Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 22

< 21 January	23 January >

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 keep. No argument for anything. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Ikin

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

R12056 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a10, duplicative article. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby B-Skillz Walker

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

As revered as "B-Skillz" might be in his youth group, he still is not Wikipedia material. Not notable enough, as they say. Delete. Politoman (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as of WP:CSD#A10, because it is the same as Bobby B-Skills Walker. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Jimfbleak as "spam". lifebaka++ 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommind

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

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of this page, but that allegation appears to me to be unfounded. While a few sentences are similar, it is not a blatant copy/paste job. As for the article, it sounds a little spammy to me and may not meet notability guidelines, but I think it deserves discussion. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Spam or copyvio - take your pick. The lead section consists of (1) a factual statement about the company location - that's ok, but then (2) the Company's own profile (copied verbatim from the "About us" section of the page linked above), and (3) advert-like claims of delivering "powerful solutions" etc. Article has been speedily deleted 4 times already; all five versions were created by the same editor. I42 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious spam and no notability. Haakon (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The independent mentions by Deloitte and KMWorld, and the minor prizes the company got, seems to edge it to notability. LotLE×talk 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy speedy delete as spam unless someone gives it a total rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't that person be you? If you believe that when rewritten the article has a place in an encyclopedia then it should be kept and rewritten, not thrown out because no-one can be bothered rewriting it. Weakopedia (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be me? I'm not interested in facilitating spammers and I haven't a clue whether this is notable or not. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't a clue whether this is notable or not then you should perhaps not have voted on the subject. Weakopedia (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article which is unambiguously spam is eligable for speedy deletion {{db-g11 }} regardless of notability, so whether the subject is notable or not is immaterial. I42 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a subject which is notable only needs to be rewritten to be spam no longer. A quick Google search shows this company and it's award-winning status discussed by the Independant on Sunday, Florida Bar News, Tri-Valley Herald, and online journals such as EarthTimes and International Business Times as well as winning awards with such publications as the Law Technology News. The problem here seems to be more the manner of inclusion than inclusion itself which is something that can be remedied. Weakopedia (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is rewritten without the spam or copyright violation before the AfD ends then great - we can reconsider. But no-one is obliged to do it, and no-one has yet. Nor should we keep this version of the article on the off-chance they might. I42 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is then a failing of this community. You have written more words in this deletion review than were needed to rewrite the article to your liking. Weakopedia (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you haven't even touched the entry yourself, I'm not clear on why you're throwing stones. Hairhorn (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that after I had moved a copy of the article to a userpage in order to work on it without causing disruption. Maybe you would like to help. Weakopedia (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite as per Hairhorns suggestion. Weakopedia (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as per Hairhorns suggestion (2). Well, if this article is to be deleted, I suggest deleting many other biographies in Wikipedia, which seem to have minor importance or is not written acconding to the Wikipedia guidances. Well, instead of deleting I really suggest that someone could edit and adapt it to Wikipedia. Luz del Fuego (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: Recommind delivers powerful solutions to efficiently and accurately handle electronically stored information for the world’s largest enterprises and law firms. No one's obliged to improve articles about behind the scenes tech firms, either. It's not like we'd be missing anything if we denied them a platform. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete. I had tagged the article as advert. The guys that founded this company are also the brains behind probabilistic latent semantic analysis, which was created by the good-standing editor User:Rama. I've contacted him to ask if he wants clean-up this article, but no reply so far. The company is notable [1], [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] but the article needs a total rewrite, and I'm not volunteering because I don't know much about it. They actually make search products for legal firms, e-discovery and the like. Pcap ping 16:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Pcap observes, this company is notable. The article is written in a promotional manner, but lack of neutrality is not by itself grounds for deletion; it just means it should be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact overtly promotional language that would require a total rewrite is grounds for speedy deletion, no matter how notable the company. Anyone is welcome to rewrite the entry, but there is no requirement to keep it hanging around waiting for that to happen. Hairhorn (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Tsoukalas

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

Unsourced BLP going on 3 years I believe. Cannot prod per old AFD. The guy is the host of a television for a fan club about a sports club. Beyond the typical problems with this, it's a serious vandal-target as the page history. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable personality. The guy is the host of a television for a fan club about a sports club. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google aside from Facebook and Youtube type videos, No hits in Google News. Fails WP:RS and WP:N fairly clearly. Nefariousski (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, unsourced for 3 years is RIDICULOUS and totally unacceptable. JBsupreme (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of minority local interest. No assertion of genuine notability in the article. SilkTork *^YES! 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination andyzweb (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons expressed in the nomination. --Stormbay (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Blofeld (!). Drmies (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfuri Gorps & Kniri

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

Non-notable band. A Google News Archive search returns no results. This band appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music). I will withdraw this AfD if sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pfuri Baldenweg for one of the band's members. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:N Daa89563 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few brief mentions, but nothing to justify keeping it.--Michig (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They played music on assorted trash instruments like plastic bags, mouse traps, trash cans, vacuum cleaners etc." Enough said! I ca't find any reliable sources online either. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coma Cinema

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They only recently released something. The only coverage I can find is just an event announcement. [9]. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Close obvious bad faith nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural (TV series)

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

Delete, it is a low budget TV show which has an article that is rarely updated and is unnotable as its an unpopular TV show. ToxicWasteGrounds (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. The article is extensively sourced with reliable secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a good article (it has 198 solid references! How can this topic be considered "unnotable"?), and the subject is clearly notable. It also appears to be frequently updated -- going back 500 contributions on its history only takes you to September, 2009. I have no idea why this article would be deleted, and might go so far as to suggest that the nominator read up on what constitutes notability in the future before submitting anything to AFD. This makes no sense. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. This seems to be a spurious request for deletion with malicious intent. It's a 5th season TV series on a major US network, being broadcast internationally on several continents, and is generally about as notable as currently running TV shows can get. This delete suggestion is nonsense. JZ (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Lee Sanchez

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

Not convinced she is notable. Only online refs I can find seem to be word-for-word with this article. thisisace (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There are numerous citations are already in the article, albeit print, not online, but online cites are not required. This poet and artist has received many awards, as noted in the article. This nomination appears to be of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral I think it's important to clarify if she's notable as a poet, an artist, an academic, all.... I have doubts about her notability as a poet, as there is no mention of any major journals, anthologies or well-known awards that one would expect of an established poet....More comments should be solicited from poetry experts Vartanza (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are weak but it can be improved. MiRroar (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watari Kakei

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

Astronomer who discovered a few asteroids (the only reference is to a name list). No scholarly article's I can find (I can't read Japanese though). From what I can see there is nothing written about him of any significance. Simply insufficient verifyable information from reliable sources to have an article. Peripitus (Talk) 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name list doesn't even provide the full name, and certainly does not show notability. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since appropriate sources don't support a blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to say that the simple fact of being recognized as the discover of an asteroid is enough to establish notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um....where does that make reliable sources talk about him. Which ones do ? I can find nothing at all. Peripitus (Talk) 11:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPDiscsAlpha.html Harvard astronomers are likely to be pretty careful about fact-checking. Getting on that list requires some evaluation of a claim; it's not a wiki. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the link cited would support a list entry here, but not an article. It doesn't even give us a source for his full name. Kevin (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the entry lists his name twice, without even noting his first name. That is a phone book entry, not a reliable source discussing a subject - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability or reliable sourcing to justify a biography on this person. --DAJF (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient notability / sourcing for this WP:BLP article. JBsupreme (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to the argument that one can be deemed notable for discovering asteroids. However, there is no evidence he is particularly known for such. The reason, say, playing in a fully professional league makes one pass WP:ATHLETE is that having done so almost always guarantees that there's press coverage. I think a better analogy here is WP:ACADEMIC, which requires showing that among the mass of all peers -- i.e., amateur astronomers -- he is known for his achievements as an asteroid hunter, as evidenced by for ex speaking at conferences or press coverage. This guy's not showing that, so, I'm going to say delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Kniffen

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

Non-notable individual lacks GHits and GNEW to support WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN based notability. Article references lack substance or fail WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I seen this guy all over the news all year long for his leapngo company, and now this, seems notable to me, i think some people that flag stuff here are too quick to make these judgements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.129.131 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — 24.165.129.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Observed articles are not a valid basis for retaining an article. Unfortunately without providing valid support for the article, it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has never held public or party office, and his company is not so large as to merit his own article for that. I can find no reliable sources - for example, there are zero news ghits on this person. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above and WP:GNG Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO. MiRroar (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above and WP:GNG Raider2000 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HydraRacker

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

No indication that this meets notability guidelines. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources for this product. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Only mention I can find is here, without much detail.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there are no stated valid reasons for deletion; extremely well-sourced. Semi-protection will be added to the page to solve the vandalism issue. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tavi Gevinson

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

Information in article violates privacy of a minor WikiMrsP (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that every single sentence of the article is sourced to information published in mainstream news sources. Would you mind explaining which of the reasons for deletion you think the article falls under? If you have an issue with particular sentences in the article, they can be dealt with via regular editing rather than deletion. Holly25 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it breaches Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, namely the presumption in favor of privacy, and the privacy of personal information. Personal and irrelevant information about this child continues to be added to this page, no matter how often it is removed. There is no way to remove this information without continually drawing attention to it. Privacy of a child should take precedence over mainstream media's definition of notability. She wishes to have the article removed. WikiMrsP (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I can gather reading the article, the child has been the subject of interviews and appeared on the front cover of a magazine, all with her parents' permission. The presumption of privacy is for people not explicitly seeking publicity. How do you know she wants the article removed? (not that this would be a valid reason for deletion) Holly25 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The presumption of privacy is only for people who have not received publicity? Where does it say that? People keep entering personally identifiable and irrelevant information to this page, which she does want and thinks is "dumb". Because of the age of the subject, we should err on the side of caution and delete this article. From the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: "under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." WikiMrsP (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If a person has actively sought publicity in the form of interviews and front-page shoots, then of course there's no longer a presumption that the person wishes to remain low-key and unknown. The "presumption of privacy" is for the likes of crime victims and people involved in news coverage through no fault of their own. As this person is under 18, then yes we do have a greater responsibility to keep the information on the page pertinent and backed up by reliable sources. But that is an article content issue, not grounds for deletion. Holly25 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So she has to wait until she's a victim of crime before wikipedia will respect a child's right to privacy and remove her private information? This is so frustrating. We keep removing personal information about her, and people keep adding it back. Editing the content via normal channels is not helping to protect the safety and privacy of this young girl. Please delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMrsP (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, let me try to explain. This girl is actively seeking to become well known. She's doing interviews, she's had her photo on the front cover of a magazine, she's designed a t-shirt sold on the basis of her name. Thus we have on an article on her, and it doesn't get deleted on "privacy" grounds because she's already well-known for appearing in the mainstream press. "Private" information which isn't backed up by reliable sources can get deleted from the article straight away. But if the "private information" you're talking about is information which she's provided to an interviewer and had published in a major newspaper with her parents' permission -- then it's not really "private" any more, is it? It's in the public record. What kind of "personal information" are you referring to, specifically? Holly25 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is requesting deletion. If you have any further questions, please email me. WikiMrsP (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can suggest is that you contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly (details here); we're just regular users, and we're not in any position to verify your credentials to make claims on the behalf of the subject. Holly25 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have an option of making a request for permanent deletion of personal information at Requests for oversight. — Rankiri (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also don't think that a valid reason for deletion was given. Wikipedia is not censored and the article seems to pass all key requirements of WP:BLP. It's relatively well-sourced, doesn't contain any defamatory information, and whatever basic personal facts it contains, they have already been published by several major news sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable, and if there are issues with the content of the article (I see none at the moment) they can be addressed via editing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's notion of notability is a joke. She's a kid who writes a blog about things she digs. Because our notoriously shallow and fickle mass culture filled some columns with stuff about her, her life is open to public scrutiny? Give me a break. There are thousands of real writers with prize winning books that don't have pages on Wikipedia. Philip Dray is a pulitzer finalist who won the Robert Kennedy Book Award for his excellent history of lynching in America. Where's his wikipedia page?WikiMrsP (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you click on Philip Dray you can create it yourself. He'd certainly pass notability, judging from all the news coverage he's generated. Holly25 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WikiMrsP: That's a problem with our culture and what it pays attention to, not with Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination not based on a valid reason for deletion. If there is information in the article that violates WP:BLP, it can be removed—there's no rule saying that there can't be articles about minors period. And, as said above, Gevinson is already notable and has already been covered in mainstream media, so this article is not spreading anything that hasn't already been published in mainstream media. For example, name of the city she lives in (with a population over 50,000) is not dangerous identifying information like her address would be. Other than that (which I have already removed), the article contains no incriminating personal information, it just talks about her blogging activities and appearances in the media. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is exactly as dangerous. Look, my intention was not to further expose personal information about this kid. Please remove this thread.WikiMrsP (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, you have said above that "personal information keeps being added to this page". Well, there are ways to deal with that other than deletion. First of all, there are many people watching the page to undo edits that add undue personal information. And if it ever becomes too much of a problem, it is always possible to protect the page so unregistered users cannot edit it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Waters (journalist)

