Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 7

< 6 November	8 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete WWGB (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Adore

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

Google search only produces results on sites like Bebo and Myspace, appears to be an un-notable minor musician. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Morning Musume Tanjō 10nen Kinentai. Tone 14:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bokura ga Ikiru My Asia

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

notable band, but non-notable album Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nominator is mistaken, this article is about a single, not an album. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morning Musume Tanjō 10 Nen Kinentai per WP:NMUSIC. Quote: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." (The exceptions that follow that guideline do not appear to apply here.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morning Musume Tanjō 10 Nen Kinentai. Agree with DustFormsWords. This was a one-off reunion project that should be contained on just one page. ~~I'll add the info from here to the potential target page now~~. J04n(talk page) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there really isn't anything worth merging, just redirect. J04n(talk page) 01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltazar "Balta" Hinojosa

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

Orphaned article. Poorly referenced. COI issues. Unclear that this person is notable in the music industry. Google News hits mostly seem to refer to somebody else with a similar name although he does get a small number of passing mentions. No verifiability for the biographical element. DanielRigal (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm quite sceptical of AfD rationales that include clean-up reasons "Orphaned article. Poorly referenced. COI issues" etc., the reason I looked into this. But sources are hard to find, apart from his music compositions, the information seems to be entirely unverifiable. Agree with taggers that there are elements of a vanity page. According to this source [1] "He is a young up and coming bilingual songwriter, producer, and sound engineer". Not famous yet. At some later stage he can have a Wikipage, but not yet. Gsearch for "Baltamusic" is similar in nature, that wouldnt warrant an article either (yet). Power.corrupts (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage about him as a producer. There is a claim for song-writing credits but there is no coverage about him as a song writer either. No significant awards that I can find. So nothing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is trivial mention of Hinojosa as a songwriter here (translated from Spanish), and has writing credits on this album; but there really isn't anything to establish notability (as Power.corrupts says; "yet"). J04n(talk page) 12:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arafel (band). Tone 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Flame of the Ages

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

non-notable album Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposal for deletion. The article does certainly need some reliable sources, but I don't think it's non-notable. The following is from the WP Notability guidelines: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The band has a robust page of their own that has no notability issues, so this album page is supposedly notable too. Previous contributors have added enough information to get started. I think we should remove the PROD but add tags calling for more references, etc. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this is non-notable, unsourced, only 132 Google hits when duplicates are eliminated. (I also disagree with Doomsdayer520 that the band's own page has no notability issues - it is very poorly sourced.) Dawn Bard (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMG#Albums. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arafel (band). To respond to Doomsdayer520, WP:NMUSIC says "...ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles..." (keyword may) there just aren't any WP:RS for the album, sorry. J04n(talk page) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arafel (band). Arafel's notability is not really demonstrated in the band article, which has no reliable sources. I couldn't find any coverage of this album in reliable sources, so it's difficult to support keeping the article.--Michig (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arafel (band). NW (Talk) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Way of Defender

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

non-notable album Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree, as the band has a fairly robust biography page and if that is considered notable, then per WP policy so are the albums. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Only 209 Google hits when duplicates are eliminated, and nothing that amounts to substantial, second party coverage. I disagree with Doomsdayer520 that the band's page is "robust" - it is very poorly sourced, and has been tagged as such since March '08. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be happy with a redirect to the band.--Michig (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arafel (band) no coverage by any WP:RS, not even mentioned in allmusic or Metal Hammer. J04n(talk page) 09:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Mystery Tour (tour)

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

This article is an advert for this guy's non-notable tourism business. I am also going to put his business up for AfD. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not going to put his club up, which does have a reliable source mentioning it. But I still don't think that this tour service he provides is notable enough to warrant it's own article. And even if it is somehow notable, it should probably be merged into the article for his business. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the tour is not notable enough for its own article but I do think that it should be mentioned in the Cavern Club article. Tsange ^►talk 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Tough call. There's no coverage of the travel tour itself, so on that grounds it could easily be deleted for failing to meet WP:N, and also because of the fact that this article is clearly advertising. I can see weak grounds for merging this reference into the Cavern Club article, but only as a minor reference and not as a full section. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable tour operation; not really ideal for merging as it really isn't related to it -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Country of the Blind. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parascotopetl

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

Can't find any reliable sources via Google. This should probably just be as part of the article for the story itself, rather than it's own article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional location with no independent sources to establish notability (or provide material for an article). The Country of the Blind says all there is to say about it. Deor (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Country of the Blind. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another WP:NOTABILITY violation. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Websters [2] finds the term significant enough to include as search terms. ~~Minimum~~ merge and redirect, ~~perhaps keep~~. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a copy of the Wikipedia article we're discussing here—note the "[WP]" at the end. Those "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" books are an attempt to make money by reproducing content from WP and other free sources in dead-tree form and using the untrademarked name "Webster's" to suck in the rubes. Deor (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! I was concerned about the additioanl info in WP: "The name ..[[..]].. appears to be Nahuatl in form", which was not in Websters, but I find no sources, so I would dismiss it as OR. I would keep it as a plausible search term though, as the nominee suggests. Redirecting wouldnt even have to go throgh AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Country of the Blind, which is the best alternative to deletion. This is a plausible target for the book. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Wisbey

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

Non-notable member of non-notable band. Also see discussion for his band Alien Stash Tin, which is up for AfD as well. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the band is even notable, let alone the individual. No significant coverage in reliable second party sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please review links to film making, photography and presenting on Bristol Community FM Radio Cogoal (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see evidence in links to reliable sources that he meets the notability test.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is neither assertion nor evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Member of a non-notable band; part-time announcer; no evidence of touring. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable (per WP:BIO & WP:CREATIVE) member of a a deleted non-ntable band Lame Name (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals – The Cardigans

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

I can't find significant coverage for this downloadable album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (music), lack of information in reliable sources. Compilations can occasionally be notable, but no evidence that this is one of them.--SabreBD (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails wiki notability guidelines. Bravedog (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Allen

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

Prod went uncontested, however this article was already deleted once by prod and so cannot be again. Nominator's prod concern was "What appears to be own work of the subject of the Article, no references, no external links, blatant lines in the form of Playing Enid in the Worst Witch & Nancy in Hollyoaks, both parts played by Jessica Fox. In short non notable, not referenced, factually inaccurate." Procedural nomination, I have no opinion at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was leaning towards delete, but it seems her work on The Worst Witch (TV series) barely scrapes the bottom of the barrel of notability -Drdisque (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT; none of its criterion are satisfied. A single non-leading role in a television series is not notable. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify; her body of work does not seem to prove that she "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Narthring (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A WP:BLP that cannot be sourced should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely zero evidence of notability, as per Cunard's search. The only thinsg that could be found is that she is somebody's granddaughter, but notability is not inherited. She has had no significant roles, as per Narthring. When she gets an important role, and no longer "scrapes the bottom of the barrel," then she will rate an article. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teic.ie

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

Online maganize launched October 2009. Only claim of notability is that it was founded by a notable journalist. I believe it does not meet WP:WEB. Singularity42 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main claim of notability is as noted above. However, the site also produces news for Business and Finance, a major Irish publication that has been publishing continually for over 50 years. I am working on gathering more references and citations in addition to this. Request 48 hours to improve article. Robfitzgib (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "notable" journalist does not even have his own article so how does an on-line magazine he has produced need one? It looks like commercial promotion to me. Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep, it's not a commerical. I have no connection to the site. On which point, can we move it back to speedy deltion? Obviously I want it to stay but I don't want to write a long entry only to have it removed and would appreciate a quick decision. Robfitzgib (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a a couple third-party reliable sources that have covered the website that would allow it to meet criteria one of WP:WEB? If so, that would probably support a speedy keep of the article (which I'm sure you would prefer than a speedy delete). Singularity42 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that important to me. I'll just keep working on other, principally print, titles. Robfitzgib (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New online publication that lacks evidence of notability outside of what's inherited from the reputation of a contributor, which is not sufficient. Steven Walling 05:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. One of the links in the article is this, which reads like a press release. The other two links are to the online magazine's website and the founder's website; primary sources do not establish notability. Robfitzgib (talk · contribs)'s assertions that Teic.ie is notable because the founder is notable is wrong per WP:INHERITED. A merge to the founder, Adam Maguire, cannot be done because it is a red link; therefore, this should be deleted for failing WP:N. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork (software)

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

Contested proposed deletion. This is an advertising article for non-notable software, part of the "project management" mess. The page itself is simply a sales brochure containing a features list; nothing about the article suggests technical or historical importance. This is made by a business that does not have its own article. The only reference given is to a minor trade award, of a sort that cannot confer notability outside of a limited circle of interested people. This is a re-creation of content previously speedily deleted for failure to show minimal importance. It is not obvious that the handful of Google News archive results refer to this particular product. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per the award. Joe Chill (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, awards can provide evidence that the notability requirements may be satisfied, but they cannot in themself satisfy it. I'm not able to find a good amount of third party reliable sourcing for this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth comparative mention in RS Marktstudie Kooperationssysteme see pages 72-74. If there are spam issues, fix them. Unable to comment on "This is made by a business that does not have its own article" but respectfully, I consider it a poor argument. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also mentioned in Open Source: Kommerzialisierungsmöglichkeiten und Chancen für die Zusammenarbeit von Hochschulen und Unternehmen p91, not in-depth, but more more than passing mention. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will anyone care in ten years? no this is not an encyclopedic topic that needs to be documented by an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Notability is not temporary. NW (Talk) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Works Out

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

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Description of the EP's recording and release would be better off in the artist's biography page. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand the deletion request for this EP, but certainly the rest of Garage Voice's albums are notable? The band itself is very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 30daysinAK (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUM. Quote: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." The information about the printing/production history of the album and its significance in the band's history arguably lifts it over the "little more than a track listing" clause. However searches fail to return reliable results even testifying to this album's existence, let alone notability, and so the extreme lack of sources in this case would rebut the presumption of notability and fail the general notability guidelines at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage to establish N. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Garage Voice. Nothing to merge, really... Tone 14:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe From All Alarms

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

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Since this is a notable band's debut album, I think that this should be merged to the band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Mr. Chill. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Merge. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No indication the band is notable either. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Those Who Have Ears Hear

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

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The following is from the WP Notability guidelines: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." 30daysinAK (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the band's article. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garage Voice#Let Those Who Have Ears Hear (2006 - 2007), which is the best alternative deletion. A search for sources returns no indication that this album is independent of the band. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garage Voice. The band does not appear to be notable. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joyeux Anniversary

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

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge [3] shows that it exists, and it satisfies WP:NALBUMS. However there is nothing about this album online. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN album by a NN band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the CD on CDbaby.com and garagevoice.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 30daysinAK (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garage Voice#Joyeux Anniversary (2008), which is the best alternative deletion. A Google News Archive search for sources returns no indication that this album is independent of the band. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garage Voice; the band does not appear to be notable. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No indication the band is notable either. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Us Reconcile

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

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are you trying to delete all of the band's CD pages?

Let Us Reconcile, Joyeux Anniversary, Let Those WHo Have Ears Hear, Safe From All Alarms, and All Works Out are notable albums because they are all records released by Garage Voice, which is a very notable band, the CD Let Us Reconcile has a review on thestranger.com and can be found at the bands website. What are the articles lacking? 30daysinAK (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://classifieds.thestranger.com/seattle/ViewBand?oid=287722???

That's coverage --30daysinAK (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advert for the band, probably written by the band. It is not significant independent coverage in a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garage Voice; the band does not appear to be notable. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gell

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

I can't find significant coverage for this weatherman. Joe Chill (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added references and that he is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. He appears to be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major channel weatherman, really well known, obvious keep. Rebecca (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Holguín-Uribe

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

Subject is not notable, and the article does not assert notability (potential speedy?) Le Docteur (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this could have been a speedy candidate, at any rate, there's no assertion of notability, and no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedyable candidate, NN person. Ray^Talk 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dawn Bard gives good justification. Also, there no notability according to GS with respect to him being a mathematician. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developer conscience

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

This WP:NEO was coined six days ago in a blog. Otherwise only 43 google hits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The long-standing consensus at English Wikipedia is that new phrases are almost never notable. I see no evidence that this has taken popular culture by storm. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Nothing in the news], either. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologisms aren't normally notable, and this seems to be quite the normal neologism. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much falls under WP:MADEUP. No evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. Steven Walling 05:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Koziol

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

Bassist-for-hire who has played with some notable artists but does not appear to be notable on his own. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds IJA (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He has performed on a work of media which is notable, and as such there has been some coverage of him. It's tenuous but he appears to be notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please post links to any media coverage of substance that you've discovered, I couldn't find any. Performing on a notable work of media is not one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC, and does not make a person notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Added a bit to the article but have to agree with the nom, there just isn't anything out there to establish his own notability. Perhaps in the future he'll record his own stuff or become a permanent member of some other band. J04n(talk page) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search does not return relevant results.
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a biography of a living person sourced to only unreliable sources should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Statistics

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

Non-notable per WP:WEB. Can find no mention of subject on any English-language website. References give are all in Korean and impossible to verify as WP:RS for anyone not fluent in the language. There's an Interwiki to a Korean version of the page, but this appears to have been deleted. MuffledThud (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/ I was able to use the english language version of this site as linked at the end of the article, and the parent organization may have notability ([4]), KOSIS, Korean Statistical Information Service [5], which has an English language version of its site. still, if this is just a private business, not a govt site, i dont see notability yet. its a good idea, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the English speaking world. (However if the decision goes the other way, can we please move it from its present ridiculous title to Korean Statistical Information Service (KoSIS)?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I didn't think to search on that name. There is a small amount of coverage on "Korean Statistical Information Service" from the English-language Korea Herald: [6], [7], [8], and it's linked from several universities' Korean Studies resource pages[9][10]. There is an icon on the English language page reading "Homo Statistics", but that appears to be only a nickname for it, since the title on the page is "Korean Statistical Information Service", so a rename would definitely be needed as you say. Regarding ownership, the news articles seem to indicate that it's state-owned, though it might have been spun off privately, I can't tell yet. Notability is borderline so far, but maybe it's worth keeping for a while longer, with notability tags, since notability is not as low as it had seemed. Maintenance tags were repeatedly removed before I AFD'd this though. Thoughts and ideas welcome... MuffledThud (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Korean Statistical Information Service Although I've never heard of such weird acronym, the site itself is managed by South Korean government, and fairly notable. The Korean sources are from notable newspapers, so it passes WP:RS.--Caspian blue 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Even after looking at the rename suggestion, I think it fails notability and sourcing requirements. Even if you think the Korean Statistical Information Service is notable, the article would require a complete rewrite to make any sense at all. Steven Walling 05:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Korean Statistical Information Service per Caspian blue's verification of the Korean sources. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. Even as a government-linked website - there just isn't much there. Plvekamp (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Węglarz

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

Unsourced BLP, very few sources on Google too. Being a "computer programmer" does not mean he is notable. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think there is enough to say that he is notable. He has a huge body of work and is a laureate of the Foundation for Polish Science. see this for his publications and more info about him ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites are 229, 90, 71, 43. When added to distinctions enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. Based on the citation counts, his work doesn't seem to have had that much impact. In Google Scholar, top cites (229, 90, 71, 71, 51, 50, 43) look reasonable, but there are not that many papers with dozens of citations; h-index only 15. I checked some other services, with similar results. ISI WoK: top cites 119, 54, 43, 38, 37, 32 and h-index 13. MathSciNet: top cites 12, 3, 3, 1, 1, 0. ACM portal: top cites 28, 23, 3, 2, 1, 0. (For the sake of calibration, I checked the citation counts of some computer scientists whom I know. A typical non-notable computer science professor seems to have more impressive citation counts; there are even some people who did their PhD approx. 5 years ago, are obviously not yet notable, and have roughly similar citation counts. I also checked some people with strange accents in their names, so that does not explain the seemingly low impact.) So I think something else than citation counts is needed to keep this article, and then we would need reliable third-party sources, which we don't seem to have. After all, this is a BLP without any references. — Miym (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added material from the Polish Wikipedia's article on him, including a list of the honorary doctorates that he has received. As a member of a national academy, he should be automatically notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough in the article to assert notability. Airplaneman ^talk 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to withdraw this nom. Pmlineditor ∞ 03:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Greg's Special Show

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

non notable - no indication of anything actually being made or broadcast. noq (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Delete both: All that I can find for this Twitter. Joe Chill (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G3 Really, a teen show is going to premiere on four venues, including one that programs to adults and has no sources at all, along with one editor? Clearly this should've been taken to speedy rather than AfD. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as a series that has never been aired, or for that matter been reliably documented in any way shape or form. Ditto for the movie. Fails WP:V in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krystine Walker

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

This person is not notable. It is poorly written. See WP:PEOPLE. Btilm 04:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her acting and dancing careers do not meet any of the criteria at WP:ENT (requires multiple significant roles, a large fan base or cult following, or a unique or innovative contribution to the field of entertainment). Her musical career does not meet any criterion at WP:NMUSIC. No sources are cited that would allow her to pass WP:N, and good faith Google searches reveal only directory listings and self-promotional material (MySpace, Twitter, etc). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about her in reliable sources under her stage name of "Astrid Plaen" or her (presumably) real name. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katastrophe (Rocco Kayiatos)

