Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Fin

Article was speedily deleted (A7) back in September 2008. Still no major independent third party signs of notability. Almost all references relying on MySpace and blogs. No allmusic.com entry. Also there is a major Conflict of Interest issue in the article with edits by the bands management company GrandStreetMusic [1] JoannaMinogue (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This wasn't prodded? I bet this one will be uncontested. Tavix (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Still non-notable. The prod game is usually a waste of time, lets kill this one for good the old fashioned way. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable band WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources covering the band. The references in the article are gig listing which don't establish notability, blog posts which aren't reliable sources, or a passing mention which doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BAND. Plastikspork (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Brouard

Fails WP:AUTHOR. flaming lawyer 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A simple google search revealed widespread notability. I've referenced those sources on the page.--TM 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references to back this one up. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily sourcable to meet notablity. For example, this book describes him as "...perhaps the most interesting and gifted poet of this period..." -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple Google Books search gets 474 hits, and you only have to read the first few snippets displayed to see obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content) Whpq (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States political families (X)

Why do we need an article for such nonsense? If there are no political families with that last name, then don't create the article. This is left better as a redlink to show people there aren't any families before they click on the link in vain. Tavix (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Booyah! No info for article, no hope for any content, no need for article.SMSpivey (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3 or A7. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3, tagged. JulesH (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X4view

WP:Notability. Just created, hasn't achieved notability yet. No independent sources via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this java framework -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very few to no hits for "x4view" and "java" in google. Plastikspork (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin 3 hints

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Rgood erm ote 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey guess what guyz, Pikmin 4 will has pink pikmin!!!!!!!11!!!!!!1! (yeah, not really) Tavix (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Pikmin (series)#Pikmin 3 Gary King (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. SharkD (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SharkD (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ per nom. Salavat (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from redirect to delete based on the comments by Tavix. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Definitely crystalballery. I cannot see a redirect doing much in this case. Who is going to search for "Pikmin 3 hints" when all they need to do is search for "Pikmin 3"? MuZemike 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have a STRONG disagreement with a redirect. No one is going to search for "Pikmin 3 hints" and keeping the history of the article makes it beg for recreation. Tavix (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a good point. In this case redirection wouldn't be sensible. SharkD (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article content is a an assortment of speculation -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone looking for info about this would much soon type Pikmin 3 that Pikmin 3 hints. It is not a likely search term nor do we have similar redirects for other games either. --76.69.168.216 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (non-searchable name) after moving any reliable informatin that's not speculation into the Pikman series article (or Pikman 2). --MASEM 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete", "move"? Sounds like a WP:MAD problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Snowball? Plastikspork (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, an attempt by students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to break Michigan Tech's world record for the largest ever snowball fight has failed. MuZemike 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pikmin (series). There's suitable content for wikipedia and no reason to require delete and keeping the redirect is not unreasonable. Is a content fork, for which (re)merge and redirect is easiest and best solution and there was no need for this AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Chandra Chatterjee

New page, on what seems to be a non-notable person. thisisace (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's true that the article doesn't really explain the grounds for notability, but I think the award may support the case. That's why I didn't do a speedy deletion. Deb (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep: Padma Shri is one of highest civilian awards in India, a recipient is noteworthy. References are notable to prove the Padma shri claim. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote as reference added. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. (after edit conflict). The Padma Shri has only been awarded to 2095 people in over 50 years in a country with a population of over a billion, so its recipients are undoubtably notable. I've put a reference in the article to verify that the subject received it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. same reason as provided by User:Phil Bridger. Even google books show three results, though only in snippet view, and supporting Padmashri award info.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. Salih (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning Padmashri definitely makes him notable. This article is a good reminder that not everything, alas, is googleable. Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily judged notable. Note that the nominator seems to have not even googled the title or contacted the newcomer author at User talk:Aaron3767 or Talk:Ajit Chandra Chatterjee. This is too bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Discuss before nomming (withdrawn by nom). Rgood erm ote 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS storage devices

To sum it up, the article lacks any good references, fails NPOV and none of these are really that notable. Rgood erm ote 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a whole lot of devices listed there. I'm sure some of them can at least be verified. The Game Boy Advance flash cartridge in particular has its own article. SharkD (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well I would vote delete article and merge into various articles. But in general most of those cards do not follow our standards in particular notability. Some cards like the M3 and R4 are notable to some degree. They could simply be moved into the Nintendo DS homebrew main article (which I am debating if we even need..it seems more like a guide to me than an actual article, but that is my opinon) under a new section called whatever anyone wants to call it. I have made a bad move by nomming this without first going to the talk page. But at the time I was not expecting a response and I still don't. Rgood erm ote 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, moving them to Nintendo DS homebrew might be better if they're relevant to that topic. SharkD (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question — do you think it would be OK to withdraw the nom and close this AFD so we can propose a merge of this article? MuZemike 20:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hm, yeah that is a wise idea. Rgood erm ote 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Tony D. Sampson. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without evidence of the existence of the series, a discussion would not affect the outcome. Clear joke pages are one of the cases where AfDs may be bypassed. The author should contact me if he objects or, heck, wants a backup copy. --Kiz o r 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Sunshine (TV Series)

The article looks to be a prank or joke page. I did not find any mention of such a TV show after doing a quick google search. Seth MacFarlane, Tom Kenny, Alex Borstein as cast members is also suspicious; I figure some kind of announcement would have been made for a project involving these people. The rest of the voice cast and description looks to be mostly taken from The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3; the IMDB link goes to that show's page as well. And the two edits to this page are only two of three edits by the creator. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as HOAX. flaming lawyer 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strand Home Video

Non-notable defunct branch of a company. No reliable secondary sources. No references of any kind. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the merged Strand VCI Entertainment. I think most of this information is fraudulent, it was all created as a hoax, see Talk:Strand VCI Entertainment.

Delete: non-notable company WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Strand VCI Entertainment. Looks suitable, but is unsources and could be a hoax. Undelete or Userfy for anyone who claims to have reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lang

Short article about a thwarted Canadian office seeker and what a good guy he is. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N in general. --Dynaflow babble 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never held a notable office; running is not enough, even if one loses by 2 %. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:V, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kohler

Orphaned, dead-end article tagged for notability concerns since October. Short article makes some grand claims about the subject's notability, but fails to back them up with ... well ... anything. The wider Internet hasn't been much help for finding substantial refs for the various laudatory claims, so it looks like WP:NV is going to be a hurdle this article won't be able to jump. --Dynaflow babble 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find substantial references to back it up, the real issue is WP:V. WP:N only really comes into play on material that can be verified but still shouldn't be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops; must've had a brain spasm of some kind. Technically, though, if all unverifiable claims were struck from the article per WP:BLP, what we'd have left is a skeletal stub that also fails WP:N. --Dynaflow babble 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, got 71 hits for "Tim Kohler", but not a single one was about the steakhouse Tim Kohler. Delete unless someone finds some sources before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources writing about this individual -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to complete lack of sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 97 (Rockland County, New York)

Article does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability (highways) Andy 1One (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I am the ORIGINAL author of these articles who gathered the pics and did all the field work. User:Mitchazenia has been very helpful in bringing in history and bringing things up to Wiki standards. If it were up to me, all routes would have their own page, but considering some routes don't, I don't see why this one should stand alone while others don't. It is a hidden one-mile route. --Airtuna08 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from what I see most of the information already exists on the main page. Mitch, why don't you add some brief history to CR 97 on the main list. It certainly doesn't need a "junction list" section. --Airtuna08 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Even though I proposed deletion, I believe the article should be merged. It is pretty much a redundant article. Andy 1One (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD isn't for discussing merges. If you feel the article should be merged, you should have discussed it on a relevant talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I am bull. I wrote on the nominators talk page that I have more info for it, yet he wants to AFD/merge it anyway. I guess you can kill me.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airtuna, I have about 2 pages worth of history that I need to get out of it, there is more info, the article is not finished.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had more information, why didn't you add it before? Andy 1One (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to closing admin - Can you give User:Mitchazenia a couple days to update the history he has to the page before making a final decision? Curious to see if that will change things. --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs last for around five days, so he has a while. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to get the book, which will take a few days, and then add it all.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 10:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An editor is in the process of making improvements of the article (Wikipedia has no deadline) and it appears to be notable per sources. --Oakshade (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Premature nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like this information has been on Wiki awhile. Don't know how it's a premature AfD by Andy. But how is a one-mile, county route that is hidden from 99.999999999% of the public notable? --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to List of Hannah Montana episodes. G4, recreation of previously AFDed material. I'm leaving a redirect to discourage recreation. Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming Hannah Montana episodes

Don't we already have a list of Hannah Montana episodes. Even if we don't, this is horribly formatted. Cssiitcic (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hannah Montana episodes. TJ Spyke 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hannah Montana episodes#Season 3: 2008-2009, as this list is redundant to that section of that article.--Unscented (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. Schuym1 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana upcoming episode list, a previous AFD on a similar article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Rgood erm ote 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant cruft. Tavix (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, cruft galore. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, we're Not a TV guide. Nate • (chatter) 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note from Creator

I request not to take any more part in deletion of page. The page was created for entertaiment purposes only, and was not self-encouraged to be inflicted with wikipedia deletion stories, in any way, whatsoever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3193th (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden car physics

Content is original research, "I tested" and so on. Vuo (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as how-to/instruction guide and original research. —Snigbrook 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, and a quite good piece of research. That's the problem. It's original research and not Wikipedia material. Peridon (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Intromissing, no context. OK, it is badly written original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No context, attempt to communicate, unsalvageably incoherent. Also original research and self-promotion. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay about a Boy Scout racing event. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain quest

Was tagged with {{db-spam}} and I do not think this meets those criteria. I think with some expansion, the page will be good. I don't think this needs deletion. Cssiitcic (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do keep it. I think we should rename it Brain Quest, that is how it is supposed to be, according to both the website and the box.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just nonsense. Deb (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small portion was copied and pasted from the website. This was after the author had previously been warned for copyvio issues. All the work the editor has done here has been problematic and he / she has already been blocked within the first few days of activity. Brain quest is a product and may not have enough media coverage to source it. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "These Subjects support there learning throw there years at school." That's just precious. No sign that this fulfills any significant inclusion criteria besides its being written in English, kind of. I would have just CSD G11'ed it; the article's obvious purpose is to promote the game. --Dynaflow babble 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with all such nominations, I would have said, Cssiitcic, not to nominate articles for deletion that you don't yourself actually want to be deleted. But I'm guessing that you'll remember that point quite well, now. ☺
Note that your best arguments at this point are multiple in-depth sources covering the subject from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. You should be aware that none of the above editors have looked for sources. (Guess how I can know that simply from what they have written. ☺) So if you do look for sources, and are able to find and cite independent sources that document this subject in depth, you'll be able to make a convincing case that supports your nomination, and that wholly undermines E_dog95's deletion rationale, for one.
Hint: Editors who have looked for sources, and whose opinion on notability will be based upon actual data (rather than plucked out of thin air with no effort), will be able to state what happened with this product in 1994. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly because the nomination doesn't explain why it should be deleted. Secondly, because it has been covered in reliable sources establishing notability. There is this in-depth article about the product and the company. There is also this article and this article. I suspect that Uncle G was referring to the fact that it was a New York Times Bestseller for children's books in 1994. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bestseller, and a product recall all in the same year. Interesting. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the article can be improved. Do we really need to delete it?Cssiitcic (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it can be improved, and no, we don't really need to delete it as has been amply demonstrated above. So why nominate it for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I withdraw the AfD?Cssiitcic (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, unless the other people above who have suggested deletion agree to withdrawal. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I withdraw my !vote. (Rereading this AfD, I had a sudden a-ha moment: "Oh, those things!") My concerns with the article's quality are moot now that it's been demonstrated the article's subject can clear WP:N and WP:V. With the sources in the post by Whpq, it should be a simple matter to rewrite the article to at least marginally acceptable standards. --Dynaflow babble 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't withdraw at the moment because there is no context and I still don't know what the article's about from looking at the article. If independent sources exist, they should be listed in the article in place of the existing reference to a home site that is no more than an advert. Improve the article first. Deb (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AFD isn't cleanup. If the subject is notable, and verifiable, then it should be kept. the fact that it needs improvement can be handled through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've cleaned up the article and aded references. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There we are, you see - it wasn't that difficult, was it? I can withdraw my deletion vote now. Deb (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and Rename as "Brain Quest" with a capital "Q". I added the above sources to the article as a hidden comment (just until they get referenced in the article). ~SunDragon34 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraag Shukla