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

Totally unsourced article about a local reporter that fails WP:CREATIVE. Most items I could find were reported by him, not about him. Article mentions "associated press awards", but these were state level awards, only among other stations in the state, not national level awards. Has had jobs that put him on TV, but no significant coverage about him. Visible and notable aren't the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has never had sources and it was tagged as such by the author, who apparently felt sourcing it was someone elses job. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's some history to this one. David Waters was originally about the the Australian actor, but was repeatedly hijacked by User:Davidgwaters for a page on the career of David G. Waters, and by User:Chrisayto hijacking it for the career of wrestler Dave Waters, plus various acts of vandalism conflating his career with Gary Glitter's. So to halt the carnage, I turned David Waters into a dab, splitting the hijacked versions out with simple copy & pastes. I didn't source them because I couldn't find any WP:Reliable sources following the split. Subject here appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Deleting this article probably won't stop the re-hijacking of David Waters, so I'd appreciate other editors keeping an eye on it. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep notability established and good sources added (WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Minchin

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

Totally unsourced. I even googled for her - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Elizabeth Hume Minchin%22&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq= Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get much better results without her middle name. Try clicking on the "find sources" links above, particularly the "scholar" and "books" links. Holly25 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Carrick awards are notable. She is a full Professor, which is more restricted in Australian academia than the US. The books seem notable and are sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke, WP:HEY, and WP:PROF; it is now well-referenced. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A national-level academic award, a journal editorship, plus multiple published reviews of her books, looks sufficient for passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, good article. Rebecca (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, WP:PROF is met here. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Omar

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

Abdul Aziz Omar, better known as Philbert Little, is only known as the brother of Malcolm X, and notability is not inherited. The article is mistaken when it states he founded the Detroit temple; he was the minister of (and not founder of) the Lansing temple. The only important fact about his life not included in the article is that he is the person who convinced Malcolm X to join the Nation of Islam. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Does not meet BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nom and the article point out his only claim to notability is his brother,he is not notable in his own right. The one source I found confirms this; he's giving a lecture to an audience of 200 on his brother's legacy. Wine Guy Talk 10:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Mifter (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davur Juul Magnussen

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

Fails notability guidelines for musicians. Only one 3rd party source is listed. WP:MUS Momo Hemo (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of this accomplishment is minute; if anything, it fails WP:BLP1E along with WP:MUSIC. Angryapathy (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - with a few clicks, I found this, and this, and this, and this from Russia, and yonder. Add cites and rescue. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those links you've cited appear to be passing mentions, ie "Davur Magnussen is part of XYZ orchestra" and nothing more. JBsupreme (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking Google news, I see he has been the subject of a newspaper article [10]. Dream Focus 13:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notability and sourcing support inclusion. -- Banjeboi 14:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. MiRroar (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. kur ykh 07:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Bonner

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

Disputed prod over this unreferenced biography of a living person. Been without a source since October 2006. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this makes it silly. Still, I don't think he's sufficiently notable as those are really nothing but passing references, nothing substantial. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to nom this later, so it saves me a few clicks to just comment here. I cannot locate evidence of substantial coverage which would indicate or confer notability. JBsupreme (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. No offense, but only a little looking reveals evidence of substantial coverage. He's been interviewed by The Village Voice in 2002,[11], CNN in 2004 (Lou Dobbs),[12] PBS in 2006,[13] The Washington Times in 2007,[14] CNN again in 2007 (Glenn Beck),[15] the San Diego Union Tribune in 2009,[16], NPR in 2009,[17] ... that's a casual look, that took me more time to type here than to search. I strongly suspect there's much more, but hopefully it's sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like somebody just gave Wikipedia a Bonner. JBsupreme (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources given by GRuban. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep since this article is sourced the AfD is meaningless andyzweb (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this now well sourced article. Icewedge (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Yamada

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

Delete, subject appears to fail GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability established. He hasn't accomplished enough to confer notability. Angryapathy (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete best I can find is [18]. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Estradasphere, where his work has context. Chip Yamada. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient body of work. Stormbay (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Echt (band). I redirected since the entire content of this article was present at the target.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Frank

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

Delete: Non-notable musician. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:MUSICBIO - former member of the notable Echt (band), charted in Germany, toured in Europe. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Echt, I agree the band is notable, but I don't see how he is notable beyond the band. CTJF83 chat 07:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to merge if there is consensus. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge works for me. Chutznik (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until someone has had time to translate the much longer article in the German Wikipedia article. He certainly seems to be notable enough in his native country. There are also some sourceable bits in an interview with him in the TAZ (daily newspaper) from 4 Oct 2005.--Kudpung (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Krabye

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

Delete. This was nominated for deletion about three years ago, and by some form of MAGIC it somehow got a "no consensus" verdict. It really is a mystery to me how it survived, even after taking into consideration how much more relaxed our policies were back then. If you will review the edit history, you will soon realize how blatantly obvious an autobiography (spam) this is, and its been sitting in the Unsourced BLP category ever since. Sigh. JBsupreme (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - COI / unreferenced problem as mentioned above, and I gave it about 30 seconds of googling without finding any reliable sources out there. There is barely even a claim to notability, although I suppose if one writes 80 television documentary soundtracks and 100 commercial jingles that could count. Perhaps there are print or foreign language sources but unless someone rescues this it's not usable. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Unit Anode 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -evident conflict of interest. I think the article tries to assert notability with poor claims like him running an "independent label". I see little coverage of him in reliable sources like Norwegian journals etc. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is clear, but even had it not been, that it remains a BLP with no secondary sourcing at the end of an AfD is reason enough to close as delete. Onus is on keep voters to provide verification. Scott Mac (Doc) 11:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Delaunay

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

Upgraded from PROD. Original concern was "Questionable noteworthiness; unsourced for three years.". I don't dispute notability is questionable, having searched for sources myself, but we have a large number of biographies on other (in fact, I believe just about every) current and former "Hello! Project" member. I have no opinion either way on deletion, but I think this is worthy of discussion. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - no valid reasons for deletion are stated. No effort has been made to fix the citation issues. She easily passes WP:MUSICBIO - former member of notable bands, toured, TV shows. I found over 20,000 Ghits. There has to be something reliable in that pile. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I tried and failed to find sources and I personally am not advocating deletion, I just upgraded this from a PROD because I thought it was worthy of discussion and PRODs seem to be being over-used for potentially controversial deletions. Have you managed to find any sources? I'll be happy to assist in referencing the article if you can find something t reference it with. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clicking on the "news" link right next to "find sources" (above) I get zilch. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 20,000 "Ghits" means nothing if they are all blogs and unreliable sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Coconuts Musume. In fact there are only 268 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 11:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Cutey Bunny. Chutznik (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Army Surplus Komikz

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

company that was created specifically to show one series of furry comics, which ran for five issue in 1985. I had redirected the article to the author's article (which is now being PRODded as an unreferenced BLP), but I was reverted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joshua Quagmire or Cutey Bunny. The magazine itself does not merit an entire article. Cerebellum (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traian Căldărar

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

Only claim to fame is being a feral child. WP:BLP1E. Pcap ping 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wild thing is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please obey WP:BLP. Calling him a "thing" isn't exactly right. Pcap ping 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence given of very much coverage: only one newspaper article. Generally speaking we do not consider having appeared in one incident in the news as constituting notability, as described in WP:ONEEVENT.