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

Multiple issues: nonnotable per WP:MUSIC, and probably a copyvio from http://teamclermont.com/roster/2116/katastrophe . May be a speedy on copyvio grounds, not sure. Chutznik (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~Snow Keep. Appears to have coverage sufficient to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the three refs provided, two are the same and are about Michelle Tea and only mention Kayiatos as her partner. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted one of those refs, which was just sitting at the top of the page. One of the articles is all about him, and I think the Tea article has more than the type of limited mention specifically described in WP:BAND. But there is more -- he seems to have a 4-page chapter in this book entitled From the inside out: radical gender transformation, FTM and beyond. He is also mentioned in this recent TimeOut article, has two paras on his views here, an interview that I can't get at here in Bay Windows, this article in The Advocate, and a brief review here (assuming that is a RS). All in all, I think he meets criterion 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now added some more refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does Rocco fail the GNG? Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this listing, the article only had one reference. One reference does not make notability. It has since been improved, and could be said to meet WP:MUSIC#Others #5. Therefore, I shall change my statement to Weak Keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the new refs, and reconsidering.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I've read about this transman hip-hop-er - the first in the world I believe - for years. At least the first openly trans hip hopper. modifying the search yields plenty of reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- SF Chronicle article suffices for major media coverage. SparsityProblem (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Benjiboi's find seems to prove ample media coverage. Dream Focus 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of documentary films, plus plenty of news coverage. --Larrybob (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is significantly more sourced than when it was AfD'ed. Meets WP:MUSICBIO 1-7-10. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 11:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Last paragraph of "music career" asserts notability. (Above implies that this was added after AfD?) - BalthCat (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: to Katastrophe (rapper) or something similar. - BalthCat (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, good catch! -- Banjeboi 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Jays (Gang)

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

Gang that fails WP:CLUB, garnered attention from one incident in a high school. Hardly enough notoriety for a Wikipedia page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't seem important enough to warrant an article. Lots of the article is unreferenced and irrelevant. Chutznik (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources are provided that show notability for the subject. Not seeing it, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerade (Ashley Tisdale Song)

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

Basically false. Released temporarily on iTunes as a promo. Never a marketed single. Has been recreated and redirected multiple times under multiple titles, so it's time to delete, salt, and potentially install a protected redirect under Masquerade (Ashley Tisdale song). —Kww(talk) 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt and pepper. Didn't chart. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guilty Pleasure (album). I checked Billboard and it hasn't charted, no awards, no notability. J04n(talk page) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Masquerade (Ashley Tisdale song) now redirects to Guilty Pleasure (album) and Masquerade (Ashley Tisdale) now redirects to Ashley Tisdale. It is only Masquerade (Ashley Tisdale Song) that a decision needs to be made on at this point. J04n(talk page) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My request for protection to accompany any redirection would apply to all versions.—Kww(talk) 11:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete qualifiers make for bad redirects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libertarianism. Not quite enough consensus to outright delete, so just a redirect. Any merger from the history is subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small-l libertarianism

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

This article is an essay without any sources or references. The term "small-l" is used to be clear the reference is not to the political party of that name. However Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouln't it just redirect to libertarianism. Any regional difference in the term will be dealt with in that article. The whole point of the term is to distinguish it from The Libertarian Party. Pirate^Argh!!1! 22:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Libertarian can be a disamg page pointint to libertarianism and the differetn libertarian parties, like the liberal page does now? Pirate^Argh!!1! 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to libertarianism. if someone can find a reference to the term being used, a mention in the article would make sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with libertarianism, maybe as a section? Eric S. Raymond describes it in his libertarianism FAQ. --Glantrischmozzle (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider Eric S. Raymond a reliable source on politics, as this is not his area of expertise. *** Crotalus *** 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found in popular literature as a term [11] Referred to as a specific term in books on the topic [12] [13] [14] Multiple thousands of blog usages (showing it is a term in current common usage). Thus meets notability, usage in books on the topic, and common usage. Collect (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what dictionaries are for. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for newspaper references? Seems that where substance is found on a topic which would not properly be placed in a dictionary, that it belongs in an "encyclopedia." [15], [16] magazine usage etc. Hence not a dictionary entry at that point. Collect (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. Verbal chat 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - even dictionaries don't usually list explanatory phrases of transient and localized use. Useful as disambiguation, so could just be a redirect to Libertarianism which has an otheruses link. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is common enough to deserve an entry in a dictionary, however, once defined, there isn't enough meat for an article separate from the obvious "libertarianism" which already exists. If the editor had provided some evidence that there is a rich history behind the phrasing, there might be potential for an article, but the article as it stands is nothing more than a dictionary definition.--SPhilbrick T 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep if find some WP:RS which I believe are out there. Merge to Libertarianism if not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doesn't need its own article. Silly title.~~ Exploding Boy 10:47, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep (or maybe rd to liberal), but it does need some work/clarification/expansion. The term small-l liberal is used in Australia. Dysprosia 10:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep, the term is reasonably common in Australia. Australia's major right wing party is, ironically, named the Liberal Party of Australia. It gets its name from the fact that it is a party of classical liberalism, with strong libertarian figures - like Jeff Kennett - and neo-liberals, as well as conservatives like John Howard. In other words, they are a right wing political party.

When most people, however, say liberal, they either mean left wing, or moderate right wing. And so it's fairly common for Australians to distinguish (in speech) between Liberal (as in the propper noun, "big L" name of the political party), and the "small l" liberal, as in the moderate liberals and left wing type of liberalism.

Such a distinction, for most of the western world, is irrelevant (for example, the main right wing American party is the Republicans), however it is made in Australia because Australian politics is backwards enough to name its main right wing party "Liberal". And, I agree, to somone unfamiliar with Australian politics it all probably does sound quite absurd. But, as wikipedia grows and some of the "small l" liberal politicians get pages, the term is bound to come up again. It's better to have a page ready to explain it when it does come up. AmishThrasher

Keep. I was originally planning to say "delete," but on reading the article itself and this discussion I think it's completely legitimate. It's just Australian, that's all. And if I saw a reference to it somewhere and didn't understand it, it would be completely reasonable to try looking it up in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 12:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Withdraw vote to delete. But is this the best name? The best place for this article? I turn this over to those who actually know something about it. Exploding Boy 12:31, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I always knew you Australians were upside-down ;-) Isomorphic 18:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good topic and good article IMO, and also of help to us Aussies... I remember being quite baffled years ago when I saw Mad Magazine's guide to political types describe liberals as people who "try to see the other guy's point of view while being mugged". Growing up in Aust, I had always thought liberal meant something akin to what Americans would identify with the Republican party (except our unions tend to the left). OK, we are a bit different down here. Andrewa 19:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important to Australian politics, and well written. --Stormie 06:25, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I see this expressed all over the place, esp. by classical liberals in the U.S. who want to distinguish themselves from Democratic Party or Green Party "big L" Liberals. I think this can be expanded beyond Australia easily. Stevietheman 17:51, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A term in frequent actual use. Wiwaxia 17:50, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A widely used term which makes an important distinction. In Canada, for example, the terms small-l liberal and small-c conservative are extremely useful in political discussion. Trontonian 15:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; relevant beyond Australia as well, as the above comment points out. Bearcat 07:27, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). Note that the nomination is very malformed. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaque chowdhury

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

Unauthorised and false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolwater 007 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per G12 JForget 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Cabinet Meeting

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

WP:NOT#NEWS:Story gained very little significant coverage and did not really affect anything; Article is in a bad state; See Talk:Maldives#Merge_of_Underwater_Cabinet_Meeting Jhbuk (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would Agree. While certainly an interesting news story, I do not believe it is notable for the encyclopedia at this time. Reubzz (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect (to an appropriate title), and merge to Maldives. May be appropriate there. No suggestion for an appropriate title, but clearly inappropriate for a stand-alone article, per WP:NOT#NEWS. (Delete would be fine. Keep is not.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a delete of the article and then posting a discussion the talk page of Maldives to add this to the article, would be a prudent compromise. Reubzz (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet researched this enough to give a positive recommendation, but I can see that merging with Maldives would, per WP:UNDUE, be the worst possible option. Can you really say that this really belongs in the 10,000 or so words of the most important information that can be included in the top-level article about a whole country? Would you suggest merging information about a single cabinet meeting into the United Kingdom article? If this belongs anywhere it's certainly not in the Maldives article, unless you think that we only have room for one article about the Maldives. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was to maybe put a couple of sentences of it (wikified and referenced) in a new part of the environment section about what is being done to raise awareness of global warming and what action is being taken. I should have made that clearer.Jhbuk (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of [17]. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gummo

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

This movie does not appear notable and the article appears almost like an ad made by the director. It carries Neutrality issues as well. I believe they are too deeply rooted in the article to fix by a cleanup Reubzz (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable film by a notable director. Plenty of coverage. No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 229 Google Books results should be fairly convincing, I would have thought?--Michig (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michig, here are my expanded reasonings behind this nomination. I have used this policy as the basis for the nomination. It lists different ways to determine notability criterion.

First, the policy says the following sources do NOT meet the definition of independant, reliable sources:

"Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database."

Note that the only external links on the page include the Internet Movie Database and the website of the DIRECTOR. These are not independant.

Further I believe the other critereon are not met. The movie has not been "widely distributed" since it is an independant film. Thus, it is not something that is truely 'notable'. Further, it is certainly not historically notable and lastly it has not won a major award.

My concern is lastly that many sections act as a giant ad for the production, since it is not 'Wikified' and carries long areas of direct quotes by the director. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the results returned by Google Books. There's plenty there to demonstrate notability. The film has been distributed internationally. Independent does not mean undistributed. It was also included in several film festivals, winning several awards:

Winner of the Special Jury Award at the Gijón International Film Festival in 1997.

Winner of the Open Palm Award - Special Mention at the Gotham Awards in 1998.

Winner of the KNF Award at Rotterdam International Film Festival in 1998.

Winner of the FIPRESCI Award - Honorable Mention at the Venice Film Festival in 1997.

Perhaps the article needs some work, but there is no valid reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please state how these awards meet the Wikipedia policy? Reubzz (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said the film had not won any major reviews and there it shows it won awards at the Rotterdam International Film Festival and at the Venice Film Festival, that's what he was answering. If you're not familiar with the notability of these festivals then you really should keep away from entries related to film. --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I think the film is much larger than you think Reubzz. I've seen copies of Gummo at blockbuster's before. It's a cult-classic. Not only are there a huge number of Google Book results, but a huge number of Google Scholar results on Gummo specifically. Endlessmug (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that makes it notable. Let us try to take out personal believes out of this as some people may of course believe this to be a very important movie. However I must stress that the policy quoted above would bar this as a notable article. Reubzz (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats what the dispute is about, eh? :) Reubzz (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 34 reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to that link, you will see that many of the reviews are from local (town) newspapers, and at least one of the reviews is blank. Reubzz (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, EfilmCritic, Film Threat, Variety, rec.arts.movies.reviews, Combustible Celluloid, The Movie Boy, Entertainment Weekly, FIlm-U-Net, Cheap DVDs Advisor, The Digital Bits, Los Angeles Times, Box Office Magazine, Film Critic, and New York Times. Most of these were found in a quick Google search. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Yes, they include such backwater rags as Variety, CNN, and the New York Times. Are you being serious?--Michig (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going through each source - the CNN article is a summary. The eFilm critic is not a major critic, just a blogger it appears. Film threat is a summary as well. Variety as well appears as a summary. It contains some theme review but just a comparison. The rotton tomotoes article literally says the movie is boring and is not notable. Combustable celluloid, first a random website, second it has again a summary. The movieboy one is a random critic with another summary. Reubzz (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand notability and what a reliable source is. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following the specific process for film notability. It has a listing of things that would met the criteria. Reubzz (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mainly been participating in AFDs for over a year and your belief is flawed. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination; following WP:BEFORE is a requirement, not an option. Suggest swift withdrawal. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources mentioned by people earlier in this discussion appear to me to meet WP:N. It isn't Star Wars, but it does appear to be a film that Wikipedia can use an article about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I type in "Gummo" to LexisNexis Academic, there are 72 results, 8 from the New York Times. There is plenty of critical commentary out there on Gummo.Endlessmug (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Mr. Chill. The legend has saved another article (or so it seems). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these journals/essays/books provide additional critical commentary from the scholarly world:

-Journals--

"The Future of Cinema: Harmony Korine" The Film Journal Adrian Gargett, 2002

"Dolce Stil Novo: Harmony Korine's Vernacular" CR: The New Centennial Review Thomas Carl Wall, 2004

"Harmony Korine's Gummo: The Compliment of Getting Stuck with a Fork" Film Studies, Issue 5 J.J. Murphy, 2004

'Seeing or believing' : Harmony Korine and the cinema of self-destruction New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film, Volume 3 Duncan White, 2005

Indecipherable Films: Teaching Gummo Cinema Journal 47, No. 1 Jeffrey Sconce, 2007

"I Panic the World": Benevolent Exploitation in Tod Browning's Freaks and Harmony Korine's Gummo The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol 42 Jay McRoy and Guy Crucianelli, 2009

Genre-Fucking: Harmony Korine's Cinema of Poetry Wide Screen, Vol 1 Tom Austin O'Connor, 2009

--Books--

American Independant Cinema "Moonshine Maverick" Geoffrey Macnab, 1998 "The Beat-up Kid" Danny Leigh, 2000

The End of Cinema As We Know It "The Case of Harmony Korine" Robert Sklar, 2001

Purity and Provocation: Dogma 95 M Hjort, S MacKenzie 2003

New Cinematographers Jean-Yves Escoffier, 2004

New Punk Cinema "What is the Neo-Underground and What Isn't: A First Consideration of Harmony Korine" Benjamin Halligan, 2005

American Independent Cinema "The Moments Between: Decentred, Downplayed, or Fragmented Narrative" Geoff King, 2005

Endlessmug (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could be approved, of course, but to recommend it for deletion because of this is nonsensical. You obviously have a strange vendetta against the film, as exampled by your responses above. --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Gummo is one of the most important films of the 90s. This nomination is absurd. Smetanahue (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, to stamp Gummo as an irrelevant, non-notable film would be to do so for all of Korine's work as Gummo is his most-popular film (aside from Kids which he only wrote). Are you prepared to mark for deletion all the articles regarding his other films? This seems absurd. Endlessmug (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the film didnt quite fulfil the specific criteria of notability for films (which i believe it does), the guidelines for notability are just that, guidelines. We can allow articles to stand on subjects that are marginally nonnotable by the letter of the guidelines, but have other factors which qualify them. For me, this being a work by a highly notable writer/director is enough. We do have articles for works, even early and obscure works, by highly notable people. AFD is best applied to "WTF" articles whose subject is bafflingly obscure, and is less effective when the subject is easily recognized by many people interested in the field, as demonstrated here. at 3 million plus (a number humans cannot directly comprehend, its so large), our standard for notability simply has to include this movie. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If i may be so bold, reubzz, i suggest you spend more time editing here at WP before attempting to make such a strong argument for deletion for what is obviously a notable (if obscure by some standards) film. the reviews cited are not summaries, they are reviews, and if variety and nyt review it, its notable, period. i appreciate your enthusiasm here, and passion for making sure notability is clear, but you need more experience, and the only way to get it is with time and effort (good start, though, if a little rocky) and i am by NO means an expert, having edited for only a year. please take this in the spirit offered, as encouragement to work here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per pretty much everyone. Reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Entertainment Weekly should usually be enough to establish notability for a film. Furthermore, the fact that the film was the subject of a 14-page scholarly article published seven years after the film's release indicates continuing interest in the film. Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing rather than deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film shows notability by reviews, coverage in books, and awards won. Also per Metropolitan90. ("IDONTLIKEIT" is not a good basis for deletion, but I must say that for its reported animal cruelty, I truly don't like it). Edison (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No animals were harmed making Gummo, just to tell you. The cat is not actually drowning. It's a movie. Endlessmug (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film was the subject of debate on an episode of The X Factor when Simon Cowell chose a song from the film to be performed by one of the contestants during their "Songs from the Movies" episode. Hell, even if no one knew of it before, 14 million Brits have heard of it now! (YouTube clip of Simon referencing Gummo here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFP5AbRBkQE&feature=player_embedded ) Joellevand (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs to be re-written to meed Wikipedia standards. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW. Could an admin please close this to prevent any further embarrassment to the nominator? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Please! Endlessmug (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting ready to say the same thing. We're in a blizzard already! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 5 days now! Endlessmug (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Odd nomination that I cannot help but think is related to Jamie Archer singing Crying (song) on the X Factor literally minutes before the nomination [18]. Snow please. Quantpole (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, article has been moved to the canonical title, thereby generating more ghits. Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohs block