Individual fails to meet any notability criteria for WP:BIO. He is a mid-level research assistant. He authored one as-yet unreleased low-budget screenplay and is the fifth co-author on a single 102-page government report. A search reveals zero coverage. The Washington Post references provided don't even mention him. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no sources covering this individual to establish notability. None of the listed work would indicate that there is notability to be found. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Several media interviews with this screenwriter have been conducted and will be published in the near future. The Washington Post article mentioned was a piece specifically on the director but validates the film's status and upcoming release. The project may be considered "low-budget" by US standards, but is certainly typical of the South Indian film industry. The production has already been featured in a multitude of articles and media pieces in India and the film has already been granted release. The film's official website, Internet Movie Database, and various local media coverage confirms the screenwriter's credit on the film (one example).
The reference to being a "fifth co-author" is misleading: the contributions were listed alphabetically after Ms. Warner.
The writer is also the sole author of an upcoming book on India-Pakistan military operations in the late 1990s.
Question: If the question is a lack of sources to confirm the writer's accomplishment(s), would it be preferable to repost this writer's profile after the film is released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstar46 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a lack of sources, but a lack of any accomplishment warranting an encyclopedic article at this time. This does not mean he hasn't accomplished good work -- simply that it isn't notable enough. Writing a produced movie is not enough -- thousands of movies are written and produced every year. See WP:CREATIVE for some criteria expected for screenwriters. If Shukla became noted in the future with substantial coverage, there would be no prejudice against reintroducing an article about him. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for the clarification and help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstar46 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless any notable coverage currently exists. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Cepuš

No apparent notability. No secondary sources to show anything other than he apparently plays the short scale bass. Certainly no "significant coverage" showing Cepuš to have contributed to the art. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article at Slovene WP but the notability criteria are far less strict there as they are here. Just in case anyone checks... No opinion from my side. --Tone 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Slovenian, but the section "Priznanja v tujini" sounds like it could be about prizes. Can anyone translate? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the AFD template was never added to the article. (I can't find it); have added it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that - Twinkle hiccup, I think. Thanks for your help. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The KZSU pages don't (in my mind) constitute non-trivial coverage. While I was unable to read the terapija.net articles, this link explains a little about the web site. Not obviously the stuff of reliability. Bongo matic 14:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. --AndrejJ (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs of Eternity

Delete manga written by 3 redlinks been tagged since 2007 and nothing approaching notability as shown by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails the general notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. g12 Tone 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stepanek

Another guy with a great résumé but not enough notability to merit an encyclopedia article (though I'm sure he'll get there eventually. The only external citations are to websites he owns. Claims to notability are vague and uncited ("...is a leading authority on manufacturing in China," "...often sought out as an expert," etc.). --Dynaflow babble 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The wonders of Google. It turns out it's a straight copyvio from www.madeitin.com/chinapeople.html. --Dynaflow babble 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. (Already tagged with {{db-g12}} WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria A3 (attempt to correspond/chat-like comments) --Allen3 ^talk 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Froozen Pizza?

I know this is a bad article that schould be speedied but i don't think any criteria will REALLY fit, so thats why we are here but i am 110 % sure it will be delete The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atia Abawi

Delete nn reporter, so nn we don't know his date or year of birth - red flags of non-notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing that shows notability here, here, here, here, and here. There is nothing here and here, and here. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atia Abawi frequently reports for CNN from the middle-east. The google search links above shows this as true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.251.165 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7, non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freepy

Article is about a non-notable word, appeared to be something that was made up one day at school. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asklepios (manga)

Unnotable manga series by an unnotable author. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, first volume of manga isn't even released so obviously not a sales hit, and not even notable enough for an entry at Anime News Network yet. And, before its even said, the notability of Weekly Shonen Jump does not automatically make every little manga series that runs it notable, particularly considering the sheer number that are included in each issue. Fails WP:N and fails WP:BK. Article nothing but plot and a list of chapters. As author page is already up for deletion for his own complete lack of notability, no valid merge target so deletion best option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series is apparently running dead last in the weekly popularity polls for WJS series, which means it'll be cancelled soon, with no tankobon collections to come. No book, no popularity, no notability: that spells delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the likely to be no tankobons, but my reasoning still stands. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, some series must be last in the polls. They can't all be in first place. --Gwern (contribs) 15:06 30 January 2009 (GMT)

Delete seems unlikely to achieve notability. Doceirias (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines. No in-depth coverage in 3rd party reliable sources can be found. Themfromspace (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I created this article. I feel that Collectonian is trying to get it deleted as fast as possible just because I'm trying to stick up for it and she has something against me for it. Anyway, the first volume is coming out in a matter of days on February 4th, so don't go saying that there are no upcoming tankoubon releases for it. Check your facts first. Here it is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AC%E3%83%94%E3%82%AA%E3%82%B9-1-%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%97%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9-%E5%86%85%E6%B0%B4-%E8%9E%8D/dp/4088746333/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232983356&sr=8-1 (no picture of the cover yet, though)Kangarugh22 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the bad faith accusations already. You had plenty of time to show notability for this series, but instead you engaged in personal attacks and tried to claim that it didn't matter that it wasn't notable (as is clear for anyone to see on the article talk page). The series is not notable. Its single pending volume (not released at this time) still does not meet notability. As you were already repeatedly told. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We base a manga's notability based on significant coverage by reliable third party sources. There are are few alternative criteria we can use, but being published or being sold is not among them. I am curious to know where Quasirandom found the information that the series is running last in WSJ's popularity polls. --Farix (Talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Doceirias in the AfD for the mangaka. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jump has a unique trick where more popular manga appear at the front of the magazine, and less popular ones at the back. While they may move a book forward to promote it or leave an older book that is still popular but past the media focus to the back, the chapter order - particularly for new titles - is a rough guide to popularity. Unsuccessful new titles end up at the very back by around issue six. There are titles like Gintama that managed to recover from that and be successful, but Asklepios has been dead last for about ten issues, and seems unlikely to survive the next round of new serializations. I check the Jump flash site weekly; the table of contents there matches the one in the magazine for that week. Doceirias (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but based on what you've said, its not very reliable. Now the next question is, how does Shōnen Jump determine a popular manga from an unpopular manga? Are these results compiled from a weekly feedback survey or something similar to Nielsen? --Farix (Talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty reliable, but more contributing evidence than undeniable fact. You have to watch the chapters for a while before you can really predict the trends. The results are compiled from the weekly feedback survey; postage required, but there are prizes to encourage responses. It used to be unpopular series were killed within ten issues; but with tankobon sales rising, they now tend to wait and see what the tankobon orders are before canceling a title. There's a number of books - like the second to last title, To Love - that aren't as popular with the Jump readers, but sustain themselves through healthy tankobon sales. The formula's become a little more complex. But Asklepios has neither the cult following nor the otaku targeted fanservice that generally supposed those mid-level titles. Doceirias (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic Interesting. Could this information be added to Weekly Shōnen Jump or are reliable sources explaining it lacking? --Farix (Talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to be off-topic, the mechanics of the weekly feedback survey (and how it affects editorial decisions) are depicted in Bakuman, another current WSJ series. Not reliable enough to be cited, given it's a work of fiction, but since the intent is to provide inside into the world of manga writing and editing, useful as an overview (and is consistent with other descriptions I've seen). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may fall into that gray area of things that are so well known and obvious that no reliable sources have bothered to write about them. They get discussed on blogs and forums all the time, but I've never seen anything more authoritative. Anyone reading Jump for long (and living in Japan) just works it out and starts sending in cards to support titles they like. I used to have a site bookmarked that claimed 90% of the readship did not respond, and 90% was just voting for One Piece and Naruto, so series live or die by the polls. There are a few manga, like Buso Renkin and Taizo Motse King Saga, that contain extensive author's notes discussing the impact of the polls on their work. Doceirias (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wait: If it isn't reliable enough to be cited, why are we considering it as a basis for deletion? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much for judging notability as it is possible information that can be added to a reception section. --Farix (Talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't the place for failing serialization like this one and being published argument is fail as it only concerns Japan. Unless it receive third-party coverage as a notable publication failure in the future, this article should not be on wikipedia.--KrebMarkt 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it was the least popular manga in their magazine, its still popular enough to be in their magazine, and anything in such an influential and high selling magazine is notable. The policies are a guideline, not an official set of law. Remember that. Use common sense, and if something could make the wikipedia better, include it. And Kangarugh22, Collectonian already stated on her website that she is a deletionist, and when asked how she choose what to delete, she stated on her user page, that it depended on how many active editors were around to protest. There is no possible reason to go around deleting what could be a useful article. Dream Focus (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're back to lying and putting words in my mouth. Thanks. And, no, policies are policies, guidelines are guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus Notability can't by inherited. The magazine is notable but each manga serialized has to prove its own notability. End of the story.

The only reliable way to deal with deletion is providing information & RS references. Naming someone deletionist won't avoid Afd.--KrebMarkt 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someones userbox is most certainly not a relevant factor in any AFD, and I'm getting tired of Dream Focus using AFD's to launch lame attacks on Collectonian because he didn't (and is yet to) get his own way in an AFD. I've yet to see a vote or comment from Dream Focus that isn't simply "trolling" or attempting unlikely keeps due to their own misguided sense of "justice" in the face of experienced editors who actually know what they are talking about Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. I was active in the AFD months ago, I just got distracted. I'm not here to spite anyone. The policies are not laws, they are suggestions/guidelines. It clearly states that. It says to use common sense, and if anything can make the wikipedia better, than do so. And I was answering someone's question, as to why she was deleting so many things. It not personal, she just having the philosophy that certain things should be deleted. Dream Focus (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are policies, they are not merely suggestions that can be ignored when they become inconvenient. The same goes for guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like you all to go to the pages for Bokke-san, Kuroko no Basket and Meister (manga) which have next to no information provided. THOSE ones should be deleted way before Asklepios which has had 17 chapters compared to the 5, 6, and 7 chapters the new series have. At least the Asklepios page has something on it! However, I see no vicious attempts to delete those articles quite like I see here. Kangarugh22 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific order in which articles must be sent to AFD. And such arguments is just WP:WAX. Besides, Kuroko no Basket and Meister are already at AFD, and were nominated long before this article. As for Bokke-san, it's been tagged for merger into the author's article. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are deleted if there aren't a lot of active editors around to protest. Dream Focus (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Service in Informatics and Analysis

Delete no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Spam. Schuym1 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be spam if it's about a company that no longer exists? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is promoting the site at the bottom. The creator's username is SIA6600. Schuym1 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even then, it was simply referring to a ex-employees group - it could hardly be regarded as spam for the company. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to the SIA People groups website, sorry if this was the offending item. SIA6600 (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It will take a bit of work to establish this in the article, but a quick search of Google Books comes up with a number of potential reliable sources, many of which are from journals in the late 60's and 70's. If nothing else, they had the most powerful computer in the UK in 1968, and this got them some attention. (I've added one reference so far on this issue). The problem is that these journals (due to age) are unlikly to be scanned into the electronic databases, so it will take some work to track down physical copies. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with User:Bilby. If reliable sources are available, it is now a matter of WP:CLEANUP to address any issues with content or style. Deletion will not be required if improving the article will improve Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just by looking at the snippets displayed by those Google Books results notability is clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote changed to keep: Per reliable sources found. Schuym1 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I never worked for the company I knew several people that did and I visited their offices in London several times. All of the information on the page that I know about seems to be correct.