In addition it is perhaps worth mentioning that these stories about children living with wild animals occur frequently, and are often picked up by newspapers, but are rarely or never substantiated by verifiable evidence. When investigators travel to the scene to look further into the case there is a remarkably consistent tendency for the people mentioned in the reports to have mysteriously disappeared, or for there to be other obstacles in the way of verification. This means that in such cases the standard of verifiability required of our sources needs to be higher than for most other cases. Please note that my "delete" does not depend on this: even without this fact my first paragraph would apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrald Impchkin

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

Possible hoax article. No references could be found on Harrald Impchikin and he is not listed on Balitmore City's list of mayors at http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc2600/sc2685/html/bcmayors.html. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, along with File:Harrald Impchkin 1899.jpg. The Maryland State Archives website doesn't just fail to list Impchkin, but identifies William T. Malster as mayor from 1897 to 1899. All Google hits for "Harrald Impchkin" appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia or Yahoo Answers. EALacey (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, noting that the content has been userfied to User:Lemmiwinks2/Outline of the Bible. I am also going to take the liberty to redirect Timeline of the Bible to Chronology of the Bible, as was suggested below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Bible

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

This article is not only pure original research, from start to finish, but is also hopeless. There's simply no way to create a timeline of the Bible without it being original research. The very title begs the question of Bible version, translation, interpretation, etc. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 'outline of the bible'. I am the author of the article. The article is an 'outline' of the bible arranged as much as possible according to its internal timeline and containing as many links as possible to articles where the material can be discussed in detail and therefore secondarily acts as a convenient list of links. It does not address the question of actual historical dating (or whether the persons or events even existed). As I said on the talk page, Its purpose is to answer the question of 'what does the bible say'. Nothing more and nothing less. (I made this clear from the very beginning. The first 2 words of the article are a link to the talk page explaining this). I deliberately chose to do this so as to avoid accusations of original research and because that is the logical place to start any intelligent discussion about the bible. To say that it treats fictional characters as real (WP:INUNIVERSE) is simply flabbergasting. It contains many links to pages that discuss real historical dates and events many of which are highly critical of the bible and I welcome any such input. Every number in it was pulled straight from the bible. It is intended for those who are studying the bible and especially those studying its timeline. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been completely happy with the title of the article. Thats one of the first things that was discussed on the talk page. Six day ago I even suggested (there on the talk page) that the article should maybe be moved to 'outline of the bible'. I prefer to work mainly with the Masoretic version of the bible simply because that is the one I am most familiar with but I welcome any input about other versions. At several places I point out how the Septuagint differs. By the way, the article gets over 200 hits per day. http://stats.grok.se/en/201001/timeline of the bible. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The name change to "Outline" makes it even more POV. If it's purely a timeline, the article can be basically objective - if it's an outline, then a lot more interpretation is involved based on what one includes or does not include. You see, there can never be a fully comprehensive outline - the very word indicates that one is selecting the important features. Here's one random example of interpretation - the article includes Zerubbabel under "Kings", whereas the Hebrew Bible never calls him a king. StAnselm (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zerubbabel is listed under the subsection 'post exile rulers'. The list comes from 1 Chronicles 3:17-24 which the NIV titles 'the royal line after the exile'. You want to delete the article because I put the subsection 'post exile rulers' under the section 'kings'? Yes technically they were just rulers not kings. If it makes you happy I will change the entire section 'Kings' to 'rulers'. (I've also changed the subsection to 'royal line after the exile'). This is just another of the endless examples of everyone on the internet assuming that everyone else has some sinister ulterior motive for everything that they do. I was just being practical. I didnt want to create another whole section and "rulers" didnt seem like a very good heading. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you have a "sinister ulterior motive", just that you have a particular slant, like everyone else. And that particular slant comes out in the article. It comes out in what you include and what you leave out. It comes out in how you organise the data. I picked the example of Zerubbabel, because how you handle the post-exilic period ties in with how you see the trajectory of the Hebrew Bible. StAnselm (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectory of the bible? I dont even know what you are talking about. I include everything. I leave out nothing. I just condense it to tables and charts as best I can. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't put something like this together without including your own interpretation, or choosing between sources. Look at the table of "Creation by Elohim", for example. Why on earth do you divide things up the way you do? (For that matter, why do you spell "shamayim" as "shamim"?)

The division of the Land of Israel by tribes is not without its own issues. You've chosen one interpretation and presented it as encyclopedic fact. You list wives of Adam and his descendants. But while those are the names found in the Book of Jubilee, not everyone accepts that book as a valid source. For example, Jewish tradition holds that Noah was married to Naamah, the descendant of Cain. And not "Emzara". Why pick one source over another? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:PLOT, WP:OR, WP:INUNIVERSE. The article looks almost entirely... unencyclopedic. It contains numerous disjointed quotes from the Bible and no actual, factual chronology or reliable secondary sources to speak of. A seemingly unnecessary fork from Chronology of the Bible, Chronology of Jesus and other similar pages, I feel that it would have to be fundamentally rewritten to become suitable for an encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chronology of the Bible, which treats the same subject without the original research. EALacey (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article looks like it's beyond salvaging. There's so much here that's not part of a timeline, and a whole lot of entries with time references such as "some time later". Maybe there's some info here that could be added to the Chronology of the Bible article. StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Some time later' is a direct quote from Genesis. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At 259 KB, this is the longest article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and it's mostly incoherent notes from the author to the author, with plenty of "?" thrown in. Someone's personal study of the Old Testament or Torah is fine for their own word processor, but not as an article on Wikipedia. Give them time to save it on to their hard drive. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The longest was about 350 KB the last time I checked. The nature of the subject matter and the inclusion of tables and lists with many references justifies the length. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is very clearly original research, with inadequate citation of scholarship on the subject, and not sufficiently well-written. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to vanity-publish this. The article is also much too long, and there are existing articles for most sub-topics, such as individual books, Chronology of the Bible, and Gospel harmony. The author should be encouraged to make better-written, properly referenced, non-original-research contributions to those. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but be sure to give article creator a chance to save per mandsford (PLEASE, lemmiwinks2, dont lose your work! save to your drive to avoid having to request the deleted page), pending him moving this to a bible wiki or a personal website (and be sure its not on his userpage). obviously a labor of love, and probably of interest to some amateur biblical scholars. this is not appropriate for WP. the bible is not considered a reliable source for its own precise, dated chronology, so any attempt to list events of the bible on a timeline from the beginning of the world is inherently POV and OR. nowhere in this article is it mentioned that this timeline would be considered meaningless by mainstream scholars. all the references appear to be of bible passages. i dont believe there are any precisely dated events in the old testament. enough said. im just sorry the editor made such valiant strides in a futile direction.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it? It seems to be a redirect to his userpage with no AfD template. I've just commented on other OR by this editor and tables that he is placing in numerous biblical articles. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It's now at User:Lemmiwinks2/Outline of the Bible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't blank an article during an AfD, then surely this should be put back? Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the author of the article can blank the article, although the rest of us are admonished not to do so. In that event, it falls under WP:SPEEDY. From what I understand, Lemmiwinks has made the decision (a wise one, I believe) to userfy this. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IVocalize

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

Promotion for non-notable software company. No reliable sources are given, and I have been unable to find any such coverage. Haakon (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Why AfD? Surely SD for non-notability - or possibly even for spam, but this is marginal. Only non-company link is Kolabora, and "Kolabora is an independent forum about online collaboration" (quoted from http://www.kolabora.com/about.htm ). Peridon (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I try not to overuse speedy deletion. There may be sources about this company that I have not found. Haakon (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like attempt to promote non-notable company. Calltech (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't seem to reach company notability. LotLE×talk 00:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Hangover

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

This album's article has been deleted several times. It is just a rumor and violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. There a no new informations about the album, so this article fails to justify it's notability. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hangover (disambiguation) until this stops violating CRYSTAL/GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD A7 and G11. Only major contributors are meatpuppets who appear to only be interested in spamming about DCT Switzerland. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Diethelm

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as a notable politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fodé Bangoura

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

unsourced BLP of an obscure figure deprodded without sources added or improvements. I'm also about to stub since it's all unsourced. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When it is this easy to find sources this unsourced BLP movement is getting a little out of hand. Polargeo (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily sourced article.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Not obscure. A cabinet minister, and hence automatically notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep senior political figure who easily meets notability guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florina Kendrick

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

~~Unreferenced~~ BLP. Claims to be a Romanian actress that played in two movies. A7 denied. Pcap ping 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because people often make the mistake of putting the reference as an external link doesn't mean we should ignore it. I see a link to the Internet Movie Database here. Polargeo (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced blp. No sources establishing this minor actress passes bio, creative, etc... (IMDB is not a reliable source to hang a whole blp on).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a source to hang a BLP on but it does mean you are incorrect about it being unreferenced. Polargeo (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does being Dracula's wife in the hit film Dracula mean she is non-notable. Maybe it does but it shouldn't be dismissed because you think the source is a bit weak. Polargeo (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, IMDB even got that wrong. She played one of the brides, who if i recall had 10 minutes of screen time between them and little to no dialogue. No, mere appearance in a notable movie doesn't make someone notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming she is notable, please note I have not posted a keep vote. I realise what the role entails. However, there is no excuse to argue lack of sources, there are plenty of sources that back up the main claims in the article which are very easily found. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a major role per Wikipedia:ARTIST. Pcap ping 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails general notability guidelines, and IMDb is not a reliable source for BLP articles to begin with! JBsupreme (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Romanian Wikipedians can find sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, she doesn't even have bio on the ro wiki. She seems to have simlar carrer as Michaela Bercu, another wife of Dracula from the same movie. She's definitely not Romania's Monica Bellucci. The only new piece of info from the Romanian press is that she's the wife of the president of Romanian International Bank; her full name is Florina Popa-Kendrick these days. Pcap ping 06:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting sources to inform the debate. Apart from Bride of Dracula she also had a named role as Rebecca Costanzo in the 1995 film "With Criminal Intent" in Romanian translation, IMDb. More sources to confirm she was a bride of Dracula on google news here. Romanian source mentioning specifically she is married to the Bank director and her full name here. Details about her from a Romanian news source in 2005 at HotNews.ro, translation Polargeo (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We already knew all that. Still doesn't pass WP:ARTIST, so I felt that adding the refs to the article would be pointless. This article on her marriage has a fair bit of biographical information, but it's reproduced from a local newspaper, Ziua de Cluj (not the same as Ziua). It mostly covers the pinnacle of her career: being selected out of 15,000 candidates to play one of Dracula's wives, and that she wasn't scared of real snakes. She also appeared in Castle Queen, and (as I suspected) was a model for Texaco and Channel, but she switched to a business career afterwards. Similar career with Michaela Bercu (except for being on the front-page of Vogue). The Romanian newspaper also says that while she was in the USA she wrote the screenplay for A Man, a Woman and Her Foton, but that movie really is called A Woman, Her Men, and Her Futon, and IMDB credits Michael Sibay with the screenplay, although ghost writing is common in Hollywood. There are very few sites in Romania that even mention her, see these searches: [19] [20] [21] YMMV if an article is warranted. By the way, I as unable to confirm that she appeared in With Criminal Intent from a source that's not IMDB or a Romanian clone of IMDB, NYT doesn't list it [22]. Weak delete. Pcap ping 07:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It shouldn't be this difficult to find significant coverage on a notable individual. However, I will note that if she had appeared in similar roles in 2009 I predict that she would instantly have had an article, such are the idiosyncrasies of the internet. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Kubota

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

Long standing unsourced blp of a non-notable composer of video game music. Was prodded, seconded, de-prodded by Prodego. I came along and re-proded, he deprodded again without finding any sources, and here we are. Really should be speedy. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — speedy, even. The disruptive de-prodding of unsourced BLPs has got to stop; there is an emerging consensus strongly against this. Jack Merridew 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I too view this mass de-prodding as disruptive. If you are going to de-prod an article, make sure the subject is actually notable and there are sources to substantiate it. OTHERWISE LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE. </crocker> JBsupreme (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://vgmdb.net/artist/952 same as with the other two composers below. not noteable composer only for those which dont know Beatmania and his musical artworks for the series. GBK2010 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a discography and bio does not constitute significant coverage --Teancum (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ironically, a filmography and a bio does constitute significant coverage if you're a voice actor. Talk about double standards. :( JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources that provide adequate information for a biography. The site noted by GBK2010 is a user-submitted site that is not a reliable source. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable biography. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All indicators point to a non notable biography.--Stormbay (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to verify notability or justify a biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. wirthdrawn Scott Mac (Doc) 11:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Costi Ioniţă