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

This is a minor psychological test. It scores a massive 95 Google hits ([19]) and my suspicion is somewhat piqued by the fact that its sole source is a dictionary definition and the creator is a member of the Kohs family. It does not appear to be notable, and if it is, this article does not explain why. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a significant test, fails GNG. Triplestop x3 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would think the article's title might perhaps be a punnish reference to the status of the article creator's account on Wikipedia, though the creation seems to precede any entries in that account's block log. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the subsequent commentary, I'm !voting Keep, possibly with a move to a more descriptive name (either Kohs Block Test or Kohs Block Design Test); whichever name is picked, the others should redirect to it. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found several articles online which verify that this test has been in use since at least the 1930s, is still in use, and get 11,000 ghits for the topic. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Kohs Block Test to remove teh funny. Crafty (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but move to Kohs block design test) not sure where you got 95 ghits from, but there are 669 from google scholar alone [20], indicating the test is in widespread use, or is at least widely published in journals. Google books has even more results [21] though some of them appear to be journal articles and therefore show up in both searches. Either way, seems significant enough to me. Viridae ^Talk 04:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Though I had better note that I first came across this afd by way of the notification's on TheKohser's talk page and subsequently found the WR thread) Viridae ^Talk 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. Not doing your research before putting this up for deletion just plays into the hands of Wikipedia critics... [22] ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... but it is kinda funny! (guy, you've been played for a boob, I'm afraid!) - an 'I came here straight here from wikipedia review, and it's just bloomin obvious that this is a'.... keep Privatemusings (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Step off, JzG, and please write some articles. Cla68 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Ripberger (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extend or Suspend until real consensus can be reached I'm pretty sure there are editors out there who know what to do with this article's information to make it useful and accessible to real readers, but until there is significant contribution by uninvolved knowledgeable editors, there will be no real consensus or any chance for this information to survive on its own merits. Until then, this article is just another pawn in a tired, overdrawn feud that has no life left except what's kindled on talk pages, here and elsewhere. Flowanda | Talk 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Viridae^Talk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Flowanda | Talk 06:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you trying to say? This nom should be withdrawn and speedy closed, the nominator failed to do their research properly. Sincerely, an uninvolved (and knowledgable?) editor. ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mis-named article created by controversial editor and AfD created by equally controversial admin. Many comments/votes by opinionated editors and admins. At least three editors who came to the AfD via a discussion on a forum critical of Wikipedia. Knowledgeable means subject experts in both the real person and the subject. Uninvolved means editors don't get shredded elsewhere for disagreeing here. Flowanda | Talk 08:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's probably time for this nomination to be withdrawn or closed in a speedy fashion. Crafty (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
e/c on the delsorting, which was done in order to bring in subject experts. I don't mind if it is withdrawn; WP:SNOW nearly applies as well. This article has no feelings, unlike a lot of our BLPs which are treated far worse at AFD. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (snowball) deletion, accidental duplicate of Shiva, not useful as either a separate page or a redirect. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva "The Supreme God"

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

Delete. Page exists at Shiva. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salted JForget 00:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este

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

Set of articles on a New York based branch of the Hapsburgs. Articles provide links to sources, which, however, on examination, do not mention the subjects. No sources whatsoever found to verify assertions made in the articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as related articles created by same author which fail verification:

Note: To avoid confusion for anyone checking, there is an Archduke Christoph, son of Archduke Carl Christian of Austria born 1988, who is indeed in line for succession, but his biographical details are completely different, beyond there being room for any possible confusion on the part of the article creator. It also has to be noted that his entry on the Line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne was overwritten by an IP editor in the last day. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a scholar of the Habsburg family, I can certify the biographical details of Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este are completely legitimate. Archduke Christoph of Austria, the son of Archduke Carl Christian of Austria, is not of the house of Austria-Este and, I agree, is a completely different individual. As you see in the article, the ancestry matches up. I cannot comment on the references as they lead to general monarchical databases yet I am willing to certify that the information provided in the articles is correct.
— Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Well, I am not sure what you mean by saying that "As you see in the article, the ancestry matches up."; what reliable source are you saying that it matches up with? Nor am I quite sure why you can't comment on the references introduced, for example those using thepeerage.com, as you introduced many of them. For example, the first version of the Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este article, an article you created, contains two references, one using thepeerage.com and one using "Royal Genealogies Part 10"; neither of the two sources used mentions the subject in any form whatsoever. As for the possibilty that the URL might have changed in the meantime, a Google site search does not reveal any entries for any of the subjects. The references used in the articles prior to the AFD, all of which were web based, all failed verifiability when checked. As for the sources added after this Articles for Deletion discussion was initiated, they, alas, all are presented as sources without inline citations, which means it is hard to work out what they are actually sourcing. For example, the book "Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs: 1815-1835" is used to as a reference to source the Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. The book is available as a Limited Preview on Google Books, and a search does not reveal a mention of the subject; this might of course be a limitation in the Google book process, but I have to ask why a book on an interesting period in Italian history, when Venice was being shuffled around between France, Austria and Lombardy, would be a source for an article on a living person born in 1992. I have to say, and directly to avoid any misunderstanding, that I question all the sources added to the articles since this AFD was initiated. I also have to wonder why the articles assert that they contain extracts from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, as all the subjects were born many decades later. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note While I was typing the above, many of the references I referred to above were changed or removed by an IP editor, so might I suggest that anyone contributing to this AFD might want to look carefully at the histories of the artices nominated? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The references I added to the articles pertain to the ancestry of said individuals ie. their ancestors. Persons mentioned in such references are Archduke Ferdinand Karl, Elizabeth Franziska, Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, Margherita of Bourbon-Parma, ect. The book you mention above, on Venetia, mentions not only the house of Austria-Este, rulers in Italy during the period, but contains genealogical information about the individuals whose pages these are.
— Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Comment. In case somebody doesn't know: Austria and Hungary have both been republics since 1918. Austria abolished all titles of nobility completely (i.e. they did not even survive in people's names) in 1919. I guess something similar happened in Hungary, in the communist era if not earlier. Thus since 1918 there has been no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian throne. Hans Adler 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must insist that all claimants to the imperial throne are notable in the sense that they are members of one of the most important and famous imperial families in history. By questioning the validity of this article, wouldn't you question the validity of any Habsburg descendant who isn't important? If so, please look at the page of Archduke Joseph Arpad of Austria.
  — Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

If you are worried that I might be inconsistent in my rejection of Gotha entry spam, I suggest that you have a look at the deletion discussion for Maria Huber. See WP:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Wikipedia has fairly well established notability standards based on more or less objective criteria that do not give extra credits for having a fancy name, living in the past, or dreams of restoration. Being part of a notable family makes you likely to appear in a genealogy article about that family. It doesn't make you notable, i.e. it doesn't entitle you to your own separate article. Being part of a notable family makes it easier to get into the papers by leading a huge enterprise or publicly making a fool of yourself. It doesn't make you notable if you choose not to pursue any such public activity.

::::Comment As to your referencing the discussion of Her Royal Majesty Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sgmaringen, that article has not been deleted though apparently her notability is in question by people like you. I must argue that the notability standard in this case is subjective. 63.139.66.1 (talk)

There is nothing in these articles to suggest that these people are notable. Having grandparents, parents, spouses and children doesn't make you notable. Fifth place in the election for the Lord Mayor of London doesn't make you notable unless the press takes notice and writes something nontrivial about you. And this is even more true for abolished thrones. Hans Adler 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a place on Wikipedia for some of the information you are trying to include, but not in a separate article for every single person. See e.g. de:Stammliste des Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen or de:Este (Familie). (I couldn't locate your family there, though.) But the general rule is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Britannica doesn't honour every single icecream flavour or Pokemon card with its own article, and neither do we. Hans Adler 14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD of the other article was disrupted and ended with no consensus. The objectively correct result would have been deletion or merge.

If you want to save your articles from deletion you will have to argue why the subjects meet our notability guidelines. See WP:Notability (people). Under which section do you claim that any of these is notable? Note that special notability guidelines for people with a title were once proposed, but failed to get consensus. Hans Adler 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These people are notable under general notability guidelines because they are mentioned in reliable sources (check the books) as notable. Archduke Fulvio Marco conducted a covert operation in the 1970s to contact the Tamil United Liberation Front in Sri Lanka on behalf of the Italian government. While you argue that people notability for people with a title have failed to get consensus, this hasn't ensured the deletion of the pages above mentioned.--Knyphausen56 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read the relevant guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Simple mention in a reliable source is insufficient.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must be particularly strict about such things because in the past we have had cases of people inventing noble ancestors and creating hoax pages for them on Wikipedia. That was clearly not the case for Mrs. Huber (although she does not appear to be notable), but it can't be ruled out for the people under discussion. Hans Adler 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment All true of course, but claimants might, and I stress the word might, be notable under general notabilty as claimants if they are the subject of significant coverage. While I can't see that any of the subjects of articles here do that, as for example the only mention I can find are the Wikipedia articles and they don't seem to be generating any coverage, the articles do include (or should I say did include) explicitly mentioned sources that do (or did) not verify any of the assertions made. I brought the articles here on verifiability grounds but yes, even if the articles had passed WP:V, there would have been notability issues. Claimants to a long-defunct throne, unless they are the subject of coverage in their own right, would hardly be automatically notable. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I just found one instance of the IP from Princeton injecting additional offspring into an article which is not backed by the source. You have already reverted it. This doesn't look good at all. Hans Adler 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the substantial (as far as i can tell, there isn't even unsubstantial) coverage of this person in reliable sources that would establish them as sufficiently notably to qualify for inclusion under the GNG and BIO guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt the other two blp afds are linked to this one? Just read them as well. Delete all three.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Investigate I think all the sources listed (if acceptable and verifiable) should be consulted before any judgment should be made.--Chrisco123 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete all. I have gone through the editing history of the article creator Knyphausen56 and the IP that Knyphausen is using when logged out. On closer inspection this is an obvious hoax in order to fake royal ancestry for a 17-year-old. The two parents are also hoaxes, and information in various legitimate articles was manipulated to fit the hoax: The name of a spouse was changed to a non-existent person who appears in Christoph Franz' genealogy, or the name or date of birth of a son or daughter was changed, or additional offspring was added, or the fact that a person died unmarried was removed. All these edits were without explanation. All sources presented originally failed verification. All sources that were presented later are books that are relatively hard to obtain, and no page numbers are given.

For details see the sockpuppet report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Knyphausen56. Hans Adler 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep until a full investigation of all sources is conducted. --Chrisco123 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. "chrisco123" is a CU confirmed sock of the article author, who also owns the IPs that have been causing the disruption here and appears to be a rather immature student at the Lawrenceville School. Move to shut this all down as speedy delete, and to salt all the fictional names that are redlinked to slow this child down.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now urge salting of all three given the ongoing hoaxing by this little kid. It's pathetic that this stuff is allowed to drag on like this (it's also pathetic that a lot of his vandalism i've reverted is to roll back to similarly unsourced, albiet more plausible, material but that's another matter.).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While issues raised here and elsewhere need to be resolved, and I appreciate that a lot of the delay might be a human resources availability problem, I would recommend that consideration be given to salting some of the redlinks, particularly in the Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este article, as they don't seem to have any basis in reality. I have to agree with Bali about the problem of reverting edits on a completely unsourced article; that was one of the reasons I had to raise the issue elsewhere. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all, clearly hoaxes and SALT. ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep this is a malicious anti-monarchist attack.--68.36.205.151 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 68.36.205.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep the attack on this page is unjustifiable and is perpetrated in a manner which suggests collusion between the parties involved.--Knyphausen56 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: Knyphausen56 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page has been attacked while none of the sources listed have been checked. This page should be kept as, after inspection of the sources, the veracity of these pages will be confirmed.--Chrisco123 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate !vote: Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Delete and salt - these articles are hoaxes, and they should go away promptly. It worries me, though, that I was able to find Princeton-area IPs editing related articles all the way back to 2007 (see here and here). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources seem to check out.--Rr456 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Rr456 has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is a sock of the article creator.[reply]
Keep the sources appear to be genuine.--74.95.177.244 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Note - this IP is registered to The Lawrenceville School, like the other IP socks that have been disrupting this AfD. JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - if this nuisance continues and more Lawrenceville School socks appear, consider range-blocking the school and/or communicating with the school authorities. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three hoaxes. - dwc lr (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and agree it's time to contact the school administration about this. There's a list of phone numbers at [23] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Eby

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

Delete per WP:PERSON and WP:BURDEN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced, and is getting a medal deemed notable enough for an article? Not notable. --HighKing (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Penguins (TV series)

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

No sourcing to prove the existence of this show in production, best the article can muster is some mention from the lead voice actor but no link to verify. A few searches yielded nothing even mentioning it so should it actually exist (which doesn't seem likely) it might be too soon to create an article. treelo _radda 19:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M/A-COM Technology Solutions

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

Promotional advert for a non-notable company, started by a WP:SPA of the same name. Fails all notability guidelines--just another minor business trying to spam Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was able to find some references, and I think the article is now relatively neutral. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been deleted at least once before. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to clean up copyvio, and Redirect to original company M/A-COM. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious copright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I just have no idea what is going on. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Foundation

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dax Foundation

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

Delete. Dax Foundation does not legally exist. There are no corporation documents. There are no IRS documents. The CEO Dave Weisman admitted to Santa Monica City Council that the corporation does not legally exist. It is merely a website. None of the accomplishments of this non-existent corporation can be verified.LouisBrownstone (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. The article includes several references to this foundation from reliable sources. I really do not know the facts about this foundation, but I watched the video in which Weisman allegedly admitted that the foundation did not legally exist. He does not say in the video that the foundation does not legally exist. I am not claiming that it does legally exist, just that the allegation that Weisman admitted it did not exist is inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. There are no reliable main stream independent references to the supposed foundation. In the wiki entry one reference is a press release which the "foundation" wrote themselves. Another is an article about tigers in which Dave Weisman comments and says he's with a "foundation" yet the foundation has nothing to do with the article. The other references have to do with an Oscar which Dave Weisman bought. Again, nothing to do with the foundation. There is no valid mainstream media references for this organization which doesn't even legally exist. I just viewed the YouTube video. At 3:53 Dave Weisman states "it is a public benefit corporation founded in June 2007 that is transitioning into a 509 a3 corporation. It is not a non-profit corporation." This could not be verified by any means through government sites. I believe if Wiki allows this page to stay they will be contributing to fraud on the public.LACityAnimals (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The Dax Foundation is an active California Public Benefit Corporation as is indicated on the California Business Portal. As for IRS status, that is not published until an IRS determination letter has been approved. This may take up to five years from the date of submission. There are dozens of articles and stories on the Dax Foundation published by reputable sources. Just hit Dax Foundation on Google and dozens, including BBC, CBS, Los Angeles Times, etc pop right up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninggloria (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE DELETE. I just went to the California Business Portal and searched. Here is the link so everyone can search. http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/list.html There is no listing for "dax foundation." What is this bull? I have three non-profit organizations of my own. I got my IRS determination letter in six weeks. That five years story is bull. There are press releases written by Dave Weisman on the internet. Some media picked up his press releases and reposted them. There is no independent verification. Can I start a page called the Roberta Ortega foundation, call myself a public benefit corporation, never make it legal, then just write phony press releases saying I have $75,000,000 and saved rare mice on an island in New Guinea? If so, I will be starting the Roberta Ortega foundation page if the Dax page stays up. In fact, I just found the form to report a fake corporation, filling it out now, in the mail by morning. Wiki, don't let the public get defrauded by this non-existent organization. Weisman should start a real corporation and file 990 tax forms like the rest of us so we can all see what he's really doing.RobertaOrtega (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I just read the last edit on the page. That refers to a corporation called "Dax." It is not the "Dax Foundation." I don't see Dave's name there. IRS does not recognize a "dax" corporation. There is no "dax" corporation in guidestar.com . I see no board of directors listed online but I think you made a huge mistake. Jennifer Conrad would never be on his board of directors, see recent news. Weisman thinks is great to barbarically declaw cats while Dr. Conrad is totally against the inhumane practice. She would have never been on any board where they offer "free declaw and ear cropping surgeries." She is absolutely against declawing and ear cropping. There are no "five Dax clinics in LA." Please, provide addresses. I don't know who wrote that entry but that is very wrong and disturbing. Also, most of the activities which Dax takes credit for are unverified and were done years before the entity ever exists. These events took place in 1999, 2003 when the group was supposedly not formed until mid 2007. Something is fishy here. LouisBrownstone (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "delete" recommendation as the nominator is already being taken into account and doesn't need to be duplicated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I reviewed the Cal Business portal and sec of state documents for Dax and see that it is a valid and active california corporation with three directors. I also viewed the corporation's IRS Letter of Determination request from 2007 and it lists the company as a valid corporation seeking private foundation status. The company has verifiable links to several charitable animal, human, and arts programs. It also conducted business in 2007 selling an academy award. I reviewed the website and believe that the comment that the foundation offers taildocking and declawing was placed maliciously and I removed them until a source is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninggloria (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "keep" recommendation above is already being taken into account and doesn't need to be duplicated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My goodness I had no idea there were so many changes to this article recently! I drafted and placed this article six months ago after being in a meeting with the Executive Director of the Dax Foundation, Mr. Weisman. I joined a task force they are heading inwhich we are aggressively addressing drought conditions in East Africa. There is nothing non-existent or mysterious about the project. It is wonderful! I have no knowledge of their involvement with cat declawing, but have been exposed to many other programs that are very worthwhile and humanitarian. I am not aware of any part of the artcle that is untrue or misleading. I have just done a search on the Dax Foundation and have seen 25 independent articles from reliable sources on their work in just the last 120 days. Do I need to post them?AndreaSheffield (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Morninggloria. One, you voted twice. Can't do that. Two, how can we view these corporation documents? Please, post a link or I don't believe you. Dr. Jennifer Conrad most certainly was not on the Board of Directors. She is against declawing, ear, tail cropping. I searched the internet and only see press releases written by Dave Weisman which some media copy/pasted. Anyone can write a press release and say they have $75,000,000. In this case it's not true. I saw the Santa Monica City Council video. The Councilmembers called Dave Weisman the CEO of Dax on the fact that the corporation is not a legal non-profit. Plus, how can it take credit for things which happened years before it was formed. Another thing, their "corporate offices" are an efficiency suite where people just get mail. There are quite a few businesses with the same exact address. AndreaSheffield, are you being paid by Dave Weisman to consult, post, speak, lobby?Arte de America (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arte de America. I'm not sure what your motivations are in making your mean-spirited comments, but you clearly are an angry and bitter person. I am not employed by the Dax Foundation in any way and chose to document some of their good work that I have first-hand knowledge of. That is the what makes Wikipedia such a powerful informational tool. I will be contacting Mr. Weisman and sharing your views and the status of this article with him. I did not receive their permission to post this site, but will update them on what you and others are attempting to turn it into. As for the money in the foundation I have no idea how much other than in participating in private budget meetings and seeing a balance sheet. I also am involved with two of their programs that are very well-funded. I am not aware of any press releases as you call them they have ever been made about money. Please provide the link to this release. As for the video you discuss I watched it this morning and saw no mention of what you are talking about. I saw Mr. Weisman state that the company was formed in 2007 and is going through some type of IRS certification. Just because you keep saying it does not make it true. Please review the Dax Foundation website www.daxfoundation.org and it states clearly that they are opposed to elective declaw except in the case that the animal's life is threatened. Doesn't sound to me like someone who condones earcropping and declawing. You should move on with your life and do something important rather than tearing down the good work of a good group.AndreaSheffield (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I was at the Santa Monica City Council meeting. The councilmember asked Weiss if his corporation was a legal non-profit. He said "no." The IRS doesn't recognize "Dax" or "Dax Foundation." It doesn't take two years to get the IRS letter. It takes a few weeks. I see within the last two days Dave added an application to become a public benefit corporation to his website. We don't know if he sent it in. It's not signed. Hmm, maybe I'll send this to the IRS for him. He lists income but has never filed a 990 tax return. I see on that application that he lists Dr. Conrad as the Director. She is definitely not the director. To Andrea, Dave spoke for the Dax foundation at city council. He stated he is FOR declawing cats. There's a video on YouTube. Search his name and watch the video. Dr. Conrad is opposed to declawing. Search Google news. KittiesNeedClaws (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KittesNeedClaws/RobertaOrtega/LACityAnimals/MaryCummins/LACyberstalker, or whoever you are.. You're "facts" are incorrect and Metropolitan90 and others have pointed that out to you already. Maybe you should actually watch the video that you are referring to, as have the reputable Wikipedia members that have told you that your claims are false. You are incorrect about the mechanics of an IRS determination letter, you are incorrect about the status of the Dax Foundation, and you are incorrect about the lack of verifiable links to reliable sources for the Dax Foundation. There is also no application to become a public benefit corporation letter that I could find on the Dax site. I spoke with him about your comments and your vandalism and he laughed and asked me to take down my article. I have watched the video in Santa Monica and he specifically stated that he was AGAINST the declawing of cats, but opposed a ban that would eliminate a last resort option to save the life of an animal. You really are a sick person and I encourage you to seek help. As for Dr. Conrad having been on the board of the Dax Foundation he stated that she has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaSheffield (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - AndreaSheffield, or whoever (Dave) you are, the page is down. You voted to keep it then you deleted it. The top of that pdf document says "Application for Recognition of Exemption." It is not a determination letter. It's an application that is not signed. In fact, it's dated October 2007 yet they included financial information from all of 2008 and 2009, fishy. A determination letter is a one page signed letter on IRS letterhead which states "you are now recognized as a non-profit corporation." Even before you get that letter you get a letter confirming receipt of your application. For you to look at that "application" and call it a determination letter is crazy. Arte de America (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wolfington

