the CT Law Tribune says about a Judge's interpretation of the Judicial Conference ban on cameras as "advisory", that was brought about by a case by this company. Google news provides some valid news reports; Boston Globe has written about the concept, while NY Times has reviewed a case broadcast, even the (London) Times, a Russian newspaper and a Japanese newspaper (both of which I can't read) have picked up a story. The article can and should be improved. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Tyrenon (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I quickly found coverage in reliable sources: [54][55][56][57]. The delete voters above make no argument at all, and show no indication that they checked for notability more than just looking at the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found above. Granite thump (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of football players from small colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subjective page that seems to be used for bookkeeping purposes only. Violates WP:OR because the definition of "small" college is subjective. Perhaps move the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
- List of basketball players from small colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete both, as no defining criterion exists for "small" college. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There are criteria: players from colleges where the college doesn't have its own Wikipedia category for players. Of course, a category should probably just be made. I've seen categories with as few as three players listed, while some of the schools in this list have more than that. (No one would ever accuse SUNY Albany of being a football powerhouse.) —Wrathchild (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The definition problem could easily be fixed by limiting it to schools whose football programs are NCAA Divisions II and III, and those that are NAIA. Not voting a keep, however, since there are other problems on setting limits. I suppose that the intent is to list blue-linked players who played football for a "small" college, but that would still be a large number. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 23 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 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, inherently OR and POV as to what is a "small" college. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per User:TenPoundHammer! Highest Heights (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable trivial intersection of topics. see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of university-educated footballers. This is the flipside of the same coin. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:36, 30 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 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Region of Shaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lack of coherent material, context, unreferenced Frozenguild (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also is an orphan. Possibly could be made into a redirect to Katanga Province (which the current article is not about). 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infrogmation (talk • contribs)
- Agree with deletion for reasons already given 02:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.167.183 (talk)
- Delete. No references, no claim to any sort of notability; fails WP:RS, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.