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

~~Unreferenced BLP. Claims to be famous Romanian singer. But why should I care? Pcap ping 16:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. User:Anonimu provided a good number of references. Passes WP:GNG and probably WP:MUSIC as well now. Pcap ping 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced bio of a non-notable. Should be speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on - There are several potential Romanian sources. Can someone proficient in Romanian be called and help understand if it's notable/sourceable? --Cyclopia ^talk 16:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources? No one added anything to support this articles claims or to demonstrate notability in the four years its been here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding us of this irrelevant fact about the past. Now, instead, there are several Gnews hits in Romanian that need to be triaged -some of them seem to be genuine news sources talking about the subject, but I don't know the language: can you help with that? --Cyclopia ^talk 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lulz, yeah, because everyone here is fluent in Romanian! It frightens me that the !vote below is a blind faith keep and we're dealing with a BLP subject. JBsupreme (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone is not, and in fact I didn't !vote "keep" for this very precise reason. However we can perhaps contact someone at the Romanian Wikipedia, for example. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contacted the Romanian Wikipedia. Hope someone steps in. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Cyclopia's request at the Embassy. None of the sources in the link above are reliable sources. Cancan is the only well-known source, but it's what you'd call a tabloid (at best). --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The current English article cites well respected mainstream "quality" newspapers Gândul, Evenimentul Zilei, Mediafax, etc. Pcap ping 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was explicitly referring to the link above. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seem to be some Romanian language sources. Confirmation by a Romanian-speaker would be helpful, but at least some of them - using google translate - assert a degree of notability and have enough details to write at least a short article on this person. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't buy in to "potential sources". Either source the article with verified reliable third party sources or it gets deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, of course. But could we first look if these are sources, indeed? Or you don't even want to look for sources, now? --Cyclopia ^talk 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to add that I did read his ro:Costi Ioniţă bio, and none of the claims there seemed to pass WP:MUSIC, but that bio appears quite outdated (besides being referenced only to one primary source) compared to what Anonimu found about him. Pcap ping 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently the article seems to be very reliably sourced and notability is established. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established not only by Romanian press, but also by academic English language study.Anonimu (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the latest revisions of the article being well sourced and wikified andyzweb (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And then redirect to Electrolysis of water. Sandstein 06:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrically converted water

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

Spammy article with unreliable references, promoting a fringe product. The "references" are all based on press releases from the company that invented the product. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electrolysis of water if not outright deletion. I can't make scientific sense of this article. Is it claiming that electrolyzing water into H2 and O2 then recombining them makes something other than normal water? Also, it seems to me that the article might be rewritable into something non-adverty, on the off chance the concept holds up under verifiability. (I'll wager half of what Wikipedia pays me as an editor that the concept won't hold, you know.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion of a non-notable concept used by Tennant Company. Two of the article's sources appear to be press releases; the third one focuses on the company and doesn't discuss the subject in detail. While the subject of Water Electrolysis is undoubtedly notable, Google shows no apparent signs of independent notability for "electrically converted water": [23], [24]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. shoy (reactions) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments, or redirect as a second choice. Chutznik (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuyasu Mitani

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

Delete. Subject discovered asteroid 1619 Ueta in 1953, but I'm not seeing anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications about this person. JBsupreme (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. The only WP:RS coverage I could find is not sufficient to establish notability: [25] (page 146), [26]. Looks like Japanese astronomers are not as popular as I thought. — Rankiri (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name list doesn't even provide the full name, and certainly does not show notability. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and i like astronomers. But no non-trivial coverage, no sources of meaning in the article, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blug

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

Unreferenced content. This may be a hoax or original research, but because I couldn't tell if it was a hoax or religious content I was unaware of, I decided to go with WP:AFD instead of WP:CSD. Either way, it seems inappropriate for inclusion, as I can find no sources for this information. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If, per WP:AGF, this is a genuine find in some dig somewhere, great - when they write it up in a scholarly journal, or when there is media coverage of the find, we can have an article - which means that this is premature and should be deleted. If it's not, then it's a Hoax and should be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Concerns addressed and no remainining delete !votes (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Con Artist

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

Non-notable film with no reliable sources in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: Falls under WP:FUTURE. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in reliable sources the meet the WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL's "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Sources show the film began filming last August and is now to be called The Love Child. Considering the principals invloved, finding sources was quite easy. In a quick search I found a number of articles speaking toward the film, its production, and its completion: Calgary Sun 1, Cinematical, Boxxet, Screen Daily, The Spectator 1, Moviehole, The Spectator 2, New York Post, Calgary Sun 2, JoBlo, Hello Magazine, Wirtualna Polska... and Even better, last August Edmonton Sun reports that principle filming has wrapped. It will assuredly be getting even more press. This is definitely a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have expanded and sourced the article since my comment above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the changes now make the article fit for inclusion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: I think part of the reason I was having trouble finding it was because of the new name. I think that if this is kept, a move is in order. I have no objection to leaving the redirect behind. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I'm a bit confused, actually. Which is the new name of the film? Whatever's the new name should be the appropriate title of this article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I learned, the current title of The Con Artist is less than a month old. Nearly all sources found toward the project are under its working title of The Love Child. I made certain the article shows the change. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Michael said. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good to go. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per added sources. Another example of the need for WP:BEFORE. DES ^(talk) 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the nominator has now said this is "fit for inclusion" and I se no unstruck delete views, is this ripe for a speedy keep? DES ^(talk) 16:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. kur ykh 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zablocki

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

Article was previously deleted for lack of notability. Has this person become more notable since 2009? It does not seem so. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E applies here, I think. There are also serious POV issues; note that nowhere in the article does it say he lost the election, or otherwise list any results of the election. That (along with some of the language choice) tells me this was written by a supporter. Powers ^T 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems plenty of coverage, and judging form the comments in the first AFD, significantly more cited coverage than there was when it was previously deleted. (the previous AFD included the comment "There are five news pieces about him" -- the curent article has at least 18 news story cites) The talk page comment "He was the first Republican to run for the seat since 1997, the first Staten Island resident since the 1960's to run citywide and the youngest candidate ever to run for citywide office in NYC" assuming it is supported by WP:RS, also seems to contribute to notability. As to WP:BLP1E, a political campaign these days is not a single event but often a year-long series of related events. This one seems to have generated major news coverage over a period of close to a year. The article may indeed have been "written by a supporter" but that is a matter for editing, not deletion. (the version nominated for the first AFD was far more promotional, and was largely written by Alexforpa (talk · contribs), an SPA who seems likely to have been the subject or a campaign staffer.) DES ^(talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sourced statement of the election results, and done some wikifing and formatting cleanup. DES ^(talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also now two cited stories about his post-election advocacy for the William H. Pouch Boy Scout Camp, which suggest this is not a 1-event article. DES ^(talk) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E says "...if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article..." It seems to me likely that this person will remain in the public eye, probably continuing political activism and getting coverage. The Pouch Camp mater seems the first sign of this. And it should be noted that I am in no sense a political supporter of this person's -- indeed I generally oppose the grups with which he appears to be allied. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was in June 2009, much of the news coverage is later than that. So yes the person has become more notable since the AfD. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has indeed become more notable over the past 6mos. I also don't share his politics, but acknowledge that he remains in the public eye Vartanza (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update Per the remarks of DES, I agree to keep this article. The reason I listed it was that it had been proposed for deletion, and I felt the matter needed more scrutiny. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Des, Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has received significant coverage in WP:RS that are independent of the subject. Wine Guy Talk 09:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Adams

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

I've been doing my bit to try to save some of the many underreferenced biographies being mechanically eviscerated in the current brouhaha. This one, however, after my best efforts to find sources, seems to be not notable. She's a mid-level exec at CBS, but works behind the scenes. She may also be the daughter of a reasonably famous actor, but it's a fairly common name. In any case, she doesn't get a lot of press on her own. GRuban (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We're an encyclopedia, not a CBS org chart for crying out loud. Yeeesh. JBsupreme (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the Variety story shows some notability in "The Business." Bearian (talk)
Delete - in support of anyone who's actually checking these horrible PRODs, and comes up with too little. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion revealed the subject meets PORNBIO. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Rockland

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

Article appears to fail WP:PORNBIO though is less certain for WP:GNG. Sources for Hal Rockland have been added to confirm his acting in gay pornography and being recruited by Chi Chi LaRue. —Ash (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. There might be something here, I'm not sure yet. Leaning towards keep for now. JBsupreme (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, reliable, independant coverage found. I'll assume the Out coverage is trivial, as the source was added by the nominator. Epbr123 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very famous star. Hmmmm. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - 1994 Grabby Award winner, "Best newcomer"; Flashpoint from Falcon Studios; 1998 Gay Erotic Video Awards winner, "Best oral scene", "Best group scene"; Three Brothers, New Age Pictures. The Rockland brothers are pretty well known so multiple RS speak about them individually and collectively. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability asserted and awards won. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PORNBIO.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does he fail PORNBIO? If he has won a Grabby, then he passes the criteria as stated.Ash (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. However, future accusations of impropriety of any sort without proof will be severely dealt with. The conversation has been rife with comments not grounded in policies and guidelines, and have been summarily ignored. The only reasons why this was closed keep are because the nomination has been withdrawn (implicitly) by the nominator and due to improvements made to the article. kur ykh 07:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Guy