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete The article reads like a promotional piece and fails to denote notability. He's a businessman, for sure, and was a finalist in Entrepreneur of the Year in 2006. Sure, Bella the movie is notable, but the producer? Or the fact he was CEO of a company that was acquired? It was deleted earlier with a PROD notice, but has since been restored (the restoring admin received an email requesting restoration). HighKing (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wow, hard to believe a self-promotional article like this one, so lacking in biographical notability, has survived on the project for this long. Looks like a good candidate for a speedy. The guy was a runner-up a few years ago for some business prize that itself is not notable? Give me a break. Any admin who sees this should speedy it forthwith. Qworty (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against a speedy, given that the article is a recreated prod. Let the nomination run its time. And I'm adding a delete, agree with above reasons. --Tone 22:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotion, fails WP:BIO. Bravedog (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete !!!! - all the above reasons Cynof Gavuf 11:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A somewhat early close, but frankly this was doomed to end in no consensus as soon as the canvassing started. Protip to everyone for future reference: if you are looking for a different result than the last AfD, don't notify the same people! Once again, this is a crappy list filled with trivia and cruft that would much better be served to be integrated into another article, but (once again) that's an editorial decision. (Obligatory AfD is not cleanup goes here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Star Wars

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Nominating again after the last discussion came to a dead end. This unencyclopedic article is nothing but the plot of a film series sourced from 100% primary sources (bar the occasional policy-failing fan forum). Due to its excessive reliance on the book Star Wars: The Essential Chronology, there are some copyright violation concerns and the reliance on the films themselves brings up WP:SYNTH issues. Original research issues are rife too and there are notability issues; the Star Wars series is notable, but is its chronology? Possible transwiki to a suitable home. Dale 18:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article relies excessively on the book Star Wars: The Essential Chronology, which is not a primary source, how can it be sourced from 100% primary sources? --Lambiam 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the discussion last time, or a talk page comment, established that it was a primary source as it was funded, commissioned or authorised by Lucas (Google the cover - it uses the official logo). Dale 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that was established. Do you have a diff? The fact that the logo was used does not mean that the book is not independent. I also think the notvote template is unnecessary - when you slap one of those at the top of the page before you even get any SPAs commenting it looks like a scare tactic, implying that many/most of the supports that follow are likely to be ILIKEITs. -- Vary | (Talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Amazon sees that the book mentioned is part of a series by a range of authors. All of the books bear the star wars logos, official photos etc. Lucasfilm would not allow a third-party group to make money off him in such a way. They're official. Bravedog (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't mean it's a primary source. It seems there was some disagreement in past AFDs over whether it qualifies as independent, judging by the most recent closing statement, but the authors of the book only summarized and recounted the information presented in the source material, which makes the book a secondary source whoever authorized it. -- Vary | (Talk) 15:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having proper sources is a reason to FIX an article, not to delete it. Maybe that was included as the "cherry on top" of the other reasons, but it appears from the responses above to have derailed the other, more relevant, reasons. - BalthCat (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I see nothing wrong with this article as it lists the timeline of the Star Wars universe. --Victory93 (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a valid reason to keep the article? Dale 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some sort of article that covers the fictional history of Star Wars should exist, but this isn't it, it needs to be rewritten. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Star Wars page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep well referenced article, in the alternative, merge with Star Wars. Ikip (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only primary references. How is that "well-referenced"? Bravedog (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source is the films, books etc. Encyclopedias and timelines about the films, books etc are secondary by definition. Whether they are or are not independant of the subject might be disputed, but they are undoubtedly secondary sources.The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination just tells us that the article has problems but 99% of our articles are less than perfect and it is our editing policy to improve them not delete them. I find no difficulty in adding an academic source which discusses the way in which the creators amend and maintain the official canon. Given the cultural importance of this work, we should clearly cover the topic well and deletion will not assist in this. The matter is notable and so should be preserved. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural importance"? The films are culturally important, the timeline is not. Bravedog (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per great nomination. Excessive plot, non-notable, potential copyright violation - this article is a mess. No amount of editing will fix the first two policies I mentioned; I smell WP:ILIKEIT on this discussion. Bravedog (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancrap listing of plot elements and events. No improvements since previous AFD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and heavily trim into Star Wars there is a place for Wikipedia to explain the chronology of Star Wars; however, this article is not it. I also notice that the article for the franchise makes no mention of the temporal setting of the films. Here, we can solve two birds with one stone. We can merge a basic chronology into the Setting section, like "the films take place over approximately forty years in a dating system centered on the Battle of Yavin, the climatic battle of Episode IV; the prequel trilogy takes place 32, 22, and 19 years before the battle; and the sequels to A New Hope take place three and four years after the battle, respectively. Licensed "expanded universe" material take place between [100,000 BBY and 180 ABY] and focus on the discovery of the Force, the creation of the Sith and Jedi orders, and galactic politics". Sceptre ^(talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this in universe plot summary content fork insuffienctly supported by reliable independent sourcs that might justify it standing on its own. Elements of this article are already covered in Wikipedia's voluminous articles on star wars.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to improvements since previous AfD and as it is inexcessive coverage of a notable topic backed by numerous reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't melodramatise the situation. This does not qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SPEEDY, nobody has mentioned personal preference (but for the record, I quite like Star Wars) and this diff shows that the article has barely changed since the previous AfD. Also, where are these "numerous reliable sources" you speak of? Dale 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies in the sense that no reason exists to red link (it is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, etc. and has a valid redirect location in the worst case scenario per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. As for sources, this one is covered in so many that all you have to do is just check Google Books and scores of magazines. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio (subjective) does not mean that the article should be kept. Do you not agree that it fails WP:PLOT, WP:SYNTH and all the other policies mentioned in the lead? And without linking to these "Google Books sources", there is no way to prove they exist. You're gonna have to do the work. Dale 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not fail any of those as it is an appropriate spinout that puts countless other articles on the series into an organzied and coherent context, much like a table of contents. Anyway, a "Star Wars Timeline" is discussed here. And as for WP:PLOT, that is about one of the most disputed, consensus lacking guidelines we have as any rveiew of its talk page reveals. We cannot deny that the subject is notable and relevant and of interest to millions of people around the world and as indicated is certainly something addressed in various sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, here are the links you want to prove the google books sources exist link one, link two.--chaser (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy close would be sensible as, per WP:DEL, "Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." Also, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD reached no consensus, so this is far from disruptive. We're just trying to gather consensus. Dale 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your biased canvassing indicates otherwise. Please see WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of the reasons provided by the nominator, only notability is grounds for outright deletion of this article. That said, the SW franchise is unquestionably notable, and a timeline is sensible considering the broad timeframe represented in the notable films, cartoons, games, and books. The solution here is not to delete, but to improve. (Laziness is also not an excuse to delete.) - BalthCat (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: See thread on talk page regarding votestacking. I think I've resolved the issue in this AFD by notifying everyone else.--chaser (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional works are supposed to receive a concise plot summary. This is far from concise. Considering that there are 59 unique articles about Star Wars characters, 14 articles about Star Wars locations, and 4 articles about conflicts in Star Wars, it is apparent that "concise" is the last word that could be used to describe the plot summary of Star Wars.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as coordinator of WP:STARWARS. The topic of Star Wars is huge and sprawling, encompassing hundreds of works, including films, books, animated series', amusement park rides, and even that one thing we all want to forget. Having a short, concise plot summary is impossible. A chronology is one of the best ways I can think of to sort it all out, though I might like to set up some different formatting that would allow the option of organizing it by real-life date of the work it appeared in. The topic is notable, the events are verifiable, having appeared in primary sources and secondary sources about them (though some unsourced content could be trimmed), and OR is not a reason to delete. AFD is not cleanup. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For complicated series, articles like this are a practical necessity to keep things straight. They can best be seen as a navigational article. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominating an article repeatedly because you didn't get the results you wanted previously, is wrong. And how can a series be notable, and not its chronology? Does this page not meet requirements for a list? It aids in navigation, plenty of blue links. List of battles shows many list that list the battles from various time periods and nations. Many other articles exist that handle timelines of things. Can a timeline of major events not be notable, but all the events mentioned are? I don't think so. There is absolutely nothing gained by deleting a list, which many will find interesting, and useful in finding out information about something they care about, plus links to other articles. Dream Focus 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Dream Focus. The last discussion did not come to a dead end, it was an AFD that ended in no consensus. It's a helpful list to aid navigation and the arguments for deletion are not better now than they were 6 months ago. A chronology of notable events, basically a list of them, is as notable as the events it lists. The article serves (or can serve!) for a overview of when the events in different notable media are taking place within the fictional chronology, thus allowing the reader an easier overview of those events. WP:OR, WP:V or WP:SYNTH issues can be addressed through editing. On a side note, the canvassing mentioned by A Nobody on the talk page was completely unacceptable since it only notified those editors who have previously shared the nominator's viewpoint. Regards So Why 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's explore this logic for a bit. WP:NOT#PLOT calls for us to have concise plot summaries of fictional works. In the case of Star Wars, the plot summary has been overexpanded to the point that it consumes 77 articles, being cross-indexed by four categories. I can't see any justification for a 77 article plot summary. Why isn't the better approach to trim the plot summary down to the approximately 3000 words that the movies would justify, and remove the extraneous 77 articles and indexing aids?—Kww(talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars is not only one or multiple films, it's a huge universe with many hundreds of books, comic books, audio and video sources etc. 77 articles might sound like much for a normal subject but in those cases where there are literally hundreds of different plots one cannot argue that it needs to be cut down to one article. Your argument requires that Star Wars only consists of the films which it simply doesn't. Regards So Why 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my 77 count didn't include the individual novels, films, and comics. There are 20 sub-categories in Category:Star Wars. 16 articles sit directly in that category. There are 79 more articles in Category:Star Wars comics, 147 articles in Category:Star Wars books, and the list keeps going. In total, there are probably over 400 articles devoted to Star Wars, and the overwhelming majority focus on the plot of the various works. It's time to admit we have a problem, and to condense this area into a handful of well-written articles that are not dominated by plot details.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

77 is nothing in this place as Wikipedia is not paper. If anything, it demonstrates that the problem is that we don't have enough articles on this huge topic. For comparison, let's look at what you've been working on lately - articles in Category:Beyoncé Knowles. There's more than 77 there — far more than my personal needs, which is somewhere between 0 and 1. Is this a problem too? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely it's a problem. It's an extremely rare single that should have its own article. Most should be contained in the parent album article. Were I dictator, approximately 90% of Beyoncé's articles would disappear. I haven't been successful in achieving consensus in regard to single articles. I was temporarily successful with Vanessa Hudgens, but editors kept recreating the single articles. Today, I just focus on making sure that each of the unnecessary articles doesn't overexpand with gossip and rumours.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars_(2nd_nomination), only a new editor or someone unfamiliar with how AFDs are patrolled would canvass like this. Ikip (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is for cleanup, so I added an independant, reliable, non-trivial source.[24] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This book looks like a good one, although there's no preview available. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. There was not a consensus to delete last time round. What makes the nominator think that nominating it again just a few months down the line will change that? Renominating because the desired result was not achieved last time is not going to change anything. The article documents notable, verifiable events in a notable, verifiable series as happens for many other series on Wikipedia and makes for useful navigation through WP's coverage of the Star Wars series. The elements of it that are OR can be removed and other issues the nominator raises in his rationale can be resolved through normal editing but AfD is not the venue. Articles for Deletion is for deletion, not forcing cleanup, the clue is in the name. HJMitchell You rang? 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - maybe this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote, but I just don't see how this meets our inclusion guidelines with regards to writing about fiction. It's entirely in-universe, composed from primary sources, with no real-world commentary, and of no interest to anyone but a fan. I know this is a 'word to avoid', and I'm sorry if it offends anyone, but... it's fancruft. I don't see what place it has in an encyclopaedia. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its place is as a navigation tool- a very useful compilation of blue links that would aid anybody (fan or otherwise) in trying to locate a particualr article or piece of information on WP. Besides which, your comments about the style of writing are not grounds for deletion. HJMitchell You rang? 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki - this kind of in-universe material is precisely the sort of thing that belongs on a dedicated Star Wars wiki, not on Wikipedia. (As probably does much of the material on any given work of fiction here, but this is a clear low-hanging fruit.) John Darrow (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be transwikied now, just copy ans paste the edit history to the new talk page. Ikip (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied it, http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Star_Wars&direction=prev&oldid=2824261 But within a couple of minutes it was merged to another article, but it exists on the history of starwars.wikia.com. Ikip (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ikip, DGG, and Fisher.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. If you don't have any thoughts of your own to contribute, don't post. --78.34.241.98 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)— 78.34.241.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep largely per DGG, though my comments in the last AfD about the need for cleanup still stand and I'd be a lot happier about it with a better organizational style (this is a good start) and an attempt to limit it to "more notable" material - probably redlinked items should go. Disclaimer: when I logged in to comment on this I found that I was canvassed. Since I was coming here anyway and apparently switched sides since the last debate, I feel comfortable commenting anyway. BryanG (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, Dream Focus, So Why etc. I !voted keep on the previous AFD. No arguements have been made to change my mind.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DGG and there is no real reason to delete. The subject is notable, as the Star Wars chronology is covered at least in part in many sources. If the other issues in the nomination are a concern, it would be better to clean them up than delete the article. Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I have already "voted", I would like to bring the attention of everyone, particularly the nominator, to WP:STICK. HJMitchell You rang? 23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent way of organizing the vast Star Wars mythology, and our coverage of it. Having a good many articles on a subject like this is not a problem, organizing them well is the problem. This sort of article is the best kind of solution. The argument to delete rather than cover the subject thoroughly and organize that coverage well-- "Just make it go away! I can't deal with it all!"-- is truly unencyclopedic. Note that I use "unencyclopedic" differently than it is often used at Wikipedia. I use it not to mean something I personally don't want to see in an encyclopedia. I use it to mean, contrary to the building of an encyclopedia-- in this case one that does not have paper-bound limitations, and which includes popular culture as a subject area. Dekkappai (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current article content is simply in-universe and as such unacceptable. But the page could indeed (as many "keepers" note) be very useful if someone transformed it to a chronological list of all Star Wars publications. I thus believe we should replace the entire content of the current article with a real-world chronology of Star Wars, i.e. a simple list with all publication dates of all Star Wars franchise publications. Please note that this necessarily means that as long as the current "article" is in place, I think the page should be deleted. --78.34.241.98 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)— 78.34.241.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme about this vote.--chaser (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept it needs to be seriously trimmed for in-universe and plot problems. Given the AfD history, I wouldn't really put any faith on this being possible; if that's the case then it can be surmised that the article's had enough chances. I would advise the closing admin to examine the arguments (and those making them) very carefully rather than head-counting it, given the familiar faces in the crowd. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree, that this article consists mainly of plot, it's main purpose certainly is not to just summarize plot. It is to give an extensive overview over the chronological order of the plots of the numerous Star Wars works. This can't be done without repeating a minimum of the according work's content. Listing the real-world release-dates of the work (as suggested above) also has nothing to do with it.There is a great number of articles about various Star Wars works on wikipedia, obviously they're created by a great variety of people, so they vary also by a great deal. This makes it often literally impossible to place the content of those articles properly in the Star Wars timeline. Not even speaking of arrange them in their appropriate order. And that's exactly what this article here does. And to classify the exact dates in the Star Wars timeline, I see no benefit of prohibiting consulting the primary scources. Bobby T. 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Bobby T. (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)— BobTGuevara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep per DGG and Ikip. There are third party books which discuss the chronology and its implications. See for example "Star Wars on Trial" edited by David Brin and Matthew Stover. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable secondary sources on the history/chronology of the Star Wars universe to support this article, and Star Wars is a big enough cultural phenomenon to justify its existence. Works such as Star Wars, Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, etc that have major cultural impact are entitled to more coverage (including more in universe plot summary coverage) than other fictional topics, and they generally get the necessary secondary source coverage to support it. Furthermore as several others have noted the Star Wars chronology is complex enough to make this article useful.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. That is all. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there is a policy agaist chronologies of fictional works, I see no convincing reason to delete this article. Sole Soul (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Is it encyclopedic at the moment? Probably not as stands. Does it have the potential to be reasonably useful as a navigational aid? Maybe. Yes, the article probably has rather too many trivial items, which harm the ease of use as for navigation, and too many redlinks for articles that shouldn't be created (like all the years for instance), but it's not all that bad. Quantpole (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've spent the last hour or two trying to trim this thing down, see sandbox here. Through approximately the arbitrary section break there, I've purged about 18 KB of redlinked and low-notability material to make what's hopefully a slightly more useful timeline/navigational aid. I'm probably being too generous in some areas still but at least it's an improvement. Unfortunately I'll be out of town starting tomorrow and so won't be able to finish this by the time this AfD's scheduled to close, but if anyone else wants to play around with it they're more than welcome to. BryanG (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. It pulls together a variety of information into a clear, chronological, and useful article. If 90% of the stuff came from primary sources, that would seem appropriate in this case. Anything else is much less likely to be accurate. We're not talking about relying upon a person's potentially failing memory or delusions of grandeur, but static reference material that is the most accurate source of all. In this case, primary sources are really the best. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
. Seriously? You think the fifth time is a charm? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep per Willscrlt. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of Love