Keep Here are three references to Software Packages which were available at SIA in the 70's and 80's:

Offshore/Marine Job Control (front cover only, company addresses on second page) DYNRISER Leaflet OSCAR Leaflet

SIA6600 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the Google Books reference above, see also "Services in Informatics and Analysis", "SIA Computer Services" and "SIA Limited", and I did work for them in the mid-70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.80.122 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep all. Synergy 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Oroglio

I am nominating a number of footballers who played only in the Canadian Soccer League, which is not fully professional. Some of them also played for Toronto Lynx in the USL Premier Development League, which is an amateur division of USA & Canada, so these appearances are non-notable as well. All of these subjects therefore fail WP:ATHLETE.

I am also nominating the following subjects:

Chris Turner (Canadian footballer)
Jason De Thomasis
Kayin Jeffers
Tristan Murray
Desi Humphrey
Kadian Lecky
Anthony Adur
Pablo Alvarado (Italian footballer)

--Angelo (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new research below which says league is fully-pro. Giant Snowman 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Tavix (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article for the Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) says that it IS a fully professional league. Can someone verify this please? Bettia (rawr!) 09:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add to the confusion, the disambig page for the Canadian Professional Soccer League states it was actually a semi-pro league. I think we need to establish the status of these two leagues, when they turned fully professional, and when these players played in this league (before or after it turned fully professional). Bettia (rawr!) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Its website certainly states that it is professional. What evidence is there that points to it not being fully pro....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever, as far as I can tell. On that basis, and because all of these player appear on the current rosters and have appeared for their team, I'll have to say keep all (and amend the list of pro leagues accordingly). Bettia (rawr!) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be professional but is it fully-professional? Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting into hair-splitting. In plain English "professional" means "fully professional" not "semi-professional". If it was "semi" then the prefix would be used in describing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the league defines itself as "professional", however I am not so convinced about it - that is just because Trois-Rivières Attak, a team playing in such league, seems to be Montreal Impact's reserve side (Impact plays in the USL First Division); same for TFC Academy, which is Toronto FC's "academy" team. I'd rather to see some independent source proving the CPL teams provide fulltime contracts to their first team players before to say it is fully professional in the way we mean. --Angelo (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF states that it's fully professional. Bettia (rawr!) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bettia. NB it's also worth mentioning that the Canadian champions qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have enough evidence that this league is fully professional for the presumption to be in favour of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already redirected to Meaning (linguistics) by another editor. The consensus of the discussion appears to be consistant with that move. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic meaning

(1) This article reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. It is not at all clear that the sources used in this article call what they are doing "linguistic meaning" - I have NOR concerns that the contributors to this article have taken sources out of context and strung them together in an idiosyncratic way. (2) This article purports to be about linguistics, but the branches of linguistics (semantics, ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics) that study meaning are not represented. (3) Instead the article relies primarily on works by philosophers of language - this is significant as linguists and philosophers ask different questions and use different methods. As an article on a philosophy topic, it seems to be redundant with the articles on Truth and Philosophy of Language, both of which cover the same material but much more clearly and with better citations and references. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was originally written as an article on an area of linguistics. It was then renamed, with the appropriate redirect, to Meaning (linguistics) which remains a serious article on a topic within linguistics. Since that time, someone rewrote "Linguistic meaning" as an essay on philosophy but it strikes me as poorly written and repeating material covered in other philosophy-related articles. There is no discussion on the talk page, although there are templates deeming this article important both to the philosophy and linguistics project. I do not think this article does justice to either category. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This strikes me as a philosophy of language essay, but the issue of "meaning" also seems like a reasonable subtopic. Maybe this isn't the right article, but the subject seems coherent to me. A problem, of course, is in the very first line: "Linguistic meaning is the content carried by the words or signs exchanged by people when communicating through language." This is a POV violation, since it's not really talking about how philosophers have talked about meaning (in "sentences," "statements," "propositions," "predicates," etc.). It also has a serious OR feel about it. Still, not sure this should be deleted outright. J L G 4 1 0 4 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is, we already have two other (older) articles that cover the same material, but better. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This delete vote seems redundant to the nomination by the same editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - yep, you're right. I don't imagine many people looking for "linguistic meaning" will want this anyway, or if they do, they'd probably know to check "philosophy of language" or simply "meaning" as well, if not first. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Philogo (below). I like the idea. As long as it's clear that this is not a linguistics article, then the article-- despite its problems-- seems salvageable and potentially useful. J L G 4 1 0 4 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meaning (linguistics). That's most likely to be the article anyone accidentally stumbling upon Linguistic meaning was actually looking for. After all, it was the former article's vacating that page name that allowed the latter article/essay to take over the consequent redirect. Although it's an admirable effort, the current page at Linguistic meaning gives me the WP:OR heebie-jeebies too. --Dynaflow babble 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone's interested, the original discussion on the split that resulted in the article currently under discussion is here: Talk:Meaning (linguistics)#Re-move. --Dynaflow babble 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the article already says up top "(see also Meaning (linguistic))" This article used to redirect to Meaning (linguistics) - until the article (contents) I have nominated for deletion was created. One problem is, the current article has nothing to do with lingusitics Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no expert, but this seems to be a very encyclopedic article on a very encyclopedic topic.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gather the material was originally part of Philosophy of language and therefore it would have made more sense to entitle it Meaning(philosophy of language) rather than linguistic meaning. --Philogo 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —An gr 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-redirect to Meaning (linguistics). —An gr 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the redirect? People like Frege and Kripke have little to do with linguistics as I know it. I'm pretty sure there's a well-established disciplinary (i.e., historical and concrete) difference between the realm of "linguistics" and that of "philosophy of language." If anything, this kind of stuff would be more appropriate in Analytic philosophy, or perhaps Pragmatics. J L G 4 1 0 4 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Note that User:Angr calls for delete and then redirect. Thus, the references to Frege et alia would no longer exist. Redirect to Meaning (linguistics) would be a return to the status quo of 15 April 2008. Cnilep (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems quite well written and covers different ground to its twin, Meaning (linguistics) which does not seem significantly superior. While there is scope to merge, move or otherwise rearrange this material, it should not be deleted per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is no doubt that this article is different from the well-written article on Meaning (linguistics). But that does not make it its twin. If it purports to be a philosophy topic, we need to know how philosophers talk about "meaning" and who the notable philosophers are. And it seems to me that most of these philosophers and thier views are presented, in a much clearer and better-written article, in Truth. and whatever the Truth article does not cover seems to be more appropriate for the articles on Philosophical logic or Philosophy of language or an article on "representation" as a philosophical concept. Given that better-written articles on this material already exist at Wikipedia, I see no point to the article nominated for deletion, which by comparison reads like OR or one student's final exam essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, above, that the subject matter is covered well in other pieces. But looking into more closely, it seems clear that even the best contender to displace this article-- Philosophy of language-- is going to get too long with a whole chunk on "meaning" within it. So as a matter simply of spinning off a sub-article, "Meaning (philosophy of language)" seems perfectly reasonable to me. Truth is way too broad a subject to shoehorn in all this article's specific points. "Better-written articles on this material already exist" might be a criterion for deletion, but only if there's no warrant for a sub-article; the warrant seems to exist here. J L G 4 1 0 4 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move As others have noted, the article describes the treatment of linguistic meaning in the philosophy of language, which is distinct from treatments of linguistic meaning in (the field of) linguistics. It should therefore be renamed something like "Meaning (philosophy of language)" to avoid confusion with "Meaning (linguistics)". In addition, there are problems with original research (and possibly POV), which will need to be addressed if the article is kept or moved. The sub-sections 'Stronger idea theories', 'Weaker idea theories', 'Gotlob Frege', and 'Bertrand Russell' seem especially problematic. There is also a lack of specific citations. Cnilep (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move It should be renamed "Meaning (philosophy of language)". It can then be dealt with by Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language--Philogo 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Renamed as suggested: I have renamed the article [[Linguistic meaning]] to Meaning (philosophy of language) and Linguistic meaning now redirects to Meaning (linguistics). OK? I suggest we now remove the deletion flag. Any objections?--Philogo 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection if (1) a consensus emerges and (2) two different editors are willing to oversee its rewrite so it complies with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and (3) the article is written in a way that does not overlap with Truth. BUT when an article is nominated for deletion, our policy is an independent administrator must make a decision on the final outcome. We cannot do anything until that happens. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article as discussed and described but it is still flagged for deletion. I hope Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language will consider that matter further.--Philogo 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy‎ & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Language‎; have both been alerted--Philogo 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edson Rodriguez

Unreferenced BLP. No reliable sources are readily available to support notability. Ghits do not support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it does tend to irk me, WP:ATHLETE seems to imbue everybody who's played pro ball with automatic notability. This person also seems to satisfy the Football Wikiproject's informal criteria for notability (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability). --Dynaflow babble 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - I agree that WP:ATH covers the notability as asserted (which is why this isn't a speedy), but I think this would fail that on WP:V. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking here, Rodriguez doesn't show up on the team roster. Also, I have to note that 14 does seem a little young to go into pro sports, even on what seems to be a second-tier team; his supposed teammates look like they wouldn't break a sweat smearing a 5'2" adolescent into the turf, and I assume the same holds for other players in that league. The creator of the article also only made edits to this one page, even though most people who write the ~~soccer~~ football-player articles I see going by on newpages will do a whole team's worth of articles in a relatively short period of time. Finally, I note that the username of the creator is Victoria1993 (talk · contribs), which would indicate a girl at the same age (and class level) as Edson writing things like, "Edson is being named on of the next hugo sanchez!!"[sic] before backing off and writing in something slightly more sensible. You put two and two together. --Dynaflow babble 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note – I notice there was also a Cd Victoria1993 (talk · contribs) who created a similarly named article. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, it's a reference to Ciudad Victoria, hometown of the reputed football prodigy. --Dynaflow babble 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a native speaker of the language to sort out sources, but according to this search at least some seem to exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - my Spanish is rudimentary to non-existent, but none of those sources seem to be about this guy. Some are about a murder victim from 1995, others are about a footballer but date from as faar back as 2006, before this guy supposedly made his debut, and refer to Rodriguez as playing for Deportivo Galicia of Venezuela, so I would suggest that it is not the same guy. Narrowing down the search by including the name of the team this Edson Rodriguez supposedly plays for gives only one hit, and even that isn't about him. Also doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the club's official website, and the squad section (as linked by Dynaflow above) shows that squad number 7 is worn by one Armando Tavira Silva, not this kid..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chris is right, the no.7 shirt doesn't belong to this kid. Looks like we got ourselves a hoax here. Bettia (rawr!) 10:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude, probable hoax. Giant Snowman 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The FMF website has no record of such a player at Correcaminos (or at any club). See here. Jogurney (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as well if the search is done with quotes around the name "Edson Rodriguez" there are zero hits. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax King of the North East 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, clear hoax. No legitimate edits seen from article creator; suggest block. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax Camw (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BB Tanks