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

This biography of a living person has no verifiable sources. Several sources were proffered, but they all failed verification. Notability appears to be marginal. The article seems to have been used in an attempt by a search engine optimization consultant to advertise.See this version of the article with SEO spam. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the verifiable content to House of Lords (band) then redirect - sources exist to verify some details, e.g. [27], [28], [29]. Not individually notable, it seems, but useful as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The only working ref in the article now is the Entrepreneur (magazine) one, and I'm not sure that's a reliable enough source for an encyclopedic BLP. I've found a working Billboard ref mentioning him, which I've put in the House of Lords (band) article. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-23t22:13z
Many more refs added recently, but still doesn't look like it qualifies as encylopedically notable yet. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-24t14:55z
Delete spam, blp with no good sources, no established notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references updated for bands and discography, Also added seo citations.--Magicus69 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)-- — 74.177.103.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment 74.177.103.96 marked as spa incorrectly as this account has clearly added to the article through researching information on the blp. --Magicus69 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)- — Magicus69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Further references added including 2 books article has been further cleaned up and i am trying to improve the language.--Magicus69 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor Jehochman has a clear conflict and should recuse himself in the interest of fairness. Hockman does indeed does run a for profit search engine optimization company. So how can we allow him to participate in the deletion of his competitors???? What might we be thinking to have the coyote guarding the hen house and how fair can that be. While references may need to be improved in the spirit of presenting informative content to Wiki researchers, Jehochman DOES run a Search engine optimization firm and IS actively competing for the precise keyword term he is seeking to overlord. IF Jehochman is REALLY interested in the process being fair, he will assist in guiding other editors to make this article better. Wiki wars are a waste of everyone's time and it is clear this article meets a higher burden of proof than most of the articles I looked at of a similar subject matter which are NOT under any type of attack. When we Wiki editors say the Copyright Office of the United States or Entrepreneur Magazine are not proper references for this article, indicating notoriety outside of the Recording and or Songwriting categories, we send the wrong messages and that the agenda here is personal and not in the best interest of making Wikipedia a better place to visit. If Jehochman is the sock puppet that was caught voting for deletion it would make sense to me and that is only my opinion. For Hockman to jump in and say every vote for keep is a sock puppet is questionable in my mind as that delete vote goes to a SOCKPUPPET. What??? The only sockpuppet detected is the Jack guy who got banned for being a sock puppet when voting to remove. Now if any of you are buying the railroad job going on here please enlighten me. Lets all play nice folks. Article has been updated to include songs written with DIO. Reference have been added for SEO -- 71.117.237.7 (talk) — 74.177.103.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
To avoid any sock puppetry, if you IP and you Magicus69 are the same person, or have discussed this discussion outside of Wikipedia, would one of you please remove your remarks. Double voting is not allowed. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment cleaned up my previous edits sorry for mess --Magicus69 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is getting better and has article has value -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.29.12 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 125.163.29.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. There seems to be active sock and/or COI editing occurring on the page and in this discussion. (and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew, just for lulz). Jack Merridew 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote for deletion by Jack Merridew is a sock puppet and hence the vote for deletion should be removed from this page. I have seen Jack Merridew tactic used before But if the vote is real it needs to be verified. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I am a sockpuppet; and unlike yourself, my opinion will have some weight here. You are wasting your time here ;) Jack Merridew 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Are you here to help fix the article? Why insult other members? It does say you may be banned and your page leads to no where. If I am missing something then please explain in the interest of building and not tearing down.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment His user page says " is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban." Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes but if you look one click further you will see it goes in an infinite loop. Just as the links on admin Hockman's page all go to commercial interest's. Commercial interests which indicate a more than clear conflict of interest. There is no way, anyone on wikipedia can say an editor / admin engaged in the business of search engine optimization can place a credible nomination for removal. Keep in mind Hockman according to the history page IS who started this whole mess AND runs an SEO company while trying to remove a rival SEO by limiting the article to music so he can fold it into house of lords therefore keeping Mr Guy out of the search engine consultants category. Now I did some research on the listings Mr Hockman DID accept as references and they are blogs? Why is it that Mr Guy is being held to a far higher standard than any other musician from MTV and or any other SEO in that category. Why is it that Entrepreneur Magazine is being challenged as a resource when a blog is. If you look at Mr Aaron walls rise to fame. It was as a blogger who was beig sued, NOT a search engine optimization consultant. AND 2 others in this category are not even listed as notable SEO consultants. And one is a Google employee who has done work on webmaster central and with all due respect has no relevance in this category other than she worked on a non seo related project at google. Now just because I worked on the space shuttle does not make me an astronaut. As a gentleman Mr Hockman can not run an SEO company and at the same time, "hand pluck SEO competitors out of Wikipedia."

Mr Hockmans comments regarding a spamorama are in regards to some one placing a link to Mr Guys company. If a link to Mr Guys company is considered spam. Why is it Mr Hockman can jam his page with links to his SEO company " Hockman and associates? If I am out of line here some one please correct me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is of interest to us Michael Guy fans. There are more references for this article than all of the people in the search engine optimization consultants category who have submitted their own blogs as references which were accepted. This looks like harassment by jehochman who oddly enough seems to be a search engine optimization consultant himself. Are they going to let him get away with this clear cut conflict of interest? (added by ip address 72.90.110.108 which has, as the saying goes, few or no other edits outside this topic.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.110.108 (talk • contribs) — 72.90.110.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, this has been a noisy conversation! The recent improvements in the article have satisfied my concerns. It looks much better now. c ^Brrr 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Hockman. Thank you for that comment. And thank you for noticing all the hard work the wikians have done. Sir can you remove the nomination for deletion?

This can only be done by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment This is my opinion. Mr Hockman says article is much better and he is satisfied(see above). But does not remove the request to remove tag? How cleaver. If his comment was sincere he would remove the tag in my opinion. Is it just a ploy to cover his tracks? Does Jehochman run an SEO company from his wiki page that then in turn links out to commercial offers for his SEO services? And did Jehochman attempt to "PRUNE" the SEO consultans category? Was Jehochman s strategy weakening this article so it could then be folded in to house of lords therefore pleasing a friend who may or may not publish his article on his SEO blog? While it might be ok for him to link to commercial interests on his editor page, it is not ok to remove BIO articles of SEO consultants IF he is an seo consultant. From what I can see looking at the linkedin links on his page they do point to the SEO company Jehochman says he owns. What will happen next? The "it is out of my hands" strategy? While Jehochman steps aside? While Jehochman sockpuppets pursue it to deletion? Please correct me if I am wrong about this but it makes no sense to me Jehochman would 1.put the tag for deletion on the page and everybody works hard to make the article better. 2. Says much better he is satisfied on THIS VERY page. 3. Leaves the damage behind while editors are waiting to see if their hard work has saved the article. (The consider to remove tag can only be removed by Jehochman) . I believe he knows people are passionate about the Michael Guy article and states that on this page. He says he is satisfied, but does not delete the tag he placed? Some one please explain this to me as I have no idea what he is thinking. My honest opinion is Jehochman is out to remove bios on SEO consultants. Pardon me for my candor but I call FOUL BALL.

Keep I'm a fan of Michael Guy, and I found the article informative. Please keep it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.98.6 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks OK now. Anyone spot any major problems? Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It Looks good to me as well. I am trying to find the SEO article I read in pcworld on him but it seems their website is behind the magazine in stores. Can anyone tell me if the major tech magazines such as wired, computer world, pc magazine etc as good resources for his SEO?- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I keep track of Michael's SEO and have read most of his articles. I find this article useful and I think this is a bit of wiki bullying going on and perhaps the attempt to control an seo BIO under the guise of no resource being good enough Mr Guy does SEO for the head of the FHA come on guys, really now - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.13.16 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthis is an informative article that I really enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.32.49.5 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Chutznik (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Adolf Hitler

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

Does not meet criteria for standalone lists. Only 2 entries are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Entries are not known for significantly contributing to the list topic. Much has been written about Nazi approved music but that is a different list than this which does not appear to be source-able. RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is the list Adolf Hitler in popular culture.--FinFitFin (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Polarpanda (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agreed. We do in fact have an article on Hitler Has Only Got One Ball; added a link. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adolf Hitler in popular culture - and don't forget Spike Jones' "Der Fuehrer's Face." Warrah (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That's a good one. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hooray for beefing up a pop culture list. JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A repetitive vote from me, because everyone is correct so far. Per Warrah's suggestion I added the Spike Jones song to the article in preparation for the merge. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound FM

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

Non-notable internet radio station being promoted by User:Thesoundfm. I42 (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Future launch on airwaves is WP:Crystal Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is just advertising. Also, Wiki is not a directory. (WP:NOTDIR). But it does not mention anything that would fall under WP:Crystal. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial version of the article stated "The station broadcasts online at the moment as the station is gearing up for a massive launch on 20 March 2010" which is presumably the bit which was asserted to fail WP:CRYSTAL. The original author has now changed the article to state that the station is on air, although there is evidence this is so. I42 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For an internet radio station which has supposedly had 15,000 hits, you'd expect some kind of internet presence. Zero hits falls below even non-notable; I suggest this article is a hoax. I42 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their website, which is linked from the article, says they are gearing up for a launch on the airwaves on 20 March 2010 [30]. However, without any independent reliable sources for this local radio station we should not keep the article because it is neither notable or verifiable. Currently it is using wikipedia as free promo. Polargeo (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayako Saso

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

Long standing unreferenced blp of non-notable video game musician. Deprodded twice by an editor who couldn't source or demonstrate notability either. Part of a walled garden of unsourced, unmaintained blps. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found in searches, aside from Square Enix's site, which is really a primary source. --Teancum (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. nothing much there. Jack Merridew 23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I really have no idea how well-known Ayako Saso is since I don’t live in Japan. Her name (佐宗綾子) gets nearly 50k hits on Google, and she has an article in the Japanese Wikipedia (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/佐宗綾子) although I appreciate that there are different rules for different versions of Wikipedia. If other people don’t think she is very well-known, I’m happy for the article to be deleted, although if no one here lives in Japan, how can they say? Does someone have to be WORLD famous to be included in Wikipedia, or is fame in one's home country enough? Grand Dizzy (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need to pass WP:BIO, in this specific instance either WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.Bali ultimate (talk)`

DELETE. Christ this is just one ridiculously huge WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Burn it with fire. JBsupreme (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Google news search for her Japanese name [31] finds some sources, but too few to say this is someone well-known. The article is entirely supported by this source, but I'm not familiar enough with video game or electronic music to say if she passes WP:COMPOSER; she did win a prize though. I don't understand why you guys say that the source is WP:PRIMARY; that bio is clearly not written by her, although the reliability of the site is something I can't comment on. Pcap ping 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's primary-source because it's published by one of her labels, who has a vested interest in promoting her. While that source can be used to verify certain facts, because it's first-party (a better term in this case) it cannot demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hirokazu Tanaka

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

long standing unreferenced blp of non-notable japanese video game musician. Prod repeatedly removed by someone who couldn't source it (or demonstrate notability) either. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found in searches. --Teancum (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by The Prince below --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://vgmdb.net/artist/363 listed there, with the infos about his person and a complete "discographie" GBK2010 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a discography and bio does not constitute significant coverage --Teancum (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gamasutra, a reliable source according to WP:VG/S, has conducted two interviews ([32], [33]) with the composer, which can be used to source the article. He has composed for well-known games such as Metroid, Super Mario Land, and Mother, and is recognised as one of the most famous video game composers of all time. This article could easily reach at least GA status with a little work. BTW, Bali ultimate hasn't even bothered looking for sources. The Prince (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure. I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Is there anything more than just these first hand interviews avail? JBsupreme (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source found by "The Prince", but someone needs to work on the article. Pcap ping 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaming Pillar

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable topic. Article is about two pillars, one of which is not a "shaming" pillar. There seems to be one such pillar in the world and it's not fantastically notable either: ([34]) I therefore suggest this is deleted, rather than merged, especially as the current article is so thin (the photo is nice though) but I suggest the Celje article be updated to include information about the pillar. Dweller (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celje article updated. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep—I tend to take the view that if it exists, it exists... admittedly the article needs work, but that's OK. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really hold that view! I exist, but I'm not notable. Cmon TT!--Dweller (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP is not a directory. (WP:NOTDIR) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: inaccurate, the pictured pillar is actually called St. Mary's Shrine and was built on the site where a "shaming pillar" (actually a pillory) used to be.|Celje Tourist Site If anything article should be merged with pillory, as it is a humiliation device.Froggerlaura (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic cooking

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

No assertion of notability Dancarney (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP is not a how to. (WP:NOTHOWTO) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Warrah (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. If there was a Wikipedia:Notability/Magic tricks, I'm sure it would also fail that. Probably. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Smith

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

Hasn't achieved anything notable or appeared in top level New Zealand rugby. Fails WP:Athlete. Being 'on the verge' of playing Super 14 Rugby doesn't seem sufficient. Jevansen (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and complete lack of any sources to verify his existence. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie dowding

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

Delete. No independent references, notability not established, fails WP:ENT. WWGB (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also failed to find any independent references. Daa89563 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising & Sources failure. (WP:NOTADVERTISING) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam indeed. Vartanza (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, NN, and extra spanking for removing the AFD tag. Hairhorn (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Barrie Knowles

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

Non notable, low level cricketer. Fails WP:Athlete. Jevansen (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't play anywhere near the professional level. Club concerned apepars to play on some form of public open space and is almost certainly amateur, so the bit about being paid £10,000 a season is clearly rubbish -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Johnlp (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. kur ykh 07:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kastor und Pollux

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

I've agonized over nominating this one for most of the evening, but I'm going to go forward with a nomination. The buildings described seem to be of limited notability; there are no clear guidelines on what is/isn't a notable office building (obviously a hundred-story skyscraper is probably notable; a ten-story one, probably not).