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

I declined a speedy as it was not an unambiguous G11 but this clearly breached WP:CRYSTAL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. A slam-dunk. Qworty (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yup, WP:CRYSTAL pretty much sums it up. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early to tell where this is going. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slobbovia

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

Non-notable roleplaying game/fictional world. This may be a well-developed article, but it doesn't have any third-party references; and virtually none seem to exist. It got a brief mention on the Boing Boing blog here [25] (note however that the article it links to [26], is by Greg Costikyan, one of the participants and so not an independent source), and has an article on everything2 [27], but beyond that I can't find any coverage in reliable sources not connected with the game itself. A couple of the people who were involved in the game went on to become notable, but that doesn't make it notable itself. Robofish (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a notable part of New York fandom, referenced by the notable participants, including Greg Costikyan's Another Day, Another Dungeon and Sharyn McCrumb's Bimbos of the Death Sun - not to mention the extensive writings of John Boardman; insisting that memes be so recent that they existed on the Web is presentism. We should instead be prepared to explain crottled greeps when they appear. (If this is deleted, large parts of it would only have to be repeated in Diplomacy (game) and Amateur press association, anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A move request is a different matter. While notable, it is not primary against Al Capp's Lower Slobbovia - and a dab tag which would indicate one and not the other would be useful. (Suggestions welcome.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; during its lifetime it was an important part of 70's NYC Diplomacy/science fiction fandom and of play-by-mail Diplomacy fandom in general. Material from Slobbovia made its way into other games, such as SPI's Sword & Sorcery. It is also known as an early example of the "shared world" concept that would become widespread in subsequent years in many science fiction anthologies. MarkVolundNYC (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the game served as training for several professional writers. In its time, Slobbovia was a very notable part of science fiction fandom in the U.S. and Canada. GABaker (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all a7, no assertion of notability in any of them. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eaglez

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

Delete. I find nothing, zero hits, when searching Google News archives. Also, is this a repost? I don't understand how a new article (created hours ago) has a "primary sources" template from last March. JBsupreme (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a repost. Bald Eagles Inc was described as a record label that had signed T.Gigga, now apparently part of this rap supergroup as T-Jigga. So the label converted into the group? The original Bald Eagles article was deleted in March, so there may be an intervening one. I don't think it's similar enough for a repost speedy, but it should go quickly here. In any case, I'm bundling in their one album article.--chaser (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn I still think this dab's pointless, but meh. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Pierce (disambiguation)

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

Does this really need a dab? The song will never have an article, and the film can be linked from the novel with a hatnote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a trend of disambiguating for songs that will never (or should never) have articles and linking to the album page. When I'm trying to find out who did a song or which album it's on, having such dabs is not a bad thing.--chaser (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Chaser's comments. While the song doesn't have an article, it's still a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful for searching LadyofShalott 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good for searching. Dale 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for navigation. No benefit to deletion.--Michig (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed, duplicate nomination. When someone removes the AfD tag from a page while the deletion discussion is still going on, the remedy is to put the original AfD tag back on, not create a second nomination. The first nomination discussion is still going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azúcar. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azúcar

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was marked for deletion, and the AFD tag was removed improperly. Cutno (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da Volunteers

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

There is a claim of notability, but no evidence thereof. LadyofShalott 16:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little more than WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO for some guys who fail WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to establish notability. None fot eh album sales out theri trunk is verifiable. Coverage in media is almost nonexistent. There is this local story. But there's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stories in local media don't satisfy WP:N. Although they have downloads available online (e.g. at CDbaby.com]) their label is also non-noteworthy. Ivanvector (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've deleted as there is enough evidence to suggest this was a hoax article created as an attack page. Epbr123 (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candi Cain

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

Article appears to be a hoax. I can't find any sources to support the statements in the article, and the "references" were dead links on the day they were added. Even if it was true, the article probably wouldn't pass WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. References provided don't check out. Searches come up with nothing, not even an IMDb or IAFD entry. Even if this is not a hoax, the subject fails WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably either a hoax or attack page. Epbr123 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched http://archive.org for candicain.com. The website was in existence from late 2000 to Sept. 2004, so this isn't a hoax article per se. I was able to find a few copies of her About Me page in the archive. Is it ok to change the link in the article for Candicain.com to the archive.org About Me page? -Stillwaterising (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's the same Candi Cain. The person in the article has a different birth location, and would have been 14 years old in 2000. There are a few porn stars called Candy Cane, but none of them match the description in the article. Epbr123 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax that should be speedied. Qworty (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this article is slander of an actual person. -Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD-G10 or G3, depending on on what level we want to assume a level of "existence". Still, no good. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would non-admin close and tag, but policy is specific that non-admins cannot close an AfD is there is any instance of CSD as the reason. If the nominating user returns this can be withdrawn, which would then allow a CSD-G10. In the meanwhile I'm going to blank the page below the tags and leave an edit summary. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Against / Anti-Flag

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rise Against / Anti-Flag

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

This split EP was released as a promotional record only, according to the article, and is therefore unlikely to be notable per WP:MUSIC: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable". I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources either, as evidenced at this Google News search. It is part of the discography of two separate bands, so a redirect is not possible. Tim meh 15:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero reliable sources. Fails general notability guidelines and album notability guidelines at WP:NALBUMS. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the excellent reasons already given. Qworty (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whereas the two bands who contributed to this promotional split single are certainly notable, that alone does not make this minor addition to either artists' discography notable. Does not meet any WP:NALBUMS criterion. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article but may be worth a note in a discography page or the artist's pages. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per TheWeakWilled.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G4), already done by Spartaz. Non-admin closure. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan de Paul

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a page previously deleted through AfD. It is no improvement and still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 15:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - under criteria G4, as nothing has changed in this person's circumstances since the last AfD four months ago. Giant Snowman 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir 01:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kim

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

notability not convincingly asserted in this WP:BLP:

coverage in independent sources: only about one event (pledge to fund student entrepreneurs [28]);
nomination for a student award which accepts self-nominations is not notable;
the article is somewhat promotional but this is not enough for deletion. Antipastor (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissecting that, I see:
Notability not convincingly asserted — so what? Assertion of notability is a CSD criterion. It has nothing to do with AfD. At AfD, you have to prove notability.
Coverage in independent sources — a better criticism. Many of this article's sources are, frankly, crap; press releases and the like. But the Straits Times is a reliable source and, as well as the story you correctly acknowledge, there is a second story in the Straits Times including significant coverage of him.
One event — well, arguably, it's all one event, even though the newspaper stories are separated by three months. If so, it's a very long event involving an awful lot of money.
BLP — a very fashionable thing to emphasize in deletion discussions, but actually Wikipedia's BLP policy is about removing unsourced negative information about living people. You are certainly welcome to remove unsourced content from the article. Deletion seems to me to be going much too far.
A non-notable award — yeah, I agree. Kim is notable for his significant coverage in reliable sources, but not notable for his student award.
Somewhat promotional is, as you correctly say, not a reason for deletion.
Overall, after analysing the sources, it's a trim but keep from me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think a press announcement for a future funding plan is enough to establish notability per WP:BIO, relating to the criterion of significant coverage in independent sources. As a side note, I did not remove any content (except spam links) even unsourced, for the benefit of this debate, since not much would be left. But if a convincing argument is made for keeping, I would suggest those interested in keeping the article make this effort to improve it :). Antipastor (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Straits Times story is sufficient to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete announcing that you intend to donate USD$2K as scholarships and having $71K to invest in student ideas (not donate) is NN. Owning a company with revenue of less than $750K is also NN. Josh Parris 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student awards only. These are almost never notable- We dont even accept the Rhodes Scholarship & none of these come remotely near it. When he has a professional career, all of this will be one line in it. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help wondering if the above two have read the sources cited above? Their answers are not based on a critical analysis of them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised that the guy who wrote this article about himself didn't include what he had for breakfast. Violates WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and any notion of general modesty. This is the fervid product of a particularly horrible WP:SPA that has been trying to promote this advertisement on all sorts of WP pages. It's ironic that such a self-involved, self-promoting entity would claim notability for intending to help others at some vague time in the future! Just terrible. Delete at once. Qworty (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farrington Gurney F.C.

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

I originally PRODded this article on an amateur football (soccer) club with the rationale "Never played at a notable level of football". The creator of the article, who is also the team's manager, disputed it on my talk page, saying that I was small-minded for nominating it and that the club needed a WP article to become better known and thus progress in football. Thus I bring it to AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team; we must also take into account the COI and self-promotion issues that arise with the author's motive. Giant Snowman 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls way below the required level of football for notability Spiderone 15:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any evidence of it passing Wp:FOOTYN. (And how can having a Wikipedia page cause you to progress in football?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding is that English football teams must normally reach the top 10 levels of the football league structure to warrant an article. This team is at level 14, so they would be four promotions away from qualifying for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nominator – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeremiah

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

Non-notable magazine per WP:GNG, unreferenced, conflict of interest per WP:COI ( [29]), speedy deletion template removed once by creator User:Jeremiahstaff and once by suspected sockpuppeteer (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HumphreyScottXavier). WP:PROMO piece by ~~staff~~ founder of magazine. See also Prince Victor Salamat. MuffledThud (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's spike this spam forthwith. Qworty (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. This discussion has spawned a lot of confusion and some rancor. As to the confusion, the repeated references to Wikipedia is not for things made up one day have made it appear that Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is existence. It's not. Instead, the issue here is notability, and it is measured by the existence of independent reliable sources. In this discussion the only one that has been offered (the Facebook page and website don't count as independent) is this dead link to an article in the Arkansas Traveler, a student newspaper. But that has not swayed the consensus in the discussion, which is trending heavily and irreversibly delete. Where a discussion is certain to lead to only one outcome, it's time to close it.--chaser (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pankration (Holiday)

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

Does not appear notable. No working references, no relevant Google hits. Author of article appears to be (or related to) the claimed inventor of the 'holiday'. PROD declined by a different editor and added a new reference, which is broken. Singularity42 (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Made up and canvassing from November 4. Joe Chill (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, the joy of people writing blogs to complain about my actions. It seems my Wikipedia life is now reflecting my real life... :) Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim is to be notable within the University of Arkansas and the broken link suggests that it is less notable than that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page As a participant in this years Pankration, I am a strong advocate of this wikipedia page. This holiday is spreading very quickly and most of the people in my fraternity now plan on celebrating this holiday. It is growing and is now in the process of spreading to other campuses and filtering down to high school students as well. This is legitiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelstriker (talk • contribs) 00:50 8 November 2009
— Rebelstriker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I understand the premise of WP One Day guideline, and take its enforcement quite seriously, I believe that the scale on which the event is now on at least warrants a stub. I am not in any way affiliated with the events planning or creation, but I have witnessed the borderline hysteria around the campus of various Arkansas Universities. Arkansas being a state, in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentonville Editor (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources to support that? (Other than the broken link you added to the article, and the content-less "official" webpage you also added to the article.) Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the broken link, it has been removed until the article is posted/reposted on the website. As for the web site, I assume that's the starter page. I would hate to delete this page before the date of the event and the extent of support is shown. Even if half of the University of Arkansas campus plus small satellite gatherings at other schools observed the holiday, the number of participants would be well over 5,000. I see the problem that raises with One Day precedent that an article can't be dependent on anticipated future success, but the event has been held the past 2 years and seen exponential growth. I say give this article the 2 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentonville Editor (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable now, then it should be deleted. If it becomes notable in the future, the article's existence can be re-addressed. But there is not one single relevant Google hit or reference that supports this article. Nothing at all! An article cannot exist on someone's say so. And I have to point out what RHaworth noted: if a search of the university's own newspaper comes up with zero hits, that tells you just how made up this really is. Singularity42 (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not your own web host. MuZemike 01:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might just be me, but I think 5,000 seems like a pretty notable number...far larger than many other events that are accepted on wikipedia. What we have here is a diamond in the rough that is being brought to the surface and consequently informing others of its already large and growing following. To erase this page would be a mistake. I've only stumbled on this page and had no intention of participating, but this much ignorance has caused me to reconsider. (--Weyeserthanu (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)) — Weyeserthanu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Since you are directing your comments to me, let me be crystal clear: Wikipedia needs reliable sources to support notability. Just provide one. So far, every SPA who has been challenged on this can't seem to find one. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singularity is obviously the editor with the most experience with an interest in this subject for whatever reason. So I would defer to him in this case and ask any editors with extensive knowledge on the subject to meet his demands. But also, I would like to present this respectfully, before we take too harsh of a tone in this debate. "New users acting in good-faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines. Indeed, some new users may be unaware that editing a single topic, and in the process adding their own views, may lead to some editors giving less weight to their ideas in article discussions." --Bentonville Editor (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I am not making any demands. I am simply asking if there are any sources that support the subject of this article. It is a fairly reasonable request, considering it is the principal policy for having a Wikipedia article. I am also starting to get a bit tired of all the comments directed to me personally, both here, on this page's talk page, and on my user talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability, ultimately violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to establish the notability of this article. Crafty (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, non-notable. Dayewalker (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I challenge Singularity42 to prove that he is in fact a human and not a cyborg trying to infiltrate the plans for the mass expansion of the Pankration sensation. I will standby for sources. Half man half rancor (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page: "The comment was not intended to be rude, just to show that sources are not always needed to know that something exists. Pankration is obviously real and many people take part in it, why not just let the page stay? Half man half rancor". I had previously deleted the comment but have restored it.--chaser (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arguably WP:MADEUP. PhGustaf (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: No other recognized Holidays were made up. I truly did not know this, thank you for enlightening us. Half Man Half Rancor (Mancor) 06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half man half rancor (talk • contribs)

Delete If anyone had any doubts as to the promotional intentions of this article, User:Half man half rancor's comment should have removed it. --Danger (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats kind of a lack of reasoning on this one. He's basically saying that by the knowledge of its' existence by several people it is indeed real as opposed to some kind of hope you have that this is an elaborate attempt to fool you. The fact that there is indeed an event set up on facebook should show that it's real. And seeing how this is indeed the third annual official occurance, shows that this wasn't made up. I simply don't understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyeserthanu (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you all read Wikipedia:Notability and still not understood it? In brief, to be included, something has to have been covered in multiple reliable third party sources, like newspapers or major media sources. Otherwise, a given topic has not gotten enough notice to warrant an article. Just existing doesn't cut it.--chaser (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the image on the page gives me serious reservation, and the two "sources" aren't enough to have housebroken me on. Sorry, chummers, but as much as I like video games and tabletop roleplaying, I see nil in the way of usable sources. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Wikipedia, Is the fact that there is an event on facebook and official t-shirts not enough to show that this holiday is taking place? Half Man Half Rancor (Mancor) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half man half rancor (talk • contribs)