Article on a freeware game (in beta, no less) which makes no real assertion of notability. Also seems to be mainly a game guide, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not. --Dynaflow babble 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dynaflow, game is currently not notable. Has not been externally written up or reviewed. LK (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Only the North American version is in beta. Anyone know the Korean spelling? I bet I can find some links with it. SharkD (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's the Japanese spelling: ポトリス２ which seems to have a few hits. There's also ビービータンクス (BIBITANKUSU), but this refers specifically to the American translation, I think. Of course, I can't tell you which sites are reliable. The only ones I know by name are Famitsu and Dengeki. SharkD (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a quite lengthy review. It appears to be some kind of magazine judging by the URL. SharkD (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a news item (press release) at Dengeki. SharkD (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - GameSpot has a news item, but it's just a press release as well. SharkD (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Miriam

No references to support notability claims.
No Google hits for awards listed in article. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete straight away, fails WP:MUSIC rather miserably. JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio of [2]. ... discospinster _talk 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ali Khan

Blatant advertising, non-notable, author repeatedly removes speedy deletion tags with no explanation, so hopefully it can be speedy deleted this way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arkanoid: Space Ball

A google search for notability doesn't find any hits to attribute any notability. Unreferenced/unsourced. No significant coverage by any reliable 3rd party sources. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Krakout maybe? SharkD (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it's going to be sued for trademark infringement sometime soon with that name. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A whole lot of listings on download sites, but no actual discussion or reviews of it in reliable sources. I also second the comment by the anon. This is asking for trouble when you're not directly related to Arkanoid. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamical

Non-notable website. The site has garnered some press, but since the site only launched 2 weeks ago, it is too soon to say that it is notable. Also, the page was authored by the site's founder, so there is a pretty huge conflict of interest involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This article is not a hoax. It describes a notable addition to the current theory on prediction markets and crowd sourcing. Please see: http://blog.mercury-rac.com/2008/01/25/how-to-interpret-prediction-market-results-on-elections/ and http://mashable.com/2008/10/28/nostradamical/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradpyoung (talk • contribs)

Comment I have removed the 'hoax' comment, and its related 'Delete' vote, as it was obviously vandalism. The issue with this article isn't that it is a hoax, but that its subject has not yet demonstrated notability. The references given describe the launch of the website, but they all do so with a question -- will it survive? The website won't be notable until it has been around long enough to generate definitive press. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable website. Unlikely to become notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as failing WP:WEB. Of the two references above, only one is independent - the mercury-rac.com blog post itself doesn't mention the site (it is mentioned in a comment to the post, made by the site's founder). --Bonadea (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Easy call, especially considering the short time it's been available coupled with the COI. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anime St. Louis

Unnotable anime convention. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable third, party sources. No notability beyond minor local coverage; almost entire article sourced from from an anime convention directory and the hosting university's newspaper. Failed PROD, removed with note of "remove PROD; I'm not convinced it's not notable." Already deleted in 2007 AfD and was recreated only a few months later, so this could be considered a CSD candidate, but going ahead and opening up for a new discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it again. Before !voting "delete", one should normally check if the topic is notable. In this case it is the other way around. When re-creating deleted material, pointing out why it has become notable since the last deletion, can be expected. This article does not do so. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, searching all available dates (1989-present) turns up a single mention of the phrase "Anime St. Louis" and that is in the context of an article about someone intending to attend in 2006. ("The (costume) play's the thing Cosplayers dress up as - and act like - their favorite characters from such things as video games and anime" By Michelle Oyola ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH Pg. E1). Since the local rag (SLPD) doesn't mention this, should probably delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quartermaster's find seals the deal when it comes to this convention's notability. Themfromspace (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as Goodraise. Seems that someone think being on Wikipedia makes you notable (free ad) but Wikipedia works the reverse way. --KrebMarkt 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything in the article is well-sourced, to reliable sources independent of the convention. It's borderline notable now just based on the coverage we know of, and is likely to become indisputably so in future. I don't see how this article either violates any of our policies or sets a bad example for what kinds of content Wikipedia should have.--ragesoss (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says "Attendance 1,434 in 2008". That's not a lot of people. Just a minor convention, without anything notable happening at all. Dream Focus (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapsi Square

I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sourcing which could establish the notability of the comic. Currently the article is made up of a lot of plot and character detail, sourced entirely to the comic itself and an unreferenced section about its creator. The long sections on trivia, running gags, characters and other specific plot element all contain original research, with editors interpretation of the source material being used in order to hold much of the text together. Without any third party coverage such as descriptive or critical commentary I do not think the article will currently be able to expand beyond what is essentially a long plot summary. Guest9999 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've not yet had time to do an exhaustive search for readership numbers, but as a member of Blank Label Comics it must be up there. Here's an article on the strip: [3]. Also won 2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards#Outstanding Character (Visual) and has been nominated multiple times. Powers ^T 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if an article by an old friend in a local newspaper can be used as the basis for establishing notability. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are questionably notable (the 2004 awards didn't even have a ceremony) and even with that taken into account they are voted on by on-line cartoonists, without any other sources that makes it seem like a bit of a walled garden. Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's sufficient for me, but I freely admit the measures aren't objective; that's why we have these discussions. Powers ^T 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well said. Guest9999 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable webcomics should have made the news a few times, but this one hasn't. Themfromspace (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peabo Bryson. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peebo

I think this article should be deleted, because I feel that it is talking about a neologism that isn't supported by reliable, and secondary sources (WP:NEOLOGISM). I was able to find a BBC website that does talk about the term: [4]. However, since the term first emerged on a BBC talk-show, I do not feel that WP:NEOLOGISM is yet satisfied. Thanks for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (lightly) into Peterborough. --Dynaflow babble 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I have no idea what to do?? 構成上都十分多样 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peabo Bryson as plausible mispelling redirect. A city nickname is not notable unless it reaches The Big Apple levels. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Warrants at most a mention on the Peterborough page. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ashley Erinn Harder

The result was delete. I'm not even going to let this run its course. Its likely a hoax or an attempt at promotion, but if this is a real person there are possibly harmful claims in this article, so I'm deleting per our BLP policy and the ruling on summary deletions. There's no point in having this up for even another hour. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax. Closest claims to real notability come from a Maxim editorial, Models.com rankings, and runway shows, but Maxim and Models.com return zero search results on Harder, and the Fashion Model Directory (the IMDb of modeling) has no entry for her, which makes such claims as her holding the record for opening and closing the most fashion shows in one season vastly dubious. None of the references check out and a Google search verifies nothing other than a two-photo online appearance for "Urban Male Magazine" with a brief Q-and-A that tellingly ends with a blank section on her other modeling work. Even a Google image search brings up next to nothing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the reference links seem to be dead (if they were ever alive to begin with) or otherwise go nowhere helpful. Seeing as how this is a presented as a biography of an ostensibly living, non-fictional person, the fact that we can't find anything to even start satisfying WP:V -- even in the article's own references -- is very troubling. Most of the notability points in the article seem rather dubious too (e.g., according to this, someone named Kristen Achee won Miss Hawaiian Tropic in 2006; according to this and other listings, the pictorials in the July 2007 issue of Maxim were of Jessica Biel, Bobbi Sue Luther, Megan Fox, and the women of the Israeli Defense Forces; etc.). I would say that this person, if she does in fact exist, is NN, but it's more likely we're just being bullshitted. --Dynaflow babble 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan virus

CSD was declined because articles about software are technically not speedy-able, and because it contains what the declining admin termed "a (barely) plausible assertion of importance" . . . so to AfD it goes. This article is a prima facie example of what what Wikipedia is not and runs afoul of an alphabet soup of policy- and guideline-page shortcuts, including WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V, possibly WP:BLP if the whole thing isn't a WP:HOAX, etc. Go to town. --Dynaflow babble 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable computer virus. A couple Ghits for it on non-RS forums, blogs, etc. -Atmoz (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, copyright violation (according to the dates, the blog was created first) Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parallels in the Teachings of Christ and Buddha

Original research. An article can be written about the possible influence of Buddhism on the gospels (we may have one, I don't know). A list of parallels though is inherently a POV / OR list, where what one person considers a parallel may be a coincidence or unrelated to another person. No good rules can be given as to what can be included and what can't. Fram (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep As books have been written on this, I would suggest that an article does not require OR. "Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings

By Marcus Borg, Jack Kornfield, Ray Riegert Contributor Jack Kornfield Edition: illustrated Published by Ulysses Press, 2004 ISBN 1569754616, 9781569754610 160 pages" [5] and more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per collect, but with no prejudice against extensive copyediting of the article to remove OR that exceeds what sources document. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is quite interesting, but not really an encyclopedia article on a topic. Many people would also object that there is no proof that the sayings quoted are really from Buddha or Jesus. They could be older folk wisdom later attributed to both. BTW Buddha's name should really come first since he is older. Redddogg (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actual atribution is pretty irrelevent to this discussion, since reliable sources comment on these sayings assuming they originate as supposed. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic and sourceable topic that's a reasonable fork-for-length of Buddhism and Christianity. Article needs a significant amount of work--no evidence that this isn't at least a case of WP:SYNTH--but lots of Google hits for parallels between the sayings of the two. Needs sourcing (see extensive sources at Buddhism and Christianity)--who says those particular passages are comparable? JJL (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for everyone wanting to keep this; please take note that this article is not a discussion of the parallels between the two, but a list. An article (as a split from the main article) discussing the general principle of similarities and differences between the sayings of the two may be very encyclopedic (I would prefer more well-known scientific publishers than Ulysses Press, but I can imagine that scholars of comparative religion have extensively written about this as well): but such añ article needs only some short examples, and that's it. An article dedicated solely to a list of such parallels is one-sided and, even when sourced, belongs more in Wikisource than here. Fram (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomLOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to vote to keep but to rename and rework it, until I realised that it was a split from a main article. What's useful here can be moved back to the main article, but the side-by-side comparisons are very OR and article writer's shouldn't make direct comparisons like this even if they are similiar. Themfromspace (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for Plagiarism It appears the author of this article "borrowed" the text from this blog: [6] -- even down to the typo about foxes having "wholes." Pastor Theo (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary fork of the main article. Fails WP:SYNTH. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Prince Mohammed Joniad Uddin

Also Hrh prince mohammed jonaid uddin which I've converted into a redirect for now. A possible hoax. Can't find anything on this person. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 14:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete without necessary prejudice to re-creation. This scarcely intelligible article would appear to relate to the former royal house of Nizam. I am not certain that it is a hoax. Generally, I tend to think that the heirs to royal titles, even for abolished thrones, tend to be notable per se even if they would be otherwise not notable. It also seems that the Nizam family has a penchant for car collecting, although it looks like the collection has suffered from neglect and climate somewhat. This page also seems to have some attack page elements, and contains neither context nor showing of importance. If this person is in fact the heir to the Nizam throne, he probably deserves a page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If not real, then obviously it should be deleted, but if this is a real person the page should be kept, but completely redone from the ground up. Alberon (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. No sources at all on the web --DFS454 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hinton