Pollux might be notable based on its height (it shows up as the 15th tallest building in Frankfurt), but Castor (at only 22 floors tall) probably isn't on its own. Neither seems to get much coverage of any kind (notably, GNews yields zero hits relating to them either in German (Kastor und Pollux) or English (Castor and Pollux) attached to the term "Frankfurt", used to sift out references to the mythological creatures). Google hits seem to be limited to a few stray (highly detailed) lists of buildings in Frankfurt and to personal pictures which happen to include the buildings. Thus, I feel that notability is not achieved, primarily due to the sheer lack of press coverage and limited other coverage. Tyrenon (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be a major business complex in on of the major business centers of Europe. The Frankfurter Rundschau has given it significant coverage.[35]--Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Over this past month, I have been editing and creating new articles for skyscrapers in Frankfurt am Main using some text that was translated from their corresponding articles at the German Wikipedia using Google's translator. Some of the translations generated by it are kind of low-quality, but I do manage to make some modifications to the translated text. Those kind of edits are constructive and the articles I edited/created need improvement, not deletion. If the translated text is poor, it needs to be cleaned up and improved by other editors instead of being reverted or deleted altogether. There is a project named Wikipedia:Translate and some users in the English Wikipedia from Germany might be able to help. No page in Wikipedia is supposed to be proposed for deletion all of a sudden after tags such as "cleanup" or "unreferenced" have been added to the article. Jim856796 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kentwell

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Athlete. Hasn't played top level cricket in Australia (FC, List A or Twenty20). Hasn't achieved anything in cricket to make him notable enough for an article. Jevansen (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't quite done enough to be notable by the criteria we use. Johnlp (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH. The first AfD would not have had a keep outcome nowadays. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No FC, List A or Twenty20 cricket. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percy McShane

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

Blatant hoax. It's just some kid who plays a fantasy cricket competition on the internet (as evident by an external link). No person of this name has played international cricket for South Africa. Jevansen (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as stated above. Search in google yields results which link to the same fantasy cricket forum. Found no person by this name for the 2004 and 2006 South African U-19 world cup cricket teams. Daa89563 (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be made up. No evidence to support this person's existence, let alone their notability. Nice try. Johnlp (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masanori Matsuyama

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

Delete, as there is no indicator as to why this "prolific astronomer" is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched and found no substantial coverage in reliable sources. The search is made more complicated by the existence of other people of the same name, but with a little effort it is not too difficult to separate out the ones about this Masanori Matsuyama, and they do not establish notability by a long way. The only source given in the article is a list of names of astronomers who have discovered asteroids, together with the number of asteroids they have discovered. This cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered substantial coverage. The article did claim that Matsuyama "is a prolific discoverer of asteroids". The source indicates that he is a co-discoverer of 19 asteroids. Since there are many dozens of discoverers on the list who have discovered hundreds of asteroids, and quite a few who have discovered thousands, the word "prolific" seems dubious, so I have removed it. Not notable at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above (also looked a bit). --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name list doesn't even provide the full name, and certainly does not show notability. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination. kur ykh 07:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Blade

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

I de-prodded this unsourced musician biography article as there appears to be some coverage in Google News Archive. Having scrolled through the first several pages of the 316 results, I can find only passing mentions or unrelated articles about an athletic director. This article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since, as Cunard says, there are only passing mentions, there is no evidence of notability. Incidentally I don't follow Cunard's logic: if there is "some coverage" but that coverage is "only passing mentions or unrelated articles" then why de-prod? However, I agree with Cunard apart from that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I de-prodded the article so that there will be more eyes on whether or not this is notable. Although I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, someone who is more experienced in this topic may be able to find something useful in the rest of the 316 Google News Archive results that I did not check. Additionally, the following is a credible indication that this biography passes Wikipedia:Notability (music):

“

Early 1995 saw Emmylou Harris persuade Brady to return to his kit as part of her touring band Spyboy, along with Daniel Lanois and Darryl Johnson. The following year they were joined by Buddy Miller and toured throughout the mid-nineties, culminating in a live album Spyboy, released in 1998.

Touring the world with Emmylou Harris led Brady to encounter and be seen by some of the key figures in the American music scene which resulted in Brady becoming one of the most in-demand session drummers around. Brady took part in extensive tours and sessions with the Steve Earle during his El Corazón period; Jewel throughout her 1998 Spirit world tour; and the Indigo Girls on their 1999 album Come on Now Social, 2002's Become You and 2004's All That We Let In.

”

If sources could be found for this, I will withdraw the AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks to be a respected session musician. An honorable thing to be. But there are no sources to allow for the construction of a proper encyclopedic biography. Notability not inherited, fails creative, bio, artist, in his own right.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As member of several respected bands, which is now sourced, he may just meet WP:MUSIC. I did also find a source for his work with Indigo Girls but it stated that he was female, so I didn't take much notice.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn/Keep: The sources added by Michig that Brady Blade has been in multiple notable bands. Blade thus passes WP:MUSIC and thus notability has been established. Nice job! Cunard (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is still a mess, but not hopeless. Chutznik (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The criterion A7 on web content with no indication of notability appears to cover this kind of material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The shadow incident

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

Non-notable incident, fails WP:GNG, dubious sources, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, creator is Wikipedia:Single-purpose account evidently created for promoting this drivel. Contains unreferenced allegations against specific persons. Prod contested by creator. Speedy deletion would be a good idea, though I'm not sure if process permits it: any admins who know otherwise are warmly welcome to kill it with fire. MuffledThud (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing more than 4chan chicanery, and should have been CSD'd outright.Johnmc (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tell me again why we cannot CSD this? JBsupreme (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for CSD is not clear: not hoax, not about one person, not about one website, etc. Yeah I know, pedantic bullshit, but I've been slapped too many times for ignoring process on WP:SNOWBALL stuff like this. MuffledThud (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable 4chan meme. Sometimes I put db-web on stuff like this, and occasionally it actually sticks; I figure "similar web content" is ambiguous enough that it arguably covers this type of thing. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mifter (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfuri Baldenweg

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

Non-notable musician. A Google News Archive search returns no results. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything whatsoever on him in reliable sources, and by and large I really can't find anything on him at all. I've tried variations on his name, "Eugen" and "Eugene," etc. Just being in a band that had some sort of role in a Eurovision Song Contest does not, I think, suffice for notability. Agree with WP:V and WP:BLP issues as well. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only able to find a very small amount of information about the band he is in, but I cannot find anything on this guy. Fail WP:ENT. Daa89563 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources at all on him, and he has an easily searchable name. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the Baldenweg's band Pfuri Gorps & Kniri (although the notability for that article is also tenous at best). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the band's article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pfuri Gorps & Kniri. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revise to Delete based on the proposed redirect target article also being nominated for deletion.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one fails them all. JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails bio, music, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pfuri Gorps & Kniri if that is kept, otherwise delete. I couldn't find anything to justify a keep.--Michig (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Google Books, nothing in Google News--that pretty much clinches it for me. Time for SNOW? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources online. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per deutsche wikipedia article Pohick2 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which is sadly totally unsourced.--Michig (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A unanimous keep. Sources added to the article clearly show notability. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live Freaky! Die Freaky!

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

Delete. This indie film doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As much as I wanted this to be a candidate for WP:FREAKY, significant coverage in the Washington Post, Austin Chronicle, The Advocate, LA Weekly, MTV.com, and others will deny me my wish. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Glenfarcus. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Next time, please add your references into the article yourself. Don't make me do it. :( Chutznik (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoş Băjenaru

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

Amateur go player. Unsourced article. Better to AfD it and hope someone finds sources, rather than have it insta-arbcom-deleted. Pcap ping 07:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article. JBsupreme (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1) No sources given in article; (2) Web search has produced no substantial coverage in independent sources; (3) Although a Go player is not an athlete, I can see no reason why a competitor in a non-athletic game should not be judged by the same criteria as a competitor in athletics or sport, and WP:ATHLETE is quite clear: for an amateur to be considered notable enough for an article they have to have competed at the very highest level, such as Olympics or world championship. Although he was pretty good, Dragoş Băjenaru did not get anywhere near this level: his best result was almost qualifying for the Honsen. Even actually qualifying for the Honsen would not be equivalent to world championship level. Not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate just saying "per so-and-so", but I absolutely agree with JamesBWatson above. There's nothing else to say. Wine Guy Talk 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Badalian

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

Contested prod of an unsourced BLP article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless sourcing can be found. Martin451 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched, and found unreliable sources (e.g. blogs, Wikipedia) and non-independent sources (e.g. CD sales and download sites). No evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Armbrust (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actuarially, this probably isn't a blp anymore. But there's no way to tell.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why notable? Vartanza (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rasaq

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

Article was created in March 2006; since then this article has never showed any signs of meeting the notability guideline for music. A quick search online yields nothing on any worldwide music charts or coverage in multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not quite notable yet, so do not salt it. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. Gibson

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

I can't find coverage of this subject in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just being the Director of White House Public Affairs for Ronald Reagan [36][37][38] alone makes this person notable (very strange the nom thinks this article is a hoax [39]). Also one of the original editors of USA Today. The Atlantic has a biography of him here.--Oakshade (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched google news and google books and didn't see anything. But it looks like you may have found some sources? I'll try to have a look in the a.m. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News also threw up some sources that strongly indicate notability, I believe: [40] (about a third of the way down the page), [41].--Michig (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Atlantic's bios are written in slightly promotional tone and serve to introduce and draw attention to its own 2006 Ideas Tour speakers. I wouldn't count this particular source as entirely objective and indicative of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but they're reputable enough that the stated facts can be considered to be true, I think.--Michig (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of reliable sources incidicate notability and verify he is both a cartoonist and government official. Note : that he is better known as Tom Gibson Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Being Director of Public Affairs establishes notability. Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is probably never going to be more than a paragraph (perma-stub) but the weak sourcing available seems to meet WP:BIO requirements. JBsupreme (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. TN X Man 01:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Compression (DC)