Neither I or anyone else here are Mr. Wikipedia, chummer, and whether the event happens is irrelevant - the main question is that of notability. If you can't prove notability, then the article's destined for the body bank. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 07:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, there's not a Mr. Wikipedia? That sounds like a WP:MADEUP then, wouldn't you say? Half Man Half Rancor (Mancor) 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what you're trying to say, but I'll do my damnedest to suss it out: Calling people "Mr. Wikipedia" is worthless as a term or insult because the only people who have any claim to it (Sanger and Wales) are not in this discussion. Now, lemme give you some advice: Drop the adversarial attitude posthaste. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for stuff made up at school one day.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. See WP:MADEUP. Try again with some reliable sources in a few years. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious delete, and not even funny enough for WP:BJAODN. Marasmusine (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this non-notable hoax/wish fulfillment page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Hans Adler 16:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, promotion, nonesense, take your pick.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is not a hoax 2. If it were a hoax, it would be retarded 3. You are right, this page would soil the holy sanctity of all things reliable AKA Wikipedia Half man half rancorr talk 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chummer, you're starting to troll. Stop it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can always be recreated as and when it satisfies WP:N. Ka renjc 17:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is a website for it. Just throwing it out there. Seems like "1" source, even if it is weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.251.50 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website, on its own, is worthless as a source. This needs third-party sources. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, RHaworth did, in fact create a page, International Sand Sculpture Festival, because he had an self interest in it. And his edits and status dwarf those here. --130.184.251.50 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is RHaworth's article relevant here? He's an established user. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That RHaworth created it is irrelevant to its notability, which is the real reason it hasn't been deleted at AFD.--chaser (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, [30]- I don't think this would have sparked this type of instant debate had it been created by an established user. At the very least it wouldn't have been smacked with a speedy deletion from the start. --Bentonville Editor (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that International Sand Sculpture Festival is an eminently notable subject created and maintained by established editors with histories of constructive participation. As opposed to the subject of this discussion which is some non-notable kegger/gamerfest. Sharpness blunted per a request on my talkpage. But if you guys can provide reliable sources which establish notability then the article will remain. Crafty (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about notability in this case. The sources are blogs and websites, and I couldn't find any press coverage. I admit I didn't look too hard, but I am just not sure that this would survive an AfD. Hans Adler 21:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hans, I agree with you. I'm just saying if they can find WP:RS. Which seems riotously improbable. :) Crafty (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you Crafty for not making this personal and generalizing. It's much appreciated. So you say the International Sand Sculpture Festival is eminently notable huh? Well according to this link from its' own web page, [31] has only 60 participant. As shown by the facebook event page[32] there are 79 confirmed participants at the time of this post. So does that make this event exceed an eminently notable status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyeserthanu (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers don't matter, chummer. Press coverage, on the other hand... -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF alert. Ka renjc 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of participants is not how we define notability. It is the amount of coverage in independent third-party sources that matters.--chaser (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never "smacked [this article] with a speedy deletion from the start". I added a proposed deletion tag, which is very different. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per WP:MADEUP, no WP:RS, etc etc ukexpat (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stop calling me a "chummer" i have no idea what it is, but im pretty sure it violates my constitutional right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. 2. Singularity42, I see you are avoiding my challenge to prove that you are in fact a human.... Half Man Half Rancor (Mancor) 01:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And I see you're still trolling, chummliechen. My speech isn't cruel and unusual punishment any more than you calling Singularity inhuman is; the difference is mine isn't a personal attack. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from your conversation with Chaser was that you made the comment to make some strange point about reliable sources, not directed at me personally. If it was directed at me personally, then I find it and your continued reliance on it rude and off-topic, and ask for you to remove it. In any event, the continued instance of you and others to direct your comments at me personally is distracting to this discussion and contrary to Wikipedia behavioural guidelines for editors. Singularity42 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and block Half man half rancor for continued disruption and personal attacks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't vote on blocks at AFD.--chaser (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and block per every deleter above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This got out of hand quickly.--Bentonville Editor (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Dang

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

Unreferenced and nothing on google to indicate it exists. noq (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any references that verify this information. There is no claim to notability in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A simple search shows no notability. MJ94 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FlashForward episodes. Black Kite 23:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Monsters and Super Creeps (FlashForward)

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

Non notable episode. Not enough context to have an article. We have a list of episodes which is just fine. Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to warrant its own article, and has pretty much no content in it. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" - this is a useful episode, they find and start to learn about the blue hand, we must keep it and update it, don't delete it because all of us are to lazy to add more information to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.226.159 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you mean Keep, given your comment. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect it to the main list, which is common for most unotable episode articles. --TIAYN (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this one, there is no actual content. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may create an article for it later, with decent information... All The X-Files articles were in this state before Sgeureka redirected them all.. --TIAYN (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my experience a redirect prevents people from writing a good article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of The X-Files and Stargate SG-1/Atlantis/Universe articles are now in good shape, because of merging... More work has been done to make it a good article.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tentative Keep. At least has a plot summary now, hopefully ratings, analysis etc will come in due time. If such attention is not forthcoming, then I think we can let it go. Radagast (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Still not sold on this series, or on the fact that its episodes will be notable enough for articles. But I'm not uncomfortable with keeping, for now, until a clearer picture of the series and its notability (and viability) becomes apparent. We can (and should) revisit the question later on, if it looks like the series is less notable than we think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the notability of the series, please see my comment below. Lampman (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all but the first episode. None of them have sources or any evidence of individual notability. Fences&Windows 01:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in its current state. The plot summary is so long and detailed it not only violates WP:MOS, but might actually have copyright issues as well. There is nothing else in the article. If the plot is summarised and production, reception etc. are added, then I'd change my mind. Lampman (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on plot-only description of fictional works, see the relevant Wikipedia policy. For the copyright infringement issue, see this summary of the Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International case. This article is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy, and possibly also of U.S. law. I'm not quite sure why we're even discussing this. Lampman (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This show has not been on long enough for its individual episodes to be notable. Specs112 (Talk!) 14:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - advertising a course at a university. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Computing and Financial Management

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

I think that this article and others like it should be deleted. A degree offering by the University of Waterloo, or any university, is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, even one as comprehensive as Wikipedia. If there is to be an article at all, it should be "computing and financial management" (currently a redirect to this article) and have nothing to do with the University of Waterloo or a degree. However, I do not think that the subject of computing and financial management has sufficient information support an article. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese (Age of Empires)

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

Article based entirely on a specific playable nation in a game series. Mostly written with game modifiers and in-game text which refers to the history of the nation, which seems to be found at the History of China article. 猛禽22 ^•• 06:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikiepdia is not a Game Guide and as most of the content is repeated in other articles. The article could however be significantly scaled down and merged with the exisitng Age Of Empires pages, if the content is improved and is deemed important. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 07:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The culture overview stuff is redundant as Age of Empires purports (rightly or wrongly) to present historically faithful information. (We wouldn't have an article for The Chinese in Encyclopaedia Britannica unless Britannica got the topic so wrong as to draw independent comment capable of satisfying WP:N). Which leaves only the stat bonus stuff, which as Fattyjwoods has said is covered by WP:NOTGUIDE (Wikipedia is not a game guide.) There's nothing in this article that satisfies the criteria for a standalone article (WP:N), and the content itself is not appropriate in any article per WP:NOT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning by Fattyjwoods and DustFormsWords. CronopioFlotante (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Zhonghuo (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason which you might like to share with us? Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 07:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams

Please note: This deletion process now applies equally to New York Giants (soccer), which is now a cut&paste reversion of the recent move to Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams

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

Nom
& opine Delete: The article was written for New York Giants (soccer) (which for the moment is a two-linked "soft redirect"), with the apparent intention to provide an article obviating (1) any mention of the individual teams on a compliant Dab page, (2) the stub New York Giants (1894 soccer) that i created from part of its content, and (3 & 4) any articles intended to separately cover (in the fashion that San Francisco Giants includes their earlier period as the New York Giants and Minnesota Twins includes their earlier period as one of the teams called Washington Senators, thruout their respective entire multi-named histories) the two other teams that used the name.
Clearly the established WP principles of treating company and team topics as unified across name changes, WP:Dab, and avoiding (via many-one links to info relavent to multiple topics) unnecessary duplication of info between articles, will require moving much of the current content out to other articles. This will leave two questions: does the remainder add up to a worthy article, and (even if so), is it desirable for readers interested in one team to have to sort that info out from all the relationships between any two of the three. (Identifying the teams as I, II, and III -- tho i think this terminology was invented for the article -- my impression is that I & III both had affiliations with the NY Giants baseball team, and that II and III changed names in the same inter-season in such a way that III got the name that II had used a season earlier. This implies that readers otherwise interested only in III may need to know about both of those interrelationships; those otherwise interested only in I or in II may need to know abt its relationship to III, but not about the other interrelationship.) My conclusion is that one of the three teams' articles needs all the interrelationship info, but two articles need only one or the other "half" of it, and therefore users are best served by repeating in the respective articles only what is needed by them; this approach also would permit the information to be restated "from the point of view" -- temporally, and in terms of role in the relationship -- of the team that is the topic of the particular team article containing that version of the info, resulting in greater clarity even in the article that requires all of that information. And i see that as eliminating the last purpose that the relationship article could serve.
Jerzy•t 06:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Above has no idea what he is talking about Djln--Djln (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's neither true nor helpful. Please be more civil.--chaser (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above diatribe is just waffle. In all my time as Wiki editor, I never seen somebody write so much and actually not make any sense. I can't make out what he is trying to say Djln--Djln (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if we split out the content of this article into three separate articles, we would need to keep this article, even if only in the form of a redirect, to preserve attribution history. Just as merge and delete is not a valid option, split and delete is not a valid option, for the same legal reasons. In the event anyone decides to split, be sure to use "split from <original article title>" in your edit summary to preserve attribution history.--chaser (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Tho i'm not as well versed as Chaser in wording my opinion and summary, "split and Rdr to Dab-section" is what i intended. (That has been a routine calling of the outcome, when appropriate, since VfD days, w/o expecting that opinion to be the explicit consensus, and AFAIK often without anyone mentioning it.) It is what i in part implemented (and for the remainder, facilitated) before realizing such an outcome would be at all controversial.
  (By "facilitated", i mean that

i put the relevant portion into my stub New York Giants (1894 soccer), and
copied the respectively relevant portions onto talk: New York Soccer Club and Talk:New York Nationals (ASL), clearly identifying where they came from

although, as i think i have already stated elsewhere, i do not regard myself as a appropriate editor to efficiently get the right content into those particular articles.)
--Jerzy•t 05:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 3 teams here probably could each get a separate page, but even if they do New York Giants (soccer) would be an appropriate dab page, and there may be content worth keeping on such a page regarding the relationships among the 3 teams (i.e., #1 and #3 were both connected to the Giants baseball team). Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The three teams already each have a separate page, in one case a stub created by me (tho Djln is apparently so determined that the article under discussion be the only coverage of the relationships, as to twice overwrite with a Rdr to the page under discussion, not only IMO to the detriment of making this discussion effective, but with summary "no articles link here" re a clearly marked stub that had at that point existed as such for a total of less than 24 hours). I have not tried to determine whether the two above-stub articles conform to our well-established practice (either a guideline or one that has been avoided as instruction creep) that companies and teams continue to be a single topic when they change names, or Djln's presumable preference, that the topic New York Giants (soccer) contain the complete history of all teams that have used the name, and that the group of three histories be followed a single chronological table of the known won/lost and/or season-result record of the name, and that that table followed by a list of all the stars known to have competed under the name.
  As to New York Giants (soccer) being a Dab, i have several times advocated for such an approach in similar situations -- tho not for a long time, except in a new form last month, at politicians Robert Smith. The only objection straightforward that i will state her (tho neither the most compelling IMO, nor as resistant to the possibility of workarounds, as those i will not state) is that a Dab page linked from another Dab page must be linked not with

* [[Your title here]]

but with

* [[Your title here (disambiguation)]]

IIRC, both for user-psychology reasons and re considerations probably involving automated-bypassing tools. In the case of the proposed title "New York Giants (soccer)" -- a title chosen, as i have already stated in this matter (if not necessarily on this AfD pg), not at random but bcz it would normally take a user to the primary-topic team with the name -- the question arises whether the link from the Dab New York Giants should be marked up (to use a Rdr) to read either

* New York Giants (soccer disambiguation)

or

* New York Giants (soccer) (disambiguation)

each of which offends intuition.
It seems that it was not on this AfD subpage where i said, relating directly or closely to the page in (IIRC) the last 36 hours, that New York Giants (soccer) shouldn't be the title of the article under discussion, and i don't even fault anyone who read that statement and felt confident that "this can't be that complicated". Actually, it isn't that complicated: it's more complicated than even what i've since stated. If the navigational aspects of the question are dismissed, i won't hesitate to insist on pushing back the closing of this discussion, to permit full participation by those who can, more whole-heartedly and with greater facility than i, argue for preserving the integrity of the heavily discussed and well-established guidelines and practices that are affected by proposed resolutions.
--Jerzy•t 05:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jerzy, have you ever heard of Plain English or the Plain English Campaign. I think you should nominated for the Golden Bull Award. Perhaps if you could write without waffling, this situation could be resolved a lot easier. But just to comment on a few points I’ve managed to decipher. The reason there are separate articles on New York Nationals (ASL) and New York Soccer Club is because teams played under these names. The first New York Giants soccer team never played under any other name and existed for only a few weeks. Do they really warrant a separate article. There is absolutely no need to create a disambiguation page either. The opening line could not be more clear.

New York Giants was a name used by three different New York soccer teams. Djln--Djln (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page New York Giants (soccer), and delete the page called "Relationships among..." I think it's a good idea to combine the three different Giants soccer teams (1894, 1923-30, 1930-32) into one article without having "relationships" in the title. And please, let's keep this discussion civil. Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion I think it is preferable to have separate articles plus a Dab page. The drawback is the size of some of the split articles. However, expanding articles is a question of taking the time to do the research so I am not overly critical of that issue. I don't think that similar names is necessarily a good reason to combine subjects. Some teams have completely different names but are of the same organization. I think a team article should mention any prior names in their history. Similarly, a club's article can mention their other teams (seniors, juniors, women's, B, C, reserves, etc.) without separate articles. Also, articles on 'relationships' between teams can be innumerable since this can be broadly interpreted like sharing leagues, stadiums, owners, players, having a rivalry, as well as common names. Libro0 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all three teams should have one article between them - New York Giants (soccer); merge any useful info from the 'Relationships' article and then deleted it. Giant Snowman 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tayib Rauf

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

Classic WP:BLP1E, the event is already covered in 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. IQinn (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. It may be at some later time Rauf is connected to other events or establishes some further notability but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No prejudice against recreation if further facts emerge - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect Information about Tayib Rauf is not currently in 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot as far as I can see. The information currently available doesn't make him notable enough for his own article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My understanding is that at present there's no consensus that Merge is an acceptable outcome for an AfD result - many admins feel that process can only happen through discussions at a talk page and will interpret Merge as a vote for Keep. So I'd support a Merge, but in the likelihood of that being unavailable the next policy-supported option is Delete, not Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Merge" is a perfectly acceptable outcome for an AfD, but it is not the closing admin's job to actually merge the content, as any editor can perform a merge without needing access to admin tools. What that means in practice is that the closing admin puts an {{Afd-mergeto}} template on the article and {{Afd-mergefrom}} on the target article, after which it the responsibilty of anyone who wants a merge to carry it out. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person can't be notable for not being notable. That's just absurd. Qworty (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beam