Fails to assert or demonstrate notability. Google searches and discussion with the main editor of the page (see User talk:Mrtriangles#Nick Hinton) demonstrate that notability is not established and appears unlikely to be established at this time. Therefore the article should be deleted. Rogerb67 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is my opinion that the user Rogerb67 - who has insisted that this article is deleted, is trying to prevent the natural growth of this article, at the beginning of this artist's career. I have made several attempts to argue that this article should remain but Rogerb67 seems to ignore all my points and insist that the article should be deleted. Having read the guidelines for AfD, I can see that in some instances, it is suggested that articles do sometimes start out in bad shape, but can be improved over time. Deleting the article prevents that. Please see my talk page for my arguments against deletion. Thank you. - Mrtriangles (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it you are trying to have the article kept now, you contested the prod, and yet just a month ago you blanked it and requested deletion as author, [7]--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The artist requested deletion at that time and I was trying to honour that request. Mrtriangles (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article isn't in "bad shape". The problem is that it's about a non-notable musician. Wikipedia is not the place for "emerging" or "promising" artists to build a following and get coverage. It is a place for articles about people who are fully "emerged", people who are sufficiently notable to have already attracted third party, independent, coverage in reliable, verifiable sources, as defined and required by Wikipedia. Nothing in the current article indicates that this has happened. None of the alternative criteria for musicians at WP:MUSIC have been met either. The argument that someday this person might become notable is no reason whatsoever to keep the article. The article comes after they are notable but not before. I wish Nick Winton well in his chosen career, but it's too soon (if ever) for an encyclopedia article about him. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore, couldn't have said it any better myself. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable enough, for now. 構成上都十分多样 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the support given to this article months ago on the Nick Hinton discussion page? What about the countless other articles or stubs on musicians that remain on Wikipedia that aren't notable according to the guidelines? What about the fact that it was contested back in August 2008 and then left to develop? To pick randomly, this page: Maria Solheim. Is this any more notable? I think you are trying to remove the page without considering its relevance to providing a biography on a living musician, regardless of what your rather patronizing opinions on his (if ever) career might be. Mrtriangles (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think an article is not notable and can't find any reliable significant 3rd party coverage, then by all means nominate it for deletion. Whether or not this guy is famous is irrelevant, unless there is SIGNIFICANT 3RD PARTY COVERAGE then the article is unencyclopedic. You should read WP:N and WP:V and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.-- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no "support" for this article on its talk page. The word "support" in the banner for the biography project (musicians group) means nothing more than all biographical articles on that subject are within the scope of that project. It should not be taken to imply any judgement on the notability of the subject or the viability of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "emerging artist, he is still at the beginning of his career" - but he doesn't, yet, meet Criteria for musicians and ensembles. In regard to other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. I respect Wiki's notability guidelines and I thank you for listening to my arguments to keep the article.Mrtriangles (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Brazilian

This article was created a long time ago, and since then it has no information, no importance. Actually, there are very few "French Brazilians" (a source claims only 10,000[8]). Moreover, this article is frequently vandalized by the user Skanter (who is already blocked, by keeps using different IP numbers), who includes unsourced figures of French Brazilian, such as 6 million and over. I already got tired of reverting these frequent vandalism. This page, about an "ethnic group" who has no importance in Brazil, should be deleted. Opinoso (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that frequent vandalism isn't grounds for deletion - lest we should lose the article about Dubya. That being said Merge into Demographics of Brazil. Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly acceptable article. If there is a vandalism problem, SProtect it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Very little sources support it. roup is not significant enough.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite and rename. The french influence in Brazil can be trace back to the sixteen century 1, 2. This article has potential and should not be deleted because of vandalism. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are in fact French Brazilians (see here for example), so it stands to reason we could have an article on them as we currently do for Portuguese Brazilian, Spanish Brazilian, Italian Brazilian, German-Brazilian, Polish Brazilian, Ukrainians of Brazil, and Arab Brazilian. There might not be all that many sources online, but there are almost certainly books or articles on Brazilian demography and history which would give some information on French Brazilians (I didn't find anything from a quick Worldcat search but I didn't look that hard). The fact that there are fewer Brazilians of French than of, say, German descent is not really relevant (it seems the total number is similar to that of Mongolian Americans), nor is the fact that this article is routinely vandalized. If it continues and the vandal keeps hopping IPs you could ask for temporary semi-protection. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' all it really tells us is that it means "a Brazilian person of full, partial, or predominantly French ancestry, or a French-born person residing in Brazil." Yes, that's what a dictionary would tell us it meant. WP:DICDEF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands all we have is a dictionary definition, yes, but this topic is not inherently a dicdef only topic. There have been French Brazilians for hundreds of years, and as such there should be sufficient fodder for an article here, though it might take some digging to find it and we might be stuck with the current article for some time. That's not a reason for deletion though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by blocked user Skanter, the same who also created several articles about minor ethnic groups in Brazil, such as odd South American Brazilian or Scandinavian Brazilian. All these articles, including French Brazilian, have no importance. The fact that French colonists settled Brazil 400 years ago does not mean there are French Brazilians existing today (the French colonists were expelled by the Portuguese). Moreover, there are already articles about the French presence in colonial Brazil (see France Antarctique and France Équinoxiale). The article French Brazilian exists since a long time ago, and nobody never showed any interest about it, nobody included any information: because lacks information. There are very few people of French descent in Brazil today, and they had no influence in the country's demography. If this article is not going to be deleted, it will keep the same way forever, because there was never an important French immigration to Brazil since the French were expelled in the 17th century, so that French Brazilians these days are rare (10,000 in a country of almost 200 million people). This article, then, has no importance. Opinoso (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that in the AfD process the article stands or falls on its own merits - not those of the author. "The author is a vandal so the article should be deleted" is not a valid arguement. Usrnme h8er (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the point made by Usrnme h8er, furthermore the fact that there are few French Brazilians does not mean the topic has "no importance." Also the fact that no one has come along to improve the article, and the possibility that no one ever will, is not a reason for deletion. We have scads of articles on ethnic groups within a certain country and I see no reason for that not to be the case here. The fact that the French-Brazilian influence was minimal (though the overall French influence in Brazil was quite strong) after the 17th century can be explained in the article, as can the fact that there are only around 10,000 Brazilians of French ancestry today (assuming that is the real number). I just find it hard to believe that this cannot be turned into a minimal but still useful encyclopedia article, and I don't think notability is really at issue here. It's also worth pointing out that we're more likely to find sources dealing with this topic in Portuguese and French than in English. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The article as it stands isn't more than a dictionary entry with a "Related" list, but the topic itself has a lot of merit. I'd like to see something about how the French influenced the colonisation of Brazil, how their presence there made a difference over time, etc etc. Basically like Dutch Brazilian, except French. If it turns out that historically the French were of no importance then the article can be like Liechtensteiner Brazilian and not exist, but I have trouble believing that would be the case for a nation as big and colonially active as France (who still has colonies in South America) Orpheus (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is really irrelevant. No such thing as a "French Brazilian" exists in real life. Ninguém (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilians of French descent disagrees with you. If you mean a label used in everyday society then sure, same as there's no such thing as a "French New Zealander", but plenty of people are still proud of their French roots. Orpheus (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles about how the French influenced the colonization of Brazil. The "French Brazilian" article has nothing to do with the 17th century French colonization. Most of these people in the category of "Brazilians of French descent" are people of the Brazilian Royal Family. It was normal for Royal Family members of any country to have French ancestors and from different countries of Europe. The fact is that very few "ordinary" Brazilians are of French descent, since Brazil was never a main destination for French immigrants, as were Canada or the United States. And again, articles about French colonization already exist. Then, "French Brazilians" are not visible and a no informations about them are avaible. If we change the subject of this article to the French colonization, then we are going to have a copy of the articles France Antarctique and France Équinoxiale. The same goes for Dutch Brazilian which also should be deleted, since the article Dutch Brazil (about 18th century Dutch colonization) already exists. Opinoso (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep. I'd really appreciate if someone with an automated tool could remove the templates and put notes on talkpages since the script I am using does not allow me to do it. Thanks in advance. Tone 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done with help from Synergy (talk · contribs) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Court Street (BMT Fulton Street Line)

Over about a 10-day period (mostly the last 3 days), a new editor has created about 175 new articles for non-notable New York City railway and elevated stations demolished long ago. The articles are in general cookie-cutter copies of one another, extremely brief, unreferenced, do not assert any notability. There is no reasonable probability that any of these could ever be developed into a proper article. The editor has declined multiple requests to participate in a discussion, to improve the article, or to heed basic advice, such as Wikipedia:Your first article. The full list is given below. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fulton Ferry (BMT Fulton Street Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sands Street (BMT station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
65 Street Terminal (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
52 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
46 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
40 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
36 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
25 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
16 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Union Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Marks Avenue (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Atlantic Avenue (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fulton Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broadway Ferry (BMT Jamaica Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Driggs Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bronx Park Terminal (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eighth Avenue (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
58th Street Terminal (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
50 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
33 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
28 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
18 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8 Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bleeker Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franklin Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chambers Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Park Place (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cortlandt Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rector Street (IRT Sixth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anderson-Jerome Avenue (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sedgwick Avenue (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
140 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
135 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
130 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
125 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
116 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
110 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
104 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
99 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
93 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
86 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
81 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
72 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
30 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Christopher Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Houston Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Debrosses Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Desbrosses Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franklin Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Warren Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barclay Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cortlandt Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rector Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battery Place (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reid Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sumner Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tompkins Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nostrand Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franklin Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greene Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DeKalb Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34 Street Ferry (IRT elevated station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Central (IRT elevated station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
210 Street-Williamsbridge (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
204 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
200 Street-Bedford Park Boulevard (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fordham Road (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
183 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
180th Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tremont Avenue (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
174 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claremont Parkway (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
169 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
166 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
161 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
156 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
149 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canal Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rivington Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
50 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
57 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
65 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
72 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
80 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
86 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
92 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
99 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
105 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
111 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
117 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
121 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
125 Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hanover Square (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fulton Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franklin Square (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chatham Square (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canal Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Houston Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
18 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
28 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
47 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
53 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
67 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
76 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
84 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
89 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
99 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
106 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
116 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
125 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
133 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
129 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
136 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
143 Street (IRT Third Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Myrtle Avenue (BMT Lexington Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sumner Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tompkins Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nostrand Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franklin Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Washington Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vanderbilt Avenue (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adams Street (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Navy Street (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jay Street (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bachmann (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Beach (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sailors Snug Harbor (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sailors' Snug Harbor (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Livingston (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lake Avenue (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elm Park (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tower Hill (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harbor Road (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mariners' Harbor (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Port Richmond (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West New Brighton (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Brighton (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rosebank (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fort Wadsworth (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arrochar (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cedar Avenue (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belair Road (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wentworth Avenue (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arlington (Staten Island Railway station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge into articles about the former lines. --NE2 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per NE2 , with the following exceptions; Sands Street (BMT station), which could be expanded, and Franklin Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) original station which could easily be merged into Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway). Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to rename a lot of the stations with numbered streets before they're merged or redirected. ----DanTD (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine with me too. A very large number of these articles don't conform to the usual naming convention, but it is harmless if they are redirected. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Stubs are harmless, and railway stations are inherently notable. References should be available from local newspapers (and perhaps architectural and engineering journals) from the period these stations were being planned, designed and built, and possibly from later periods as well in case a crime or other major incident took place at a particular station. The fact that references can't easily be found using Google doesn't mean that the references don't exist. Someone with access to microfilm copies of newspapers from the communities served ought to be able to find some front-page headlines about celebrations surrounding the opening of a given station, in light of the way stations historically transformed a community (or, for a subway station, transformed a neighborhood). -- Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: if being short or cookie-cutter was an argument for deletion, there'd be no content at all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are already articles for the lines of which these stations were a part, which generally contain the identical information. A redirect can always be undone if someone discovers that 1 or 2 of these 175 stations was actually newsworthy on its own. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair point. I guess this leads to the discussion of what generates more improvement, red links or annoying stubs? Suddenly the last WikiWeekly seems oddly topical... Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem is not that these stations no longer exist, but that the stations (at least the elevated ones) were essentially constructed as cookie-cutter copies of each other. It would be much better to present them together, detailing the design once rather than hundreds of times. --NE2 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote -- In my effort to rename the articles prior to redirection, I found something interesting; This user has created 155 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) article, despite the fact that a 155th Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) already exists. I think I'll just redirect this one myself. ----DanTD (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake; It wasn't the same user. But that doesn't mean there's no call for a merger there. ----DanTD (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inherently notable and the articles that I looked at (admittedly not all) seem to be appropriate. Also, I would not necessarily conclude that they couldn't be developed further. There have been numerous books written about the historic NYC subway lines, and some of these may well contain information that would allow further expansion. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all there is probably enough to say about nay one subway station to write a short book, not just a Wikipedia article. This is all the more true of demolished stations than of present ones, because there will be stories not just bout the planning and the construction, but about the decision to close, and then the actual demolition. But there is no need for an article to be developed further to stay in wp. Wikipedia is not"the free encylopedia that anyone can edit if they make the articles long enough" Subway stations are major installations just like railroad stations. DGG (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles about railroad (including surface and subway) stations. Wikipedia is proud of its extensive coverage of former stations. They would have met Wikipedia's notability criteria while they were open (if Wikipedia had been around) and notability doesn't change. I agree with points made by DGG, Rlendog, Eastmain and others. Fg2 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Per DGG. Sam ^Blab 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP per discussion above. We have several examples of short/stub articles about disused railway stations in several parts around the world; see Caradog Falls Halt railway station and the categories Disused railway stations in Wales, Disused railway stations in Scotland, Disused railway stations in England etc. Most articles start out as short stubs; that doesn't make them candidates for deletion. Cookie-cutter is not a valid argument for deletion either; take a look at the hundreds of similar articles in List of minor planets. Most importantly, these articles impart information that our readers might be looking for. That's what an encyclopedia is, and Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia around. Truthanado (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and listify per NE2's suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NE2 unless some sources can be added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that we, pretty much without question, routinely keep articles about existing subway stations, former stations should be given the same treatment since notability is not temporary. At the very least, they should be merged with the old line in case there is not enough material to make a reasonable article, but given that these articles are very new we should give them time before initiating merge discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - As with a proposal last year to delete many articles on numbered streets on Manhattan Island, this is an excessively general proposal. Railway stations are generally notable, as they have an impact on their surrounding neighbourhood. Sources should be sought for the reasons that the rail companies sited their stations where they did, notable events that occured in or around each station, service histories for each station, any notable details about their archtecture or engineering, and the reasons for their closure. In the event that these details are essentially identical for a set of stations positioned close together and built to a common plan, a shared article on that section of line might be appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Eastmain and Maury's statements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW and WP:N Black Kite 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newpark fc