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

Though not perfectly unambiguous, a large portion of this article appears to be a somewhat direct copy of the following: http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/data/articlestandard/pharmtech/432002/36208/article.pdf

A lot of word strings don't show up because of the presence of hyphens at the end of lines (the link being a PDF of a print article which has words that get broken off at the end of a line and restarted at the beginning of the next line), but I ran three word strings and found almost exact matches. Parts might have been reworded slightly, and some lines appear to have been excised, but unless I'm wrong that's still plagiarism (just using a slight bit of paraphrasing rather than a blatant copy and paste of the whole article). Tyrenon (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've moved to speedy this one. It's been tagged with the copied article as a source, but I honestly doubt that cuts it for avoiding a copyvio when most or all of the article is a copy-and-paste operation with a few lines removed.Tyrenon (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondback Trading Cards

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(LesterStivers (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than to promote Diamondback Trading Cards. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a worthwhile product, however not enough sourcing and information to establish notability for a WP article. Borock (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calypso (RFID)

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

This is a redirect created when I (originally) moved the page. See Talk:Calypso_(electronic_ticketing_system) for reasons. I've updated all pages that previously linked to this page, so nothing links to it any more (except some archives). Mitch Ames (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - requested by original creator. But should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. kur ykh 07:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Odinga

AfDs for this article:

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

Based on the research I did back in the summer (I did run a batch of Google searches), Mr. Odinga does not seem to have much on him personally anywhere. He is mentioned in connection with the Brinks robbery he participated in, but that alone would seem to not be sufficient to qualify for personal notability re: WP:ONEEVENT. I'm not opposed to redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinks_robbery_%281981%29 if that's felt to be appropriate, and I'd support such a move.

It's worth noting that while there was no consensus the last time around, there were suggestions for improvement for what was, at the time, a fairly new article. The article is no longer new, some improvement has been had, but it still doesn't seem to escape WP:ONEEVENT.

Fair disclosure: I nominated this article the first time it was up (listed as the 2nd nomination), and the 'original' first nomination was an abortive nom by me that didn't get put into AfD properly.Tyrenon (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N/CA as detailed in the previous discussion. Hopefully we can reach a consensus this time around. JBsupreme (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A famous crime, and a consequently famous criminal for several different crimes--not just Brinks, but the escape of Chesimard. that's not one-event, even if the events were not independently very highly notable, There are 94 articles in G News archive under this name, and 169 under Nathaniel Burns. That's enough to write a very extensive article. I do hope we can reach a consensus this time, because this is exactly what o BLP policy supports having in Wikipedia.\ DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep - seems notable for a long criminal career, per DGG. I would consider merging this and the other stub-length articles on similar people into Black Liberation Army, though. Robofish (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable but it desperately needs more references. Chutznik (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back n da Hood

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

Future albums are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. All it needs is some sources. Me and Esanchez could probally find some. Coolman1250 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any references that satisfy WP:NALBUM. Given that it has been a week with no changes to the article, I assume Coolman and Esanchez haven't found any either. PDCook (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G4, recreation) by Tnxman307. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Baker

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable model/actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can an admin verify if this is the same person / substantially the same article as was deleted last month? If so, db-g4. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. In addition to what the nom has said, this looks like a clear cut case of self promotion / spam. JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Was just deleted in December; recreated by same user. Self-promotional, having minor appearances in various programs is not sufficient for the notability threshold. Was OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; csd-g4. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snatched

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

A classic case of a non-notable episode, in this case it's an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and is sourced only with IMDb and TV.com (both user submitted websites). —Mike Allen 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:PLOT, WP:PLOTONLY. The episode does not appear to be individually notable. Most of the article is a duplicate of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 10)#Episodes, ep.13, so no information will be lost in the process. — Rankiri (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Energy

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

Contested PROD of a non-notable company. The given references only mention the company in passing with no in-depth coverage. Many of the references seem to be mirrors of each other. A Google search doesn't seem to turn up any significant and independent reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should also point out this edit by someone claiming to be Sean himself.PDCook (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Interesting tirade. Makes me question credibility. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only resources put there are corporate info (the about us link), convention guides, or articles where Sean Energy is mentioned briefly. Those don't connote notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wintersun (album). –SpacemanSpiff 06:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Dark Sun

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

This article lacks notability and has already been marked for its lack of references and POV. It doesn't merit its own page because the information offered is either previously stated (on the album article), not notable, or not encyclopedic. I cannot find any sources that specify the song as an actual single nor can I find any reason why this song was picked to have an article over the rest of the tracks on the album, and I wouldn't know how to improve it from its current state. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It feels a little like the article was written as a favorite song of the author. Without supporting sources, it should not be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The album and artist are notable, but the song does not stand on its own. Note that the POV problem was tagged in July 2009 and has not been resolved, so there also does not seem to be much interest in this article beyond the 2 or 3 editors who have contributed to it the most (while arguing about the sub-genre, no less). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wintersun (album); non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wintersun (album) per TheJazzDalek. PDCook (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Strong consensus that the article is not appropriate for user space. Kudos to KrebMarkt for taking this on, as requested the article has been userfied to User:KrebMarkt/sandbox/Amanchu! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanchu!

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

No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (WP:BOP) Prod disputed by article creator with only one trivial source announcing the the series and two non-reliable sources (blog and webforum), which fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE —Farix (t | c) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on WP:BK alone. No notability per this guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to userfy per KrebMarkt. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy on my user space. Way too soon to prove notability even in Japan with only one volume released there. I have little doubt that it will eventually pass WP:BK #1 and/or #3 but right now it doesn't so userfy. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per KrebMarkt. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not userfy, delete The author has been blanking the page and has shown no interest in keeping the content. I have only undone the blanking because other authors have contributed content so it is not a candidate for CSD G7. I agree with the above assertions for delete. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize that the userfication was requested to a different author's userspace. I can agree with userfy in this case. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May be worth using my search engine: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=amanchu!

Particularly good is the ANN launch article (Ain't it cool news seems to be drawing on the same source), and it's interesting that it's outsold established series like Eyeshield 21 or One Piece (or Summer Wars - didn't even know there was a manga adaptation for that). And then there are the innumerable Daily Radar, MangaNews, anime-vice, manga-sanctuary, AkibaBlog hits for Amanchu!, but though we use those sites in hundreds of articles I didn't see any specific discussions of whether they were notable. --Gwern (contribs) 16:15 22 January 2010 (GMT)

Thanks Gwern. I'm aware of all those data. Unfortunately none of them permit a clean & clear keep. I'm betting on an anime series adaptation within 3-4 years so it will pass a WP:BK #3 for notable adaptation. Knowing current Tokyopop slow pace of Aria manga release, i'm doubtful of Amanchu! being licensed in English in near future.

I should also correct you on the charts interpretation. The charts ranks books by weekly sells Amanchu! may outsell Eyeshield 21 and One Piece for that week but in cumulated/total sells both series outsold Amanchu! with 212K and 1,789K copies sold respectively. --KrebMarkt 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Eyeshield 21 eg. has been running since 2002; cumulative sales is a little unfair to Amanchu!. As for Tokyopop... well, I had to filter out a lot of scanlation and forums in the CSE - I think it went from a few hundred or thousand hits down to ~45 once I managed to get rid of them all. That's a pretty good early showing for a slice of life highschool manga with not the slightest hint of an English release. --Gwern (contribs) 16:28 22 January 2010 (GMT)

I meant this volume of Eyeshield 21 sold for 212K, not the whole series which should amount the millions. It was in the chart for 2 weeks consecutively: first week 165K, second week 47K (the week Amanchu! vol. 1 release), total 212K. I guess my English sucks so much i could not explain it clearly. --KrebMarkt 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't even occur to me to think that that Eyeshield volume had been out for a while. So I guess that's less impressive than it might be. --Gwern (contribs) 17:06 22 January 2010 (GMT)

Weekly sales charts are almost always useless because of this; those volumes of One Piece and Eyeshield 21 would have come out over a month earlier, and been in their fifth week on the charts. It did outsell Bakuman in it's second week, which is probably impressive for a first volume published in a niche magazine, but doesn't mean the sales are anything like even. Doceirias (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the launch news (which suggests that some news sources think a new series by the author is worth reporting on) and the best-selling volume (which says popular but not yet notable), I've found nothing on this series. Given those sales and that the series pretty much is Aria distilled to a cordial, I have every reason to believe that it will be licensed/reviewed or adapted to an anime, but until then, it doesn't meet WP:BK. Userfy to the above volunteer's userspace. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could also just merge it to the author's page. Her article isn't exactly bulging at the seams, and that would make what we have much more discoverable (and hence, editable) for everyone save the user to whom it was userfied. It's notable to her life inasmuch as it's her current fulltime job (I assume). --Gwern (contribs) 16:28 22 January 2010 (GMT)

Speedy delete, author has twice requested deletion and there are no significant edits from anyone else. You don't need a vote in an AFD to copy a page to your own user space, feel free to do it right now. There is no reason to keep this around for a week. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD:G8 doesn't necessarily apply to what could be a notable article, or at least, a sensible merge. The author may be venting more than seriously preferring it to be in his userspace, judging from edit summaries like 'In the end, your "TheFarix" will "die die" confirm want to "Nominated" this article for "deletion". Just delete it now..' --Gwern (contribs) 16:31 22 January 2010 (GMT)

KrebMarkt has been doing significant edits, actually. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I mentioned in my original (struck out) !vote, I opted against CSD G7 earlier because there are content edits by other editors and others have expressed interest in expanding it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time that I posted, the only significant edits by anyone other than the creator were made by someone who also proposed the article for deletion (and I missed the first G7 decline, because it said "A6 declined", I didn't see the correction). Deletion requests made in good faith should be honoured, unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Since there are no keep votes so far, I don't see the trouble. Copying to a user page doesn't require an AFD vote. Hairhorn (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let say it's for the sake of communication within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so it would be good to leave a trace/notice that ABC editor has an userfyed copy of XYZ article and an interested editors are welcome to improve it so it will make back to mainspace someday. I always wonder on the Wikipedia Middle-Age internal communication, informations can days to reach you. --KrebMarkt 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ranked high enough on the sales chart, to indicate its notable. Large numbers of fans buying something, is a far greater test of notability, than trying to find a review someplace for manga which are seldom reviewed anywhere at all. Dream Focus 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razi Abedi