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

This article appears to be here with no references. And may be biographical. Cutno (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The relevant criteria are WP:N and WP:ARTIST. IMDB confirms he has an associate producer credit on the 2006 film Barnyard and the subsequent Back at the Barnyard TV series. This satisfies WP:ARTIST criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This Google search reveals the usual crowd of "independent periodical articles or reviews" that you'd expect for a feature film like Barnyard. As far as independent notability, this review includes a fairly extensive feature on Beam himself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this person is notable enough as of yet due to an apparent lack of significant coverage. Beam is not once mentioned in either the Barnyard or the Back at the Barnyard articles. Voting in favour of deletion due to the subject's questionable notability and on the basis that the article appears to be an autobiography. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does or does not appear on Wikipedia can neither be an argument for or against Keep; it may simply be the case that those other articles are in need of improvement. Similarly, the fact that the article is written as an autobiography is not an argument for Delete if the subject of the article is nevertheless notable; matters that can be cleaned up through normal editing are not matters for AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion still stands that Beam's notability is fairly questionable. The article was created by an SPA and just earlier today an extra URL was added to the external links section by a Mark beam (talk · contribs) (another SPA). This article appears to have been created as nothing more than a promotional page for an artist with questionable notability. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Somehow, the article feels like advertising, and it does not appear to be written in a encyclopedic fashion. Lack acceptable references. --Cutno (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have have already cast your delete vote above when you nominated. You cannot vote twice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing in the Deletion policies that I could find that would prohibit me from casting a vote. What I believe I did when I created the AfD was nominate it. The after there was a vote by another editor, I added mine. --Cutno (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, and WP:COI from a WP:SPA. It is exactly how NOT to write a WP article. Qworty (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:SPA are not valid reasons to delete an article if the subject of the article is notable and the article can be fixed through normal editing. Please read WP:DEL#REASON and WP:ATD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, did you read the article? The guy sculpted a cow. And that's the best he can say about himself! No amount of "normal editing" or wikilawyering will ever lend this unintentionally humorous piece of fluffy spam the necessary notability for encyclopedic inclusion. Please, we're all serious adults here. The thing should be speedied so that nobody else need ever waste time with it again. Qworty (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Qworty it's because we are serious adults here, or we're supposed to be, that I think we need to remain civil in these BLP nominations. This is no less a waste of time than any other AfD. He's a folk artist who once sculpted a cow, so what? The next time you're in NYC, I invite you to check out the American Folk Art Museum, next to MoMa, filled with similar works. Folk and outsider art can be notable. I vote delete because he fails WP:ARTIST, with no prejudice against recreating, should he gain more critical attention at some point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with recreation in the future either, mind you, unless it's created again as an autobio. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria, or even WP:GNG … pure weapons grade vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment - If you're making a Speedy Delete argument it would be helpful to note which of the speedy deletion criteria you say applies. The notability claimed is against WP:ARTIST criterion 3, the support for that claim is in the sources in the article and in my comments above, and it's then a matter of argument as to whether his involvement in Barnyard and Back to the Barnyard is sufficient to meet the claimed criterion. Neither attribution nor verifiability are the issue; the question is notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if references can be provided and verified. On his website he claims to be in the collections of Smithsonian Institution, K. C. Parishath Art Museum, Bangalore, India and LA County Museum of Art which may be enough to establish notability. Likewise, his bibliography lists New York Times, Germany Playboy and Better Homes & Gardens: the last two are not necessarily where most artists would want to find themselves, but they're legitimate publications and useful if verified and substantial (i.e. he's not just mentioned in passing). The big one: he has the words "2009 Emmy Award Winner" on his website which is confusing as it does not elaborate. Did he win an Emmy? If so, combined with all the rest, he passes notability. Yes, the article needs a big clean-up. And I need to remind everyone that writing an autobiographical article is not a reason for deletion. If a notable person writes their own article we rewrite it and send them a WP:COI warning. (And yes, I am quite aware of what's on my user page and I still stand by that but there are exceptions to that all-important rule that I made up). freshacconci talktalk 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, insufficient references at this time, in the article, to verify notability. If the claims which Fresh have said the subject of the article have made, can be substantiated from third party reliable sources, then I would be more then happy to change my thought on this article to Keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azúcar

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion under A1 (no context), but I don't believe it qualifies as that or any other speedy category. However, I also don't see any evidence of notability, so i'm bringing it here because it appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Note for anybody using google-fu, the song's name is also the Spanish word for "sugar." The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI added some information.Chelo61 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete- No notability. Also, chelso61 needs to understand that deleting the AfD to this page and ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and ignoring others around him/her is a general no-no, and may lead to administrative action. Not saying this to discourage him/her from editing, but I think some time to review the policies may help. Cutno (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hapless spam. Qworty (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no charting, no covers, not enough material to grow beyond a stub, so it fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But multiple editors suggested that this might be a candidate for merging to an eventual article such as Depictions of Krishna and Radha. Sandstein 12:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion

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

No references, does not adhere to notability guidelines. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if improved The painting passes notability easily - it is the prime example chosen [33] in the world's best known college art history textbook - Gardner's Art Through the Ages!! The nominator clearly can't tell art notability from a hole in the wall. Unfortunately the 2nd para is a copyvio of Gardner's. Since we have hardly any articles I know of on individual Indian miniatures, it would be good to have it - an excellent candidate for rescue. Obviously some other references would be good; unfortunately there may not be much online. Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the copyvio and the article is now a single sentence. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've added a comment on notability, shamelessly plagiarised from Johnbod's rationale above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But is this not a theme rather than a particular work? Are there not other paintings of the same scene? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are, as with almost any religious subject - Madonna and Child etc. If the article is expanded it could treat either the theme or this painting, which is, as these things go, pretty famous. Ideally one would have both. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per the quality of sources available through Gbooks and per inclusion in Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Unfortunately most of the online refs are limited or no preview, so I can't expand the article now, but that isn't a reason to delete. -SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? The Gbooks sources (note that four of the first five are the same (Gardner's) book, and the most of the rest are catalogues) are only sufficient to conclude that the painting does exist and is catalogued. Does every such painting deserve a separate article? I'd be happier if this were incorporated into a "Depictions of Krishna and Radha" or some such article. Note also that one of the results is for a different painting with the same description. This leaves only one non-catalogue source, which may or may not refer to this one. I see no evidence that this particular painting is notable enough to have its own article. Given what the gbooks results look like, I also wonder what more can be written about this painting beyond a couple of sentences or a paragraph, really. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I considered that. However, we should adapt notability for books. This particular painting and the theme is considered as the most significant work in that category per one of the most significant books on art. So, clearly the work is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country (more than one particular country). Also, it was part of exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and the Brooklyn Museum among others, showing significant notability. All these are from generic gbooks, I have no idea about art specific sources. Given this, it appears to be clearly notable. -SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem that it is often hard from web sources to confirm that the same painting is being described, and not everyone may use this title. The Pahari book has several similar scenes under a variety of titles. The Christie's catalogues presumably do not refer to this one. But there is certainly "more [that] can be written about this painting beyond a couple of sentences or a paragraph". Any increase in our pathetic coverage of Indian painting should be encouraged. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for increasing our coverage of Indian painting too, but what do you think could be written about this specific painting? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced there's anything much to write about this specific painting. Like the other !votes, I do agree with "keep if improved" and that it is "a theme rather than a particular work" — in either case, if the article could be expanded either in content or in scope, it could be kept, but as it stands, all it rests on is that this painting was used in a textbook and was shown in exhibitions. That only means that many people have looked at it, not that many people have written (much) about it. The image will still be around even if the article is deleted, so when some context is found for the image, a new article can be created. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this at all. Art historians find no difficulty in writing large amounts about individual works, even when typical of their type - that is their job. The text that turned out to copyvio from Gardner's could be reworded and returned - this was just a short description. The difficulty here is finding the extended coverage that I'm sure exists, but in books that are not online. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem is that I'm not sure it exists. If the extended coverage actually does exist, then it's an obvious keep. Until we find it, it's just one speculation against another. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valuable addition to this encyclopedia, needs additional help, worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modernist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I share Shreevatsa's concerns. Eight sentences in Gardner's is a strong indicator that a painting is notable, but we can't write a full article based on just eight sentences. Moreover, most of what Gardner's had to say was about the painting as a representative of a tradition. Maybe there are off-line sources. Maybe there are sources that refer to the painting by another name. I hope so; I'd love for there to be a proper article about this. As it is, though, I'm not sure there's much we can say. (As a side note, an article like Depictions of Krishna and Radha sounds like it could be really cool, if it could be done without OR/SYNTH.) --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Warrior

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

Non-notable film Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you would have to consider this film as notable. Evidence:

Many wikipedia articles link to this movie, at least 8 at the present. If it is deleted, those links will break.
420 ratings and 24 reviews on IMDB demonstrates a large viewership.
Less notable films by the same director/producers (e.g. From Mexico with Love) already have wikipedia articles.

Ben (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply - that last, in particular, is the old "there are other articles like it in Wikipedia!" argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that last point is 'not convincing' by WP standards. However, the other two stand, and I have subsequently expanded the article with two references, resolving the 'single source' flag. As additional evidence, this is actually a notable film, with a unique blend of asian/non-asian casting which to me clearly resembles the argument for notability by uniqueness described on WP:NF. Ben (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]. Joe Chill (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this was nominated too quickly before the author had a chance to add further sources, for which new ones are already starting to pop up. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stars notable actors, mentioned in reliable sources.. Himalayan 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banach Journal of Mathematical Analysis

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:NOTABILITY violation. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was considering nominating this one for deletion myself; I looked it up in Google scholar and found very few citations for any of its papers, so it does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) criterion 2. There's also no evidence that it passes either of the other two criteria (third-party sources about the journal or some significant history). And given the contribution patterns of its creator Ardeshirshojaei (talk · contribs) and of Moslehian (talk · contribs) and Amyari (talk · contribs) it may be appropriate to consider WP:SSP. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. ~~In addtion, journal apparently not ranked in any major indexing service.~~ I did see, though, that it is indexed in Scopus (and under consideration for ISI). --Crusio (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this journal. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've checked the indexing of this journal. It is not indexed by Web of Science and Scirus; it is indexed by Scopus. I'm not sure how this qualifies for criterium 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and urge the voters and closing admin to consider that. We don't know whether or not the journal will be accepted by ISI (it would automatically qualify if listed there). I myself welcome open-access journals (that is free access to articles) as they go along with the WP spirit. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manah Sharif

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

Nominated for speedy as a blatant hoax. I did some searching for various terms on google without finding anything (except this odd first result). I'm guessing Google maps might be less complete in Punjab Province than in the Western World. No opinion chaser (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - declined CSD and contested PROD; but this "prominent" place simply doesn't seem to exist. Giant Snowman 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't look like a hoax to me and it may just be a small village in Pakistan (which is why it doesn't show up on google). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - if it is "prominent due to many reasons", then surely it would have an internet mention somewhere, regardless of size...Giant Snowman 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)*That could just be fluff. I'm not saying the place exists (which is why this is not a !vote) but rather that, from the way it is written it doesn't seem like a hoax. If I had a detailed map of Pakistan handy, it would be worth looking up. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found this, but I'd like more.--chaser (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we can always bring it back if it exists. Has anyone attempted to contact creator of the article or any other contributors? Any prominent members of Wikiproject Pakistan or contacted the wikiproject at its discussion page? Good places to start. When I am home from work in about an hour I can check multiple (and new and very old) maps of Pakistan along with checking for online detailed maps of the region this village is supposed to be in. It does seem that Sharif is more of a last name than that of being a name of a village due to what does show up on a search for Manah Sharif, its not like other villages with Sharif are showing up, it is mostly individuals.Camelbinky (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. I have emailed the creator.--chaser (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I popped a note on the creator's talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not going to commit one way or the other, but while other place names using the word Sharif exist in Muzaffargarh, this one is not listed as a recognized city or town by the district postal service. Its not looking promising yet. I'm still digging, but I am not finding much. --Jayron32 04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My atlas shows a place called Munda to the east of Kot Adu could this be the place? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There also appears to be a Manha per the Govt of Punjab (Pakistan) website and that is part of the same district and Tehsil. -SpacemanSpiff 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - So what's with "Sharif" here? Does that mean something in Urdu (-burgh perhaps)?--chaser (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this translates to "Manah of Ministers". Not a real place and certainly not proper naming of an area or district.

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

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

The result was delete. All the Keep votes are from IPs locating to the same area (indeed, two are the same one) and effectively amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No notability has been shown per the Delete comments. Black Kite 23:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cppcheck

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Static code analysis isn't that "hot" in mainstream media, so getting "significant" coverage is nearly impossible. Just look at some other Wikipedia articles about tools that do similar job at List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis. Do they have coverage? Perhaps 2 or 3 of them have more references than Cppcheck. So why is Cppcheck the only one considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. Did you? It says that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". I'm not arguing that Cppcheck should be kept, because similar articles have been kept, I'm only asking for consistency. So can you please answer, why is the Cppcheck the only one, considering that other similar articles have less references (some don't have any). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The wikipedia definition of "significant coverage" is met by the software website (already referenced SF documentation) covering the initial claims of this article. Internal output from the tool itself forms similar coverage for the statements of output. As commented above the coverage of this tool is small, due to the nature of the industry to which it applies. As one of the extremely few freely available static analysis tools its importance is vastly more than its available references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.166.233 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per 60.234.166.233's keep argument. Its own website is definitely not viable for evidence of notability. If there's no independent coverage of it, WP:V WP:N fail. Even if that's the nature of the topic, that doesn't mean "a big fish in a pond that nobody fishes in" doesn't make that fish notable anywhere outside that pond. However, Static code analysis is an article on this general topic that could certainly use some work. That might be a good place to discuss the different tools, and refs for them there could be useful. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the "own website" is only a collection of links to other websites showing the actual evidence. The article has e.g. the claim about 30 bugs in the Linux kernel. Project's website lists links to all these bug reports in the kernel's bug tracking system, so I think there is a valid reference for that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "list of uses" does not satisfy me for notability (in the WP sense). If it really is a generally-regarded-as-useful tool that is notable, then someone will have written about it, possibly highlighting some key places it was used ("popular among Linux kernel developers", "critical for tracking down two notable kernel bugs", etc.) But simple evidence of use is not evidence of notability in the WP sense. It's annoying that niche products that are popular in the niche may not (and maybe not even ever) get an article. An interesting parallel is in WP:NEO, which remarks "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." DMacks (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References for notability are no less than they are for several other articles in the same category. Sparse, QA-C, PC-Lint, LDRA_Testbed, Gendarme, CodeIt.Right, NDepend, ReSharper, DMS_Software_Reengineering_Toolkit, Apparat_(computer_science), Soot_(software), Hammurapi_code_review_tool, PMD_(software), Rough_Auditing_Tool_for_Security just to mention a few that were trivial to spot, probably more if you actually look into the reference lists. Please be consistent about what you delete and what you keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 15 November 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 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." So can you please answer, why is the Cppcheck considered for deletion, considering that other similar articles have less references (some don't have any). I already asked this above but didn't get answer for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are here because no one has determined whether or not they are notable. If you believe that any of those articles fails the notability guidelines, you can either prod the articles or nominate them for AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This software fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are rules, but there are also articles who have been in Wikipedia against the rules for years. I don't see why this article should be an exception in this category and be the only one to be deleted. Keep in mind that we are not talking about Star Wars figures or games here. The amount of static code analysis programs is relatively small. If having an own article is not possible, the information could be merged to Static code analysis with other similar tools. But would that grow the size of a single article too big, if code examples and feature lists are added there for every tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. So far, the only argument that has been advanced in favor of keeping the article is that other bad articles exist on Wikipedia, which I find exceptionally unpersuasive. No one seems to be disputing that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, which is the question at hand here. —Caesura ^(t) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tanner

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

Notability issues - Has been primary-sourced and orphaned for years, and I can find no obvious secondary sources to justify the claims in the article. Orderinchaos 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem particularly notable. Also article is orphaned and looks to have been created by a single-issue user. Probably should have been Afd years ago! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I attempted to find reliable sources for the article prior to tagging it for notability and had planned to come back and nominate it for AfD if I couldn't find anything after a couple of days. As the assertions of notability cannot be verified, the article should be deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 04:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see article Nile. Search for Mark Tanner. This article may form a basis for cross-linking. Provided the other claims can be interlinked as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.166.233 (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creed Live

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

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's a notable band, it's a notable release. No reason to delete it. People can feel free to expand on it and add references. http://www.casttv.com/video/7d2vmy/creed-live-movie-trailer-video—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.243.250 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Expand with what references? It won't be released for a while. There's no concrete release date. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ! I will answer you with pride ! Creed's FULL CIRCLE (album) page was created long before date of release was....released. WE didn't know how many songs were gonna be on it, nor the lenght, nor the lyrics, nor the singles ! But the page was there ! Ready to be completed in the same moment new news were out. And, just to answer you, I HAVE UPDATES NOW !

First of all, the release date was stated by MARK TREMONTI himself and confirmed here as 8 DECEMBER 2009 ! http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Creed/a/Creed.htm

Second, WE KNOW THE SONGS that are gonna appear on it ! It's the concert in HOUSTON !

Third, read this ! http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=30374294520&share_id=172202716283&comments=1#s172202716283

IN this post Mark underlines that not only CREED LIVE is a solid and decided project, but that also that on Thursday November 19th, 2009, in selected theaters, people and fans will be able to see the concert AS A MOVIE first time in history !

Now, do I need to tell you more ?200.88.86.4 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not a reliable source. [redacted because I was cranky] Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously I think you're joking... THIS is an OFFICIAL statement made by the GUITARIST of the band ! I can't believe what I'm reading... And the link I posted about CDUNIVERSE.COM where YOU CAN SEE that the album will be out on the 8th of December ? I guess this is a reliable source, right ? OR NOT ? And the tracklist of the album ? WE KNOW IT ! It's the live show in Houston ! Go on youtube ! There's the full concert ! BUT I guess that for you even this is not a reliable source, right ? WHAT the hell is a reliable source for you ?!?200.88.86.4 (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something secondary. A news source, a magazine, a newspaper, a reputable website (CD Universe is not reputable as a secondary source, since it's a sales site). Ask Alan Leifting, the AFD nominator. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the last one who likes to use the "attack the other's reputation" tactic, but for what I saw Alan is not new to impulsive "markin for deletion"... And not only this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIldzGgZCco This is the youtube video of the announcement of the theatrical event...well FROM SECOND 58 TO SECOND 60 under the credits YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE "CREED LIVE DVD COMING SOON" Now, do you have anything else to say ? 201.229.209.174 (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. There should be no reason to cite a YouTube video. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NALBUMS Crafty (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent sources, falls short of WP:NALBUMS...for now. But I want to stress to the anonymous poster above, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from coming back and creating this article again in a few months after those independent sources pop up. But they've got to be acceptable sources, as Ten Pound Hammer said, like news or magazine articles or some other secondary source. See WP:SOURCES before you try this article again, or it will only be deleted again... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. Sluggo | Talk 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-A-A...Sluggo, the WP:HAMMER you say is not good here, cause we know the name of the album AND the tracklist...