Non-notable football club. No third-party sources present that prove notability or give any indication of significant results or achievements by the club. Note that there is another non-notable junior football club based in Ireland with the same name. ^LeaveSleaves 14:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable amateur/social (most of the club's Tripod-hosted website seems to consist of "hilarious" pictures of the players getting drunk) team, playing in an amateur league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hilarious player bios aside, this does appears to be a totally non-notable club playing the second division of a non-notable league - the South London Football Alliance doesn't have a Wiki article, which is rather telling. Google gives us nothing of value here. Bettia (rawr!) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very shitty article, needs more references. Willydick (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South London Alliance details can be found on football.mitoo

[9]

Results for previous seasons are also on this website. Our greatest achievement (The Beckenham Hospital Charity Cup) is unfortunatly not listed on any websites, as they did not record the information online until the following season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.162.166 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is blog material, not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are on the new eltham WIKI page so why not? Who cares if they are not a professional club, get off your pedestals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.162.137 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reading this? Bazza can see you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.145.33 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FOOTY, which the aggrieved players and fans commenting here should go and read. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FOOTY is the "frontpage" for the football project. Did you mean WP:FOOTYN? Even if yes, that only covers notability for players, not clubs. Regardless, this article fails WP:N, WP:V and every other policy going..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know these guys....good to see them flying the flag for people who love sport and being part of a socially active club as opposed to castigating some light hearted fun from the safety of their mothers box room. Pull out the plug and get a life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.48.44 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G11 Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rddj

Promotional and unsourced article, created by a user with the same name as the group's, and also has the article as his userpage: User:RDDJ. No explanation how the group is notable. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: the same article is considered for speedy here: Random djs — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random djs now deleted. The fate of the User:RDDJ page is also dependent on this AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request this nom be closed as speedy delete, since the exact same article was already speedied under another name. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 15:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is self promotion and they are non notable. BigDunc^Talk 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House concurrent resolution 50

Insufficient content for own article: The page has a short history of the resolution, and the text of the resolution itself. The resolution text is listed as a candidate to be copied to Wikisource, and the rest can be merged into the main article for Duane Chapman. Musashi1600 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Musashi1600 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like pure shit to me. Willydick (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely notable, maybe merits half a sentence in Duane Chapman. THF (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable resolution which was never even voted on by the full state house of representatives. The resolution is already mentioned in Duane Chapman, and so no merge is needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Wandering Courier (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intentions of Lament

Long article, largely plot summary, about a supposed series of four books called "Intentions of Lament" and a film "Blood Theory" being made from them. Only the title of the last book "Lament: Stories of Wistful travelers" is given: that is "scheduled to be released sometime in February 2009", so presumably the others are out. However no publisher or ISBN is given, no source is cited, and I can find no confirmation in Google [10] [11] [12], or in Google Books or Amazon or IMDb. One of the two article authors, Rhiannel (talk · contribs) says on his/her user page that s/he is co-author of the books. The whole thing may be fantasy, but even if the books exist they are clearly not notable. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either hoax or not notable. Plastikspork (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plagiarized article from http://www.wikirage.com/wiki/Intentions_of_Lament/ Esasus (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Um, by that measure all "hot" articles should be deleted? Wikirage measures what is hot on wikipedia. Plastikspork (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable hoax, article cannot be verified.Esasus (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Graham

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}}.

While this article is well made and appears to adhere to the guidelines for a proper article, it is full of fabrications, exaggerations, and plainly was written in bombastic fashion by Cork Graham himself.

The citations are also non-sensical, referencing the authors own work to reinforce his ridiculous claims and citing the various irrelevant details to add a false sense of respectability and relevance. When the work's of Cork Graham aren't being cited to lend credibility to the deeds of Cork Graham, the author uses completely nonsensical and false references to works outside the spectrum. For reference, please see citation [16] pertaining to the ransom requested for Graham. Astonishingly enough, LatinoReview.com's review of the movie "National Treasure" contains absolutely no reference to these amounts, nor does it constitute an objective source!

The entire article takes great pains to avoid the most glaring issues like "Why should anyone care about this person at all?". How is he relevant to world history? I feel that I have an obligation to future generations that they might stumble across this man's article at some point in the future and be deceived into believing that he somehow played any larger a role in world history than your average Joe

As stated in the deletion guidelines: Notability requires objective evidence

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."

The claim that the author's book was an "international bestseller" take great liberties with that concept. His claims to be a polyglot are also subject to question. Neither of these qualifications are notable enough to justify an entire WIkipedia article. the largest problem is that his single claim to notability is his imprisonment in Vietnam for what was essentially self-employed espionage, or to put it another way, trespassing. How is this in any way important? Expatriates are imprisoned for more significant and interesting reasons than this man was.

When all of this is taken into account, this article certainly deserves immediate deletion as it undermines the integrity of WIkipedia as a source or relevant accurate information and relegates it to the status of "Shameless Myspace Clone". The fact that this article is allowed to exist at all is a blemish on the entire Wikimedia Foundation and surely represents another round of ammunition in the belts of all those who (rightfully?) claim that Wikipedia is not worth being taken seriously.

I further recommend that the original author and person responsible for the lionsshare of reversions and revisions be blocked from making significant changes to this article or from restoring it in the future. — 76.232.217.44 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers you didn't mark the original section you cut and pasted by 76.232.217.44 with "has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Yet, a review of 76.232.217.44's comments and edits are paltry and "has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Is there a reason for this? Wikicops (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S/he has made more edits elsewere than you and most of your other sockpuppets. You have tagged the nominator as a SPA whilst removing the same tags from your socks. I have suggested you stop. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading the usertalk 76.232.217.44 for March 2008: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cork Graham. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Channel ® 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)." I guess you knew better than the admin when you decided to cut and paste this from the discussion page. Wikicops (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying to score points off me, but are missing some fundamental points to how Wikipedia works (and the fact that Channel R is not an admin but I am). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great arguments for editing with a lot of blue pencil, not so great for deletion. "Bamboo Chest" is 167K on Amazon list. Once the puff is excised, then see if he fails notability. Collect (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Number of Amazon 4 and 5 star reviews pertaining to the time noted as bestseller ranking, year 2004, very likely, though "Bamboo Chest" is now @ 227K on Amazon. Also from review of deletion requester's record IP 76.232.217.44 of slander in articles going back to March 2008, evident this is another ploy by User:76.232.217.44 to slander articles subject. Evidently one of the English teachers in Korea mentioned in article discussion section bored with their lot and still unable to do more than spend evenings on Wikipedia writing diatribes and misleading readers. Evidently this subject and events warranted global attention based on front page article by San Francisco Chronicle. 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.158.140 (talk • contribs)
Both the nominator 76.232.217.44 (talk · contribs) and the above 76.235.158.140 (talk · contribs) are on the same ISP, albeit from different pools. I hope this isn't one user playing Wikipedia off against themselves (not unheard of at AfD). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Reader reviews and publisher reviews on amazon are totally and completely worthless in proving anything at all,regardless of how many stars they have. They are essentially of the same irrelevance as postings on any social bookmarking site. DGG (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appear to be the only one on this list who has actually done more research on this story outside of slinging comments back and forth. First, I purchased and read The Bamboo Chest in 2004 as a result of finding it on the Topseller page of Amazon. Was it number two at the time? I can't recall, but when I purchase a book at amazon based on best seller listings, I frequently purchase only from the first page. Was it good? Brilliant! It was well-told and well-researched with a number of footnotes and Associated Press photos. It's in my library with other books on the Kidd treasure mystery. My views may be slanted as I'm already a treasure hunting enthusiast. Does the case merit mention in Wiki? Most surely! It's a contemporary telling of the history of a hunt for Captain Kidd's treasure reaching back to 1600s and the Money Pit Mystery. The manner in which the case also effected and was also effected by international relations and lack thereof, between the US, Vietnam, and UK during the 1980s is historically worth recording in this venue. On another note, I also seem to be the only one on this list doing more than just following the few and insignificant reference links from wiki. A search on google and yahoo reveals much more not noted in wiki, for example Mr. Graham's record at the International Combat Photographer's Assoc. A review of the membership policies shows the stringent membership policies. Also reviewing Mr. Graham's combat photography portfolio it's easy to see why they accepted him into membership. If you start removing Mr. Graham's article will you also be removing Sean Flynn, Tim Page and John Everingham's articles? They have much less referencing and verification. Finally, there is the matter of the identity and commenting and editing record of DELETION NOMINATOR USER: 76.232.217.44

I am most concerned with these found by clicking on the 76.232.217.44 link:

01:17, 29 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Cork Graham ‎ (→Film and television)
23:46, 28 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Cork Graham ‎ (→Post-war) .