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

This biography has some problems: it is unreferenced. A bigger problem: I cannot find anything that establishes notability. I looked and all I could find was this, where our subject is quoted, and this, the strongest claim to notability--but that's all. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This reference mentioned by Drmies seems to suggest notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Saki ^talk 08:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is extremely difficult to judge the notability of writers in Pakistan by the usual criteria--there are no union holdings databases like WorldCat available for Pakistani libraries, there are very few libraries in the US that are likely to collect in Urdu, and there are no easily accessible really well established review sources that we know to rely on. For this author, his Educational chaos is held by a dozen US libraries, so he is not entirely unheard of here, but his Urdu works are not in WorldCat. Thesingle reference provided , however, seems both independent and substantial and sufficient to establish notability. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep, per the above. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, even if I disagree with all of some of you, I suppose I could be bought. I'll tell you what, put a nice picture of a nice dog on my talk page, and I might be amenable to your suggestion. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn given the substantial incentive provided by one of the participants here. If any admins feel the spirit, please file the paperwork and ChildofMidnight will sign it, in a couple of hours. Thanks to you all, Drmies (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss Helldiver (band)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep . Nomination withdrawn, only delete !vote has been withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to genetics

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I know we are not technical and all that, but, seriously? Why having an article like this? This does not belong en WP. I say delete, and copy anything useful to Wikibooks or Wikiversity. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC) > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, please SK. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Introductions and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. These are a well-established class of articles, including Introduction to general relativity, which is a featured article. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a textbook. EeepEeep (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - It looks like articles like this are common, so I withdraw my objection. EeepEeep (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly a clear-cut WP:NOTTEXTBOOK case. Introductory articles are not new to Wikipedia and this article appears to be just as informational as it is educational. I also don't see any potential benefit in removing this article from Wikipedia's main namespace. It's fairly well-written, well-sourced and seems to satisfy all major inclusion criteria for standalone articles. — Rankiri (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid policy-based reason given for deletion, the article does not have "leading questions and systematic problem solutions" so is nothing like a textbook. About a month since the last AfD closed with an overwhelming consensus towards keeping the article. Article acts as a broad intrroduction for several more specialist articles, as per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I read through the first two AfDs, and I don't see any new argument in this AfD that would overturn the results of the first two. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN, we just discussed this last month, and nothing has been proffered to overturn the last two decisions- WP:Make technical articles accessible allows articles in this vein. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article. Actually every article should be an introduction to its topic. Is there a problem with Genetics that this article is offered as an alternative? Borock (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Alan

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

Minor actor, minor roles: I cannot find a single article discussing him in Google News. IMDB isn't enough--we don't doubt that he is an actor. Notability is another thing, and this is really a resume. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor roles in notable shows don't make you notable, especially when they are one time appearences. Nor does appearing in 8 episodes out of 60 as "bartender". Fails WP:ENT Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, bartenders are important! Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

important no doubt, but notable....not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tweaked the article, but my search for sources was doomed due to the man's common name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for trying, Michael. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doubtful this one is notable, hey, at least its not just an "I HATE UNSOURCED BLPS BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA WILL EXPLODE" discussion, but a rational AfD.--Milowent (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sooooo...I can mark you down for a delete? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But never as an unreferenced -- delete due to lack of notability. imdb is a reference, crappy as it may sometimes be.--Milowent (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced blp of a non-notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP. If the best you can come up with is IMDb (or a lookalike) then guess what, you've got nothing. JBsupreme (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - barely notable actor, but a recurring role on a major TV show places him just over the bar (pun intended) IMHO. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niteshift36. PDCook (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no opposition, and creator/subject blanked the page. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Gaeddert

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

Spammy autobiography of an Oklahoma graphic designer. I can't find any significant coverage, under this name, "Margee Gaeddert," or variations. I don't see anything that could meet WP:CREATIVE; winning a few local awards (Drama Department Volunteer Award?) is not enough. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a resume of a non-notable individual Vartanza (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh look, someone posted their resume on Wikipedia! Next. JBsupreme (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge Series

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

Non-notable "sponsored product" (i.e.., booklength ad) Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an ad to me. andyzweb (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to bicycle trailer. Scott Mac (Doc) 11:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoggyRide

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

Non-notable commercial product Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from reliable sources, which I think demonstrate notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Doesn't say anything encyclopedic that's not in Bicycle trailer. EeepEeep (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources added by Eastmain (1 and 2), which are also the first two sources in the Google News Archive search, are insufficient because they provide only passing mentions (one sentence each) about DoggyRide. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the selective merge to bicycle trailer proposed by Glenfarclas (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a little bit to bicycle trailer. Yes, you could probably find enough sources to argue for notability if that article didn't exist, but since it does a separate standalone article isn't warranted just because there is enough material to write it (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms). In particular, there's no need for an article on the brand DoggyRide when Bicycle dog trailer would cover the generics as well—but only highlights how silly it would be not to merge it with bicycle trailer. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been rewritten. - mattmontare (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the article less promotional; however, you have not addressed the notability issues. Has DoggyRide been the subject of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources? Cunard (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. DoggyRide has been subject to nontrivial coverage from various sources, which made the trademark a generic term in the Dutch language mattmontare (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the articles that provide nontrivial coverage about DoggyRide. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being persistent. Added several links mattmontare (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources. This link doesn't appear to mention DoggyRide, but this review (from Bicycling.com which is published by Rodale, Inc.) is a good indicator of notability. If you can find one more source, I will switch to keep. At this moment, this debate looks like it will be closed as a merge/redirect. When you can find more sources, feel free to post them on my talk page so I can evaluate it and perhaps undo the redirect. Cunard (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively with bicycle trailer. No significant coverage to indicate that it meets WP:PRODUCT. ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VH1 Classics 20 Greatest Metal Bands

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. The American media do these kinds of "top ten" or "top twenty" countdown lists all the time; I find nothing that suggests that these two are especially notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons:

The latter article has been tagged with {{notability}} since August 2009. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TextBEAST

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}}.

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

Non-notable software; neither shows nor asserts any evidence of notability Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to even assert notability. Blodance the Seeker 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find notability. Haakon (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two cited independent reviews are enough for me (and both are really reviews, not simply notices). LotLE×talk 00:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources given aren't significant. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This software does what they claim. The support you get with this company is phenomenal! I have never experienced a company that exhibits as good customer service as ASBware LLC does. They evaluate any & all of your improvement ideas and then prioritize accordingly. They implement fixes for even very minute issues but first do extensive testing so as to not cause any other problems. I am not affiliated with ASBware in any way but have used textBEAST for some time. Thought this quick note may put others minds at ease. Any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask. --SilverSurfer2 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)— SilverSurfer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

SPA tagged. Aside from that, the performance of the company and/or the soft is irrelevant to its/their notability. Blodance the Seeker 05:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable? Definitely....textbeast has been reviewed by Cnet editors at download.com, one of the biggest download blogs/sites out there (The domain download.com attracted at least 113 million visitors annually by 2008 according to a Compete.com study) and has been downloaded by thousands of individuals on that site alone receiving a four star rating from both editor and users: http://download.cnet.com/textBEAST-clipboard/3000-2384_4-10766463.html?tag=mncol Also, it has been featured on Softpedia, Giveaway of the Day, Tucows, Brothersoft, AlternativeTo.net,etc., all software sites with large readership. I am not affiliated with TextBeast, but I have been a user for a very long time. The program is notable in that it is UNIQUE in the market as being a click to type clipboard manager, versus many of the other ones that only allow you to assign hotkeys to textstrings. Further, I think the mention on download.com by the editorial staff alone proves it is a notable software.Superrrman (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Superrrman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this list is redundant. No more merger suggestions have been made after it was poited out that this judge was not personally involved in all of these cases. Sandstein 06:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases under Lord Phillips

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

~~This article might be useful once the term of Lord Philips ends,but~~ at the moment it is redundant to the articles 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which were also created by user:Chid12. As the lists by year are more logical I am suggesting this one is deleted and they remain. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers. Just as we generate discography lists for bands who are still recording, there is nothing wrong with a list of cases for a judge who is still sitting. I see no policy grounds for deletion, in the nomination; a merge will not over-balance the target and will enhance the utility of the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per good reasoning, however a redirect is somewhat useless as this Article title is not a viable search term. Any reader interested specifically in His cases, would start at His Article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we merge then we have to redirect, and not delete, to preserve the history for GFDL reasons. Agreed it is not a viable search term but that is not the reason for keeping. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would not support a merge as this is not a list of cases in which lord philips sat, but a list of cases heard by the supreme court in the time that lord Philips is President_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom ,regardless of whether lord philips sat in that case. The new SCOTUK is different from say SCOTUS in that usually only a subset of its judges sit on each case. Therefore to redirect to Lord Philips would be somewhat misleading as it implies he was involved in these cases when infact he will not have had any involvement in many, not to mention it would ignore all the cases he sat in the House of Lords. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a list of cases heard during the period he was president, then the subdivision by year would make more sense. the list for the Judge would be the list of cases in which he participated. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to the lists of cases by year, I think (which is a better way of organising them), and somewhat misleading, as Lord Phillips only delivered a judgement in one of these cases. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again per Robofish. JBsupreme (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Macsim

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

Romanian journalist that doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Pcap ping 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One would normally expect the anrchor of a national news broadcast to be notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. There are a lot of TV stations in Romania, and many of the more obscure ones (like this) change their anchors fairly often. Pcap ping 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 and, to some degree, WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosexism

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

Neologism which does not appear to be in currency with anyone except Cordelia Fine. See e.g. GBooks, GScholar (includes one other author, who put the term in quotation marks to indicate it is made up), GNews archive (three results, all discussing Fine, two using the term in quotation marks). Not a presently notable term or concept. PROD contested without comment. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:NOTDIC Turgan ^Talk 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cordelia Fine if someone wishes to start an article about this notable academic. Pburka (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, recreation of previously deleted article, user has not responded to message left inviting him to work with me on improving it. Frmatt (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, being a recreation of speedily deleted material isn't, by itself, a reason for deletion, especially when the deletion reason was "attack page," which this is clearly not (though maybe the previous page was so butchered that it looked like one). Being unwilling to answer your efforts at discussion, though, is not a good sign. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, and I agree that being a recreation isn't solely a good reason, but given that it was recreated within an hour of being speedily deleted (whether properly or not) makes me wonder if there isn't a SPA or promotional account. And admittedly, the language isn't NPOV, or at least doesn't appear to be so. Frmatt (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. It's a long shot, but I'm going on for no context. It explains what it's for, but not only fails to give background (a dicdef by right), but fails also to give context to the already brief definition, in my opinion. I'll hold to delete if that's refused by the admins. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC), modified for structure 05:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete madeup thing. JBsupreme (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anna Lincoln 09:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Armbrust (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Speedy Delete. This seems to be in the same category as the efforts of so many high schoolers to get whatever they made up in class into Wikipedia. I'd go with a combination of no context and, though it's not a specific CSD category, an unremarkable term re: the above comments. If I had to guess, I think this was made up in school one day...it just happened to be the professor making it up rather than the students.Tyrenon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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