It's CREED LIVE and the tracklist is the one of the concert in Houston, freely available on Youtbe66.98.12.176 (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. YouTube is not an acceptable source. Until a reliable third-party publication lists the tracks, we have no source for the tracklist. Sluggo | Talk 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't have a source for a track listing? Go buy the DVD. It's right there. Is that not enough of a source? - <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Live_Light>Live Light</url>

Comment: An IP posted a hangon on the article, and I have removed it because the article is not tagged for speedy deletion. The following is the posts on the talk page of the article:

Cunard (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here comes your damned press release, cancelling-maniac...http://guitarinternational.com/wpmu/2009/11/24/creed-brings-reunion-tour-%E2%80%98full-circle%E2%80%99-with-first-ever-live-concert-dvd-%E2%80%98creed-live%E2%80%99/ Was it too difficult to wait two weeks ? And I said two weeks because the date of the press conference is 24 November.. YOU IDIOTS CANCELLERS !201.229.209.152 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Latham

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

Article was posted here with nothing more in the AFD page than "No References, Self promotion, not note worthy living bio" by User:NativeTexan55. I'm finishing the AFD for 2 and this nom does not constitute my !vote. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cursory search on Google turns up nothing that would make him pass WP:ATHLETE. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to keep per Eastmain's findings. Good enough. I am not withdrawing the AFD, though, in deference to the person who posted it initially. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holding a national record is sufficient to establish notability. Participating in the 2009 World Championships in Athletics is participating at the highest level, comparable to the Olympics, and is also sufficient to establish notability. I added a reference from the International Association of Athletics Federations as verification. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Eastmain - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, not a great article, but his achievements certainly satisfy the criteria. Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal love

AfDs for this article:

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

Dictionary definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is followed by a false generalization about how most people who love animals become vegan. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably an article to be written about Relational bonds between humans and animals (see anthrozoology) This isn't it. Delete. -- The Anome (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just basically a definition, followed by a hasty generalization. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy dleete for no context. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Contreras

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

He played in the Mexican League, which is not enough for notability. He also played in the 2007 Baseball World Cup, which I don't think is enough for notability, but is enough for an AfD rather than a PROD. Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Represented his country at the 2007 Baseball World Cup, a major international competition. Thus satisfying notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Spanneraol, also once you establish notability it doesn't go away does it? But I don't think it matters, the Mexican League is Minor League Baseball regardless. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Beyince

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

No apparent notability for an article about a living person. No Google hits except for some website called habbo.com. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Habbo is a social networking site. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom. No indication this person actually exists noq (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No g-hits for "Lia Beyince" nor the "real name" "Viola Daphne Beyince". Most likely a blatant hoax, in which case could be speedily deleted under CSD G3. TheLetterM (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My hoax detector is beeping, but even granting the possibility that she actually exists she still wouldn't be notable per WP:BIO. Definitely delete...the only question is whether we actually give it a whole week to WP:SNOW or not. Bearcat (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A2 James086^{Talk | Email} 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

جامعة ديوستو

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

Page in English already exists: University of Deusto. Changing this article to a redirect isn't called for because there is no reason for anyone to be searching for a Basque university on English Wikipedia by its Arabic name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-Jazz

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

Possible neologism. No references, no relevant Google hits. And how can it already have been developed in the mid 21st century? Mostly likely made up. Author declined PROD with no substantial changes or comments. Singularity42 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't know if it's a hoax, but if John Cage created it, it still falls under the WP:NFT rules. Needs more notability (and better writing, frankly) if it's going to be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news and books search doesn't turn up anything that would be called "bang-jazz". No prejudice to this article being recreated in the mid-21st century. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bonser

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

Violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI, this is a completely self-promotional article in which the author, using a WP:SPA, goes embarrassingly overboard in self-praise. He fails all notability standards for authors, and his self-published book woefully fails WP:BK. This whole episode is so embarrassing that we do him a favor by deleting this long, long, long example of self-love forthwith. Qworty (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: I'm not sure it is ever really asserted but I didn't try to find sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy as both G11 and A7. I do not regard the assertion that one has written a few self-published novels a plausible claim of notability. Matador Press declares itself a self-publisher at the top of its own web page. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP-auto redir ': Is that supposed to go to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography , which right now is a parody of an autobio from an artist or is it vandalism? LOL. It makes the point, but I haven't seen wikipedia pages be that satiric. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been extensively re-written to take into account comments received. Gurgaloid (talk)

How: What is he notable for? This isn't myspace. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion. Insufficient notability. Let's wait until he gets some quality independent coverage. Polargeo (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, of an unsourced biography of a living person. There is a list of books that he's written, but not a single reliable source in the whole article. Wikipedia is not a web host. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mannerings of Terenure

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

The article fails to establish any notability for this family. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable. Only 4 Google hits. Btilm 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N. Warrah (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panic (band)

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

Delete. A collection of non-notable bands collected together as a dab page. Panic at the Disco can be dabbed elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Alan. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is probably worth converting to a dab page and keeping those that are notable. If Black Flag originally went under the name Panic, then they certainly are notable, and a number of the others probably are also, e.g. Mustaine's early band, the second listed, and the band that released two albums on Metal Blade ([39]). It doesn't seem unreasonable that we should have a dab page here for anyone searching for these bands.--Michig (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any band that is notable for having used the name "Panic" can be listed at Panic (disambiguation) and linked to the bands article. At present the page is being used to list some non-notable bands since they would not survive on WP with their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, Merge the notable ones to Panic (disambiguation).--Michig (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and then delete the page since a redir is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. In fact I think that could probably have been done without an AFD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This really isn't the greatest form for a dab. Those bands who meet WP:BAND as pointed out can be dab'd in Panic (Disambiguation). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have merged those bands that seem notable or potentially so into Panic (disambiguation). Clearly this would have been difficult after this article was deleted.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Alauddin Siddiqui

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

Full of original research. Violates WP:NPOV. No refs to show notability either. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These concerns were raised before, but the article was given the chance to improve. Unfortunately it has rematerialised with the same issues, and there's only so much leniency we can give in these situations. AJ Cham 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puffery bordering on nonsense -Drdisque (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Violates WP:NPOV, but probably notable. I added this reference from a reliable source about one of his projects: Magill, Peter (23 October 2009). "Plans for 1,500-pupil Muslim girls boarding school in Burnley". Asian Image. Retrieved 2009-11-07. If he is notable (as the founder of a television channel, a university, a medical school and a boarding school), then the article ought to be kept and vigorously rewritten. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOtability is a maybe and needs more work. Definitely WP:PEACOCK problem. It may be just better to wipe and restart. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails notability --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua: The Hits VCD Karaoke

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

Non-notable karaoke video. Released in India and Thailand after this Danish band had split up. Does not deserve its own article. Also title too obscure for a redirect. Prod tag rejected. Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this non-notable? BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this music video compilation. Joe Chill (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable (likely unauthorized) release -Drdisque (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I cannot understand why this is relisted. The one voice for keep simply says "how is this non-notable?" I thought we had to prove notability. If there is no evidence of notability then deletion. Yes we take the standard argument that an album is 'probably' notable if it is from a notable band but this idea cannot cover everything to do with a band and if some record company decides they want to release a karaoke video in India after the band has split then we should judge this by our usual notability guidelines and try to find significant independent coverage rather than default to keep. Polargeo (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word Rebus

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

This article was prodded back in 2007 with the concern: "Unsourced, unverifiable. There are many different definitions of things called a "word rebus" (genre "momanon" for "man in the moon"), there is no evidence that this or any other definition is "the correct one" according to any reliable source. Fails WP:V". The stated concerns still exist; there are no references to substantiate this article's definitions of "word rebus" or "word arithmetic". Suggest deletion as an unsourced neologism apparently coined by the article's creator, or else rewriting and moving to a more accurate name if reliable sources can be found. --Muchness (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect: I can find examples of "word rebus" referring to games of the "momanon" and "time time" type (e.g., [40]). It might be possible to discuss such games at rebus and redirect this there. I can't find any examples of "word rebus" meaning the sort of "word arithmetic" this article focuses on; that doesn't seem very rebus-y to me at all. (I also didn't find any uses of the phrase "word arithmetic" with this meaning, but I didn't look very hard.) --Chris Johnson (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources on the subject strictly. Anna Lincoln 21:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, although there are plenty of books on wordplay that one can refer to for notable word games. I have a feeling that this is made up, since this doesn't resemble a rebus in any respect. In fact, as word games go, this doesn't look like a very challenging game (in the example given, "a flea chair merits", minus the words "iris each art" will leave you with the word "flame" Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources, verifiability, and notability. Cnilep (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both keeps said that the article needs work, but did not show how it might be notable. Black Kite 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abora Recordings

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. The article's biggest claim to non-notability is that none of the artists have articles. Joe Chill (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no articles mention it right now Cynof Gavuf 10:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: seems ok, but needs work. South Bay (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trance music? It is practically impossible to establish notability for these niche labels but there is room on Wikipedia for the information. A section 'Trance record labels' on the Trance music page may be the best solution. I'm going to transclude this discussion to Talk:Trance music to see what folks that are more expert in the genre than myself think. J04n(talk page) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but needs work - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its "major" artists only exist on Wikipedia as mentioned in this article (per searches). I don't think it it is notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Horrorist

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

DELETE Notability. And given that the vast majority of the article appears to have been written by accounts which did little or nothing else, this looks a lot like self-publicity. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Coverage in the Village Voice and Montreal Mirror alone are sufficient to meet category 1 of WP:BAND. Parenthetically, I do think that DJ Skinhead should be merged into it.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article by Simon Reynolds in Village Voice, 2 articles from the Montreal Mirror, plus 2 from side-line: [41], [42]. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Fitness

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

Delete per WP:COMPANY. Also bordering on WP:SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article looks fine to me. Seems like a large franchise. It has sources listed at the bottom too, and news reports. It doesn't seem like spam to me (it has been changed some, but even the first copy looked fine). Cynof Gavuf 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article, I hope this request for deletion will be removed soon. Celebrity Fitness is indeed a large company. Look at the pages of other fitness companies on Wikipedia, Fitness First, 24 Hour Fitness, Gold's Gym, and one of Celebrity's local competitors in Asia California Fitness. Celebrity's page has more citations to third party sources and in particular compared to California Fitness a lot less statements without citation in need of them. I'd like to add more content to this page, for example the logo, but cannot as the article is still on probation and don't want to spend more time working on this if it is just going to be deleted. In short, WP:CORP is not accurate, it's a well documented company, and WP:SPAM I can understand when the phone numbers were up there, but the numbers have been removed. My goal as this pages creator is to make it the most informative, well-referenced page for a fitness center on Wikipedia. User:yes4us —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Notability not Asserted : number of world wide franchises alone is not notability and the sources seem to be on other topics or company related press releases. Who has noted this and for what? Equipment? Business methods? If you could explcitly state and cite notability that would help. Other stuff exists does not help, they may be deleted on further examination too. You could try to find a catagory in which this can become "inherently notable" - if you have licensed internal radio station ( like those AM stations you see mentioned on freeway for local construction alerts LOL) you may be able to make a legalistic argument for inclusion on that criterion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is "asserted" (and proven) by the references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources in the article. There are more such sources available, such as [43], [44] and [45]. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one article was just a "grand opening" story of apparently local interest but it did mention the rest of chain exists and something about an award in Men's Health magazine(see comment below). The other wasn't in English. I guess if you could explain why they are notable- what about them is highlighted in the articles- that would help. Explaining they opened a store or are on a lengthy list of ok gyms from a magazine soliciting ad money from gyms is questionable claim to notability. If someone else has noted their growth or popularity in more than glib ad or promotional material I guess that could be a claim to fame but all businesses have some growth and fluff coverage. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that the Jakarta Post is a legitimate Indonesian periodical, Bernama is Malaysia's national news agency, The Star is one of Malaysia's most circulated daily papers, etc. Will continue to find sources to develop this article but as noted previously am hesitant to spend more time on this until I know it will be well spent. yes4us (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:COMPANY and fails notability --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this extended this long? This is clearly within guidelines. The only deletes have no explanation. Cynof Gavuf 11:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stoxx 50 is notable, no indication that this fund meets the guidelines Ged UK 19:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50

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

This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant exchange traded fund with significant global daily volume and there is an exchange fund wikipedia category that without this entry would be incomplete--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - iShares is notable. "DJ Euro Stoxx 50," independantly, is not. Having a category incomplete is not a reason for keeping an article. This entry is already listed on the List of exchange-traded funds; an full article does not need to be dedicated to this fund for the list to remain complete. Neelix (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What "DJ Euro Stoxx 50" represents is the 50 most significant stock in the EU zone (all of which, I am sure, have their own Wiki entries), notable as they move markets. Would agree that the article should be fleshed out to describe criteria for inclusion in the list, the list itself (with a update link), weighting and so on but as is this article should stand albeit that it could be improved upon to share more information.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources, nothing to show that it has been discussed by reliable sources. Nothing to show notability. LK (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for What?: I guess I'd have to ask what specific features or events related to it make it notable? That is, if you have articles on ETF's and you have articles on the companies and the underlying securities, why single out this fund for its own article? If I start my own business that trades these stocks and the only coverage is my ads does that make my business notable by association with notable products? What about my own company that makes me-too widgets, even if widgets are notable or the first widget was notable is my company notable too? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obviously fails notability --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 50 is obviously notable and worth an article, but let's be careful not confuse the specific fund under discussion here with the index itself. Barnabypage (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus for deletion after 2 weeks JForget 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG enV3 (VX9200)

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

Doesn't appear to be an especially notable cellphone from what the article and references suggest. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although it seems like it might be odd to have articles on this phone's predecessors but not the current model. Powers ^T 13:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep::What is the current models; and this phone has significant advantages over it's predecessors; so why should it not get an aticle; it was a suggested article; and what is it's succesor? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge, which is the default we we deal with individual products of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked but couldn't find a merge target. Powers ^T 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG enV2 (VX9100) , adjusting the title to cover them both. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus on whether it is notable or not JForget 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima Dreamination

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

Unnotable event. Fails WP:N. Prod removed by the article creator without any comment. Nothing in the article reflects any relevance or importance for this event, and it is purely sourced by the event's own website. Searches through Google News shows only blog posts and press releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does appear to be a minor regional festival with only minimal local media coverage. --DAJF (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find coverage from Asahi Shimbun (major national), Chugoku Shimbun (large regional) Hiroshima Keizai Shimbun (local unknown) and Rurubu (travel guide maker). --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So one minor "national" paper and that's all? That is still a minor festival. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information from Japan: Asahi Shinbun is the biggest and most popular newspaper here. The festival is local, but is a major tourist attraction of the area; it lasts 2 months a year and is regular. Given many foreign tourists visit Hiroshima, my vote is keep, but I wouldn't fight till blood on this one :-). Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~Collectonian~~ Apoc2400 and ~~Tim Song.~~Materialscientist --Cyclopia ^talk 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You're saying keep per the nominator and its being relisted??-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Sorry, I seriously need to go to sleep. I've misread not one, but two editor names. Corrected above, it's that in the editor I've been looking hastily at the signatures above the asterisk. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and I thought I was doing bad while high on cold meds ;-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Between this Google search and this Google news search, I can find pretty much the same kind of references this article has for the Smoky Hill River Festival that is held in my hometown. In other words, I agree with DAJF (and Collectionian) above. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we owe Hiroshima at least one superfluous page on wikipedia...they've been through a lot.TheThomas (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex attraction

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

Several articles already discuss this topic, that is sexual orientation and homosexuality Linestarz (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An overlap in subject matter is an argument for an article merge, not deletion. This article appears to be adequately referenced. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I wanted to say delete first, because I couldn't see the difference between this and homosexuality. Reading into it, looks like this is specifically the attraction to someone of the same gender identity, rather than the same gender (read the first lines of the two articles). Is this accurate? I'm open to anyone else with more knowledge of the specifics of these terms, but that's what I'm getting. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the nominator considers it an unwarranted content fork it's a valid topic for a deletion discussion. The references have examples of the term being used, but I'm not convinced they support the article's assertion of it being used to describe same-sex attraction as a discrete phenomenon. Cassandra 73 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same-sex attraction and homosexuality are different. To explain it better, although one is inherently same-sex attracted if one is homosexual, one can be something other than homosexual and still be same-sex attracted (bi, curious/questioning, whatever). It is a term which finds its way into the lexicon through primarily the social sciences. I have no opinion on whether to delete or keep (mainly as I can't be bothered reading either article to see if the content justifies a separate article for SSA) but I hope my explanation helps clarify things for those who do :) Orderinchaos 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely dicdef to make sure that the hypertechnical never mistake attraction with orientation with identity or anything else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sexual orientation. The proposed distinction between attraction and orientation is uncited, and seems to be intended as a distinction between attraction and identity. Also, the term does not appear to be used enough to write more than a dicdef about it. --Alynna (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to sexual orientation, per Alynna. Anna Lincoln 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge I dont understand why the nominator didn't merge this in the first place. Ikip (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sexual orientation, if sources added there, then maybe an article would be warranted, but at the moment it seems arbitary.Yob Mod 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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