Whether USER 76.232.217.44 has a personal and child-like grudge against Mr. Graham is something I don't know. As a litigator I'm well aware that the comments made nearly a year ago are slanderous, were immediately undone by a mediator, and are an just indication of what may be the real reasons for an attempt to have this article deleted. Not a self-purported honourable endeavour to keep wiki unblemished. USER 76.232.217.44 appears more a disgruntled wikipedia hack. BlkBeard (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) comment added by BlkBeard (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)— BlkBeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We're not going to ban someone for suggesting an article is deleted and asking for that to happen undermines your case. Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Some of these are in-depth, others are not. However, taken together, I think they confirm notability. Of course the article needs a major rewrite. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What happened to the sections on Graham's combat photojournalism in Central America and after? Is there a new slash and burn policy on article sections? There were a number of reference links that are now gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ST4phile (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) — ST4phile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DELETE This is why there are professionals who do this and get paid to do the research instead of play armchair journalists. REMOVE THE ARTICLE. Evident it's just a synopsis of the author's book and has no real reasearch or interviews to back up the information. What a waste reading and writing time to debate. Any wonder Wikipedia is laughed at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.103.223 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per N Shar above. However, I agree that the article needs to be seriously rewritten, and some of those references need to be added to make a clearer demonstration of notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most humbl thanks to 76.232.217.44 and REDVERS for bringing useles articl to atention. Sinc pointles article on Graham and Kidd tresure incident will be deleted, itnot best remove March 2008 admin block and comments on 76.232.217.44's contribution record on 76.232.217.44's vandalism this article? Many others don't understand purpose of wiki be tempted to think just another attempt by sockpuppets with personal dislike of articles subject and and those who think article of worth? Congratulatins 76.232.217.44 for initiating discussion and REDVERS for making hole seperete delet section on it. Please keep intigrity of wiki and keep up excellent vangard and delete this article!!! 76.254.79.97 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zack de Vries

I marked this article with tags including "noreferences" and possible "hoax" shortly after it was created. (A 19 year old who has been to every country on the planet except three? Who only recently became employed as a model for a company named "Vase Models" in South Africa, for which I can find no references? Seems like a stretch.) However, instead of supplying references and substantiating the individual's notability, the author rapidly deleted the commented tags.

These actions led me to increased wonder about the truthfulness of the article and I then nominated it for speedy deletion. The author very soon removed that tag as well. I sought input on the user's talk page, on which others have noted violations of WP policy on related topics. The author has not responded.

Given the non-responsiveness of the author, related kinds of violations, and what appears as a possible COI or spam, I think this article may need to be removed. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given all the above makes it seem likely this should be deleted, but it also deserves to go for being non-notable anyway. Alberon (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: Prior, speedily deleted, versions of this article, created by Croosten (talk · contribs) and Tygermelk (talk · contribs) gave different names for the modelling agency, different years of birth, different places of birth, and different eye colours to those given here by Lamariedatsamarinya (talk · contribs), but agreed on other purported facts (such as the languages, for example). It seems likely that the creator of this article has used multiple accounts, throwing them away afterwards. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources cited, I can't find any confirmation. Storm Models and Scoop management exist, but he doesn't feature on their websites. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a Dutch show called Vakantieman that once tried to find the most widely travelled Dutchman. There's quite a few people, including families who try to travel to as much countries as they can (see http://www.sixintheworld.com/about/ too). A 19 year old having visited almost all the countries in the world is not that out there. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. And based on Uncle G's evidence, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per evidence provided by nom and Uncle G. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per UncleG and Edward321. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A3) by MacGyverMagic. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinampaw

Contested prod; non-notable neologism. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BWH76 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnarvon Road, Hong Kong

While there are some trivial mentions in the news, and the fact that it has an article on zhwiki, this seems to be a non-notable road. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC) LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obvious even from the English language Ghits that it's a major shopping and restaurant street & thus appropriate for an article. Yes, I know there are a great many significant shopping and restaurant streets in Hong Kong. We will therefore appropriately have quite a number of articles. However many, we're NOT PAPER DGG (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely, but keep nonetheless. Alberon (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just sufficiently notable as a matter of opinion. Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination, especially if someone can find a reference or two to add to the article. (I can't seem to find any). LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Supporters of deletion correctly point out that county roads enjoy no assumption of notability, but supporters of keeping make a cogent argument that this particular county road may be an exception. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 337 (Florida)

This is a non-notable county road, unverifiable. This should be deleted. Son (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unverifiable? This is a county road. Just look at a map. Anyway, this is a numbered road that covers three counties. It's not just a side street. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article needs serious work: sources for length, route description, history, etc. I don't believe county routes get the automatic notability that state route articles do, so more needs to be done to indicate what makes the route notable. If this article is not deleted, it should be brought up to FLSR or USRD standards similar to Florida state roads. --Ljthefro (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both the article and a map would prove the subject exists, but that's not a claim of notability nor does it show a need for such an article. Looking at a map gets the information across much better than prose ever could. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County roads are too thinly travelled for each of them individually to be a major consequence for a county's infrastructure. I am all for keeping articles about highways, but not every rural road in existence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to User:Sjakkalle's statement, not all county roads are as thinly travelled as he assumes. While it may not be a major county road such as those in Suffolk County, New York, for this part of the state, it's just as important and heavily traveled as Florida State Road 24 or Florida State Road 26. ----DanTD (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A numbered road is notable. I will search for additional references to verify. Gamweb (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A numbered road from a state is "notable", but a numbered road from a county is going too far, fails WP:N by a long shot. Also no reliable sources about the certain road in general other the the FHD, which lists every road in original research style, and tour guides. Tke keeps has no policy reason for keeping this article, and I just hope the closing adminstrator takes this to account, and the prior AFD, which was a clear poorly closed vote count no consensus last time. Secret ^account 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wrote incorrectly. By unverifiable, I mean that it's not notable. That's what I should have written, that it fails WP:N not unverifiable. --Son (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though this article does need serious work, specifically on separating the junction table and the route description. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why the keep. Secret ^account 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All county routes are notable. You can probably find at least a source explaining this route. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:USRD/N - not all county routes are notable. Some definitely are, but some definitely are not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a Florida State Highway that was turned over to County jurisdiction at some point in time. This would explain why it traverses 3 different counties. Google Books search for Florida State Highway 337 A former Florida State Highway should meet the notability test for those who are not satisfied with a County Road designation. Gamweb (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of noteability provided through third-party sources. Jtrainor (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the second afd nomination and the road hasn't changed. This particular county road happens to go through several counties...so it is a fairly long road. There also has been some recent new as to a plan to remove the sharp turns in the roads. See road link Smallman12q (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fez (That '70s Show)

This page fails to meet notability in my mind. Wikipedia should not be a collection of TV and movie trivia. This page is non-encyclopedic.Strummingbabe (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect. If the character has indeed existed during the entire course of the show, it's likely the character was important to the story. So that makes him notable. Verifiability is something else, but at the very least a reduced version of the material could be merged in the show or actor article (if it's already sufficiently covered elsewhere, there should be a redirect to discourage recreation. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs sources, but he is one the main characters in a sitcome that was very popular and lasted a long time. TJ Spyke 17:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the sitcom is notable doesn't mean its characters are. If you think we should keep this article, then you need to provide the sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to That '70s Show. Once some sources are brought to light that establish notability I will change my mind, but until then it's at least a reasonable search term. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DHowell found some decent sources, proving notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the deletion rationale used here is applied to all of Wikipedia, a great number of articles would be deleted. If that is the consensus, however, they should all be deleted at once, not in a piecemeal fashion that would leave Wikipedia sort-of covering something. These are some of the hundreds of articles that would have to go: Maggie Simpson, Daphne Moon, Michael Scott, Glenn Quagmire etc, etc, etc. I'm not arguing we should keep Fez's article just because other crap exists, I am arguing that if we decide that an article about a major character on a popular television show is not notable enough for Wikipedia, the decision should be made for all such articles, not just cherrypicked ones from shows that are vigilantly watched through a Wikiproject. This is a larger question that should be addressed by more than the few people who will run across this AfD. SMSpivey (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover I just surfed around and found a few references to Fez as a standard, landmark example of the stereotypical representations of foreigners in American media. This place as the go-to example in American culture (it is also on a number of blogs, which doesn't mean anything to wikipedia) of this stereotype easily makes it notable in a stand-alone way. Far more notable than most random television characters, actually. I added those references to the bottom of the article for now, since the article itself does not yet address the character's notability outside of general plot info. SMSpivey (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator should have linked to the guideline he is using - Wikipedia:Notability. Basically, the sources are the problem, not the subject matter; Maggie Simpson, Michael Scott (The Office), and Glenn Quagmire have plenty of good sources, but Daphne Moon is lacking in sources so it might get deleted or redirected. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possibly the show's most notable character, due to the way Valderamma portrayed him and developed the accent. I'll try to dig up some better sourcing, but if the character's independent notability is all that's driving this nomination, I'd be surprised if there's nothing out there to support it. Townlake (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily notable. Here are better sources: "TV character Fez slides back into the past" in The Dallas Morning News, "Why Is That Stale 70s Show Still On TV?" in the New York Post (quotes: "Fez is easily the most grating character on 'That 70s Show' and maybe the most irritating individual on TV today," "Fez would seem to be the character most likely to earn a spinoff series."), and the book Performing Whiteness, pp. 142-143, by Gwendolyn Audrey Foster. DHowell (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good enough for me, thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: you're kidding me. This was a memorable character in that long running tv series, appearing on the first episode to the last aired. JamesBurns (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, per above, couldn't say it better myself. Ikip (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[19], [20], [21]

These three all appear to just trivially mention the character, not discuss him directly in detail as required. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Nesmith Parsons

This person is not sufficiently notable and the article lacks verifiable sources. This article should be deleted; there do not appear to have been any significant legal cases, precedents or opinions authored by, or involving this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickproper (talk • contribs) 2009/01/26 08:16:58

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Chief Justices inherently notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and available sources.[22] State supreme court justices are notable. Parsons was also a member of the Executive Council, which also satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. That standard is perhaps too low for my tastes, but a state supreme court chief justice is more notable than the dozens of small-town mayors we have stubs for. Also per Gene93k's sources. THF (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The source in the article and the one listed by Gene93k make for a clear pass of WP:BIO, and this clearly counts as a first-level sub-national position per WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN and sources in article and found by Gene93k --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, copyvio http://www.laceco.net/ Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

laceco

AfDs for this article:

Lebanese engineering comapny. Two versions have been deleted as spam already. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was deleted as spam once, the other deletion was G7. However, they seem to have won an award, so it's definitely not speediable. It's not deleteable either unless someone can show the awards are not significant. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. It's a case of copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merck headquarters

This article appears to be primarily a promotional page for the Merck Corporation - possibly authored by an employee of the corporation. It should be deleted as it does not conform to the non-commercial aspects of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickproper (talk • contribs) 2009/01/26 08:28:11

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My real life identity is known to many and they know I have never been employed or otherwise worked for Merck. The article is sourced to reliable sources, including New York Times 1, New York Times 2, New York Times 3, Reuters, none of which are Merck and all of which are directly about the building (ie. non-trivial mentions). I cannot see any pro-Merck language in the article, but would be open to suggestions. MBisanz ^talk 09:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the building was designed by a notable architect and the topic is referenced with multiple reliable and notable sources. (WP:GNG) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any promotion about Merck. The subject is notable and the article is well sourced. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Notable, well sourced, and I see no evidence of the problems alluded to in the nomination. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything seems in order here, notability is asserted through multiple mentions and analysis in newspapers and the article itself isn't nearly badly written enough to delete it. Themfromspace (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N and WP:RS. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bad faith nomination, afd was added with the summary "AfD scoblecruft" Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Conversations

Naked_Conversations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Notability, self-promotion and conflict of interest. --Drinkadrink (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a bad-faith nomination; see my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Scoble (2nd nomination). Warren -talk- 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above user is part of various Microsoft groups/articles as mentioned in his Userpage and Contributions. Apparently is a well-known Microsoft Fanboy [23]. I respect that you have your heroes, but this is not a self-bio/PR place. --Drinkadrink (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scoble

AfDs for this article:

Starting this up again. He has no primary sources, is an noisemaker and self-promoter. His sources are primarily from other blogs who trade links and some crusty tech sites here and there. It's tempting for WP editors to focus on web 2.0 culture and weigh it a bit too much.

If he wants to make himself known, he can go in the real world and be a genius. Sitting at your computer adding friends on myspace/twitter or "blogging" is of questionable notability. We can't add every 20 year old girl with 4000 (or 50,000) friends on myspace (and yes, there are many).

See First AfD, Talk:Robert_Scoble and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So far every claim that this guy is, obviously, vanity, has been ignored. --Drinkadrink (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a bad-faith nomination, given the raft of derogatory statements made about the subject, as well as pretty much completely emptying the article -- removing all sources in the process -- prior to nominating it for deletion and declaring the subject to be a "narcissist", "self-aggrandizing" and having "a thin CV". The AfD in 2005 was nearly unanimous in its "keep" vote; don't see any reason why this would have changed in the intervening years. Warren -talk- 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is part of various Microsoft groups/articles as mentioned in his Userpage and Contributions. Apparently is a well-known Microsoft Fanboy [24].. --Drinkadrink (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "We can't add every 20 year old girl with 4000 (or 50,000) friends on myspace" .. I think you will find that Wikipedia hasn't nominated every 20 year old girl here... Robert Scoble is a well known Internet celebrity in the blogosphere. He also reports on technology related matters. He has helped gain attention to many web2.0 sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, as well as attending as a journalist at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The nominator Drinkadrink appears to have done this AfD in bad faith. Jez t e C 11:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allegations of me not liking praising fanboys who puff up articles? Talk:Robert_Scoble chatter has a scattered people who yelp out he's some chum, other people just don't care. The problem is he really hasn't changed anything, he just gets a few hits and has sycophants. This is textbook blogcruft. --Drinkadrink (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is factual consise and is easy referenced to other sources. I do not see any reason to remove the article. Robert Scoble is a know voice on Social media and has a vast following. abruton 07:46, 25 January 2009 (SAST)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article subject has received press from the BBC, Australian IT, Forbes and The Economist. All notable independent publications. Since the nominator removed these on purpose prior to AFD, I suspect the nomination was in bad faith - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person's web logging activities are documented on pages 143–144 of ISBN 9780750684163, and the whole of chapter 10 of ISBN 9780470197394, the first two pages of which are a potted biography, is devoted to xem. Xyr web log is a case study in ISBN 9780764584572, on pages 303–304. Supporting biographical material on the subject can be found in places such as ISBN 9780787984878 (pages 46, 116, and 174), ISBN 9780749450854 (page 159), and this piece in The Guardian. Ironically, several of these sources support much of the very content that was blanked by the nominator just prior to nomination. Indeed, some of that content already had reliable and independent sources cited within it, such as BBC News. And those are far from the only sources that exist. There is ample reliable and independent source material on this subject for a biographical article to be written. The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied.
The actions of Drinkadrink in blanking the article, xyr ad hominem arguments and personal attacks on Warren above, and xyr general attacks on all other editors at Talk:Robert Scoble/Archives/2012#Cleaning up Scoble's blogcruft for being "fanboys" are reprehensible, incidentally. Assume good faith! Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable and that notability is verifiable per above refs. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shel Israel

Instead of reasons why he shouldn't, tell me why he (Shel Israel) should have an article.

He edits his own article
Not-notable
Friend of blogger Robert Scoble who has friends and fanboys on the site puff up his article (typical blogcraft). This results in significant bias.

(edit: didn't mean to make starting page minor edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkadrink (talk • contribs) 2009/01/25 22:30:06

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editing your own entry is discouraged but not prohibited and people puffing an article can be countered with protection. The only assertion that is left is that he is not notable, but isn't supported by any evidence. I'd counter it by saying that a scientific publication with John Wiley & Son (How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers) does in fact make notability likely. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; appears to be a bad-faith nomination, related to the editor's nominating of both the book this person wrote (Naked Conversations), and the co-author of that book (Robert Scoble). Warren -talk- 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion appears to have been made in poor faith as part of Drinkadrink's general attack on Scoble-related material on WP. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith [25], get off my back. It appears bloggers saturate these articles, puff them up, and protect them. My edits could easily be out of naivety or being new with Wikipedia. I made a few mistakes. Instead of focusing on subject at hand, you're picking on me for criticizing his associates actions on the site. --Drinkadrink (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to a debate you've had with Warren? I'm not a blogger with any connection to this case, I don't know any of the other people involved, and I haven't used edit summaries to communicate - not that that's wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're deliberately misinterpreting a few missteps and distracting people from the task at hand. Again, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I posted that link because I had nothing wrong. You're using the proposer as a rationale to keep blogcruft. Do you even think and realize you may be mistaken before you accuse people? --Drinkadrink (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have complete confidence in my good faith. Keep it civil, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough bad faith to go around here. Anyway, Israel helped create PowerPoint, as shown in my ref, and is a published author whose book has been written on several newspapers. You have not given a single (IMO) valid reason in your nomination why this should be deleted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's definitely notable. There are hundreds of news articles mentioning him, because of the books he published, his blog, etc. Gary King (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of those links are related to his career as a publicist - I'd apply a scaling factor to the "hundreds" to allow for that. Orpheus (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's just a very quick search. There are many more articles that I found when searching in offline databases. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows Changed !vote twice already. Good arguments for keeping (helped introduce PowerPoint, wrote book) and deleting (helped introduce PowerPoint, although he did apologise for it, book was web 2.0 fluff, appends "2.0" to waaaay too many things). Best of luck to the closing administrator. Orpheus (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to Solbridge International School of Business. Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Asia Institute

Subject of article does not appear notable. A Google search turned up mostly trivial mentions or non-third party materials, and the rest appears to be Wikipedia copies. Article appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:Notability. While not themselves reasons for deletion, the article is unsourced, and appears to have a conflict of interest issue. Due to the apparent notability issue I am recommending deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to parent institution. Laudak (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination Withdrawn, Agree to Merge with Solbridge International School of Business and Redirect: A closer look at Solbridge International School of Business suggests that most of the relevant information in The Asia Institute is already in that article, so merging the remainder of the important information from The Asia Institute to parent article Solbridge International School of Business and placing a redirect on The Asia Institute to Solbridge International School of Business makes the most sense. Nomination withdrawn. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uscientia

A non-notable school journal. It claims to be the first of its kind (I guess that's a claim of importance), but it only gets 9 g-hits once you take out Wikipedia and the domain name was only registered in August 2008. It borders on speedyable, but the prod was removed by an admin so I have brought it here. --B (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is information in university's intranet that exerts the notability. It is endorsed by student council and the university itself. I'm not surprised to see the low number of Google hits. It's done intentionally because the school wants to reduce the bots crawling through the servers (especially intranet) for security purposes. If you want the intranet link and the information on that page, I can provide those information through email requests. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on your school's network would qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --B (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If, in fact, it's the first such journal, a mention on the Peer review page would be appropriate, but firsts generally take time to prove. Just as this journal has information on the university's private intranet, other universities may have similar information and some other journal might be first. Until/unless the first claim can be proven or the journal becomes notable for other reasons: Delete. RoyLeban (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, original research, non-notable.... Maybe it deserves a mention in another article, so perhaps some of the information could be merged to where it is relevant? --Pstanton 07:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Good point, I'll merge the info into the campus' article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make my position a bit more clear (in case anyone is wondering where I stand), I am going for a keep and if it does get deleted, then merge OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undergraduate project, unimportant anywhere outside the college. According to their website, they have not yet published a single regular issue, just a "sample issue" Even if they were an established regular publisher, a magazine that had not yet actually started publishing is very unlikely to be at all notable. DGG (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cony Soft. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Soft

Someone had reinstated the Cony Soft article this time as Yoko Soft. This is getting really ridiculous... seriously. Again, it contains no references or sources. --Burai (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cony Soft for the details of the related deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 18:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material and an attempt to shirk the deletion process by recreating under a different name. MuZemike 18:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouAreTV

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Youare.tv

Previous Afd closed as delete, but is being relisted per consensus at WP:DRV. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_20. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouAreTV (2nd nomination) for reasons given for deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to support notability. All evidence is that this is a small commercial website that doesn't meet any of our criteria for inclusion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article qualifies for speedy deletion under A7 corp, but I won't tag it or delete it, since someone would probably get mad. So I support deletion on those grounds. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to assert notability, probably A7, and then there's this. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tab & Da Villon

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tab & Da Villon

Non notable rap duo. They were signed to a notable label yes, but they only released one album through them. That fails WP:MUSIC. They also appear to fail WP:RS. I say delete. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the album.

Keep. WP:MUSIC only requires one of the 12 criteria to be met, so saying they only released one album and not two does not mean they fail the entire criteria of being notable. Having released one album, a search turns up way too much notability 1. Sleepy2222 (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searching pulls up nothing more than blogs, mp3 download sites, or artist editable profile sites (LastFM). I can find nada that would count as reliable, third party sources for establishing notability per and of the 12 steps of WP:MUSIC. The nom is correct, while they have 1 album on a notable label, the criteria calls for 2. Non-prejudice against recreating article if they do release another album mind you. If the artist article gets deleted, the album will take care of itself under CSD A9. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google search only digs up repeated mention they released an album in unreliable sources. There's no material to support a biographical entry. According to what I saw on Discogs and AllMusic the rappers wouldn't qualify for an article by their solo career either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can't find anything substantial on the net WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They released an album through the legendary Eazy-E's legendary record label, Ruthless Records, if that's not notable, then I don't know what is. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they released 2 on that label, they are not notable. Read WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article not be kept, perhaps a redirect to Ruthless Records would be best. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, WP:CORP... Tone 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superlative, Inc.

There is nothing notable written about this company. Working for a few notable clients does not make the company itself notable. It's even safe to assume that a significant percentage of private companies have dealings with notable clients. Sleepy2222 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let this be a lesson to budding entrepreneurs not to give their companies a common word as a name: it makes it impossible to find any press they might have. And I can't find any press on this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a vengeance Not necessary. Especially with no known sources and a listing of reliable sources. Is that what entails notability? No, it doesn't.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Working for a notable company (contract work or otherwise) does not cause you to inherit notability. No sources or other assertion made...this really should have been a speedy delete and just because the article has been around a while does not mean it should be immune from speedy. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references provided. Willydick (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Absolutely no showing of importance. Yet another non-consumer tech business wants a Wikipedia presence for self-promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crosby Street

No evidence this former road is notable. StarM 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, no evidence really of anything other than seemingly original research. Unsourced, no refs, no cites, no need to remain--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now sourced, with refs and cites. --Oakshade (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found at least a couple of non-trivial secondary sources about this street in g-books, [26] [27][28] (including by noted writer and civil engineer James Elmes) thus indicating passing WP:NOTABILITY --Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone writes an article on Sir John Crosby (merchant) or Crosby Hall, this entry could be folded into it, since the Hall and the person gave their name to the street and usually streets are named after notable individuals. (Possible sources: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sir+John+Crosby+1466&meta=) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate sources. I think there will always be adequate sources for any present or past street in the City. I think, if it comes to that, you could probably write a book about any such street. DGG (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable street, most streets are not notable. Having sources does not make them notable. I could find a few sources regarding Birmingham Road, Bromsgrove, but it would not make that road notable! Delete (along with all the other little London streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenuk1985 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were non-trivial sources on Birmingham Road, Bromsgrove and assuming they were reliable and independent of the subject (as they are for this one), then that too would pass WP:NOTABILITY even if a wikipedia user thinks it shouldn't. --Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the description given of its location this street can't have been more than about 100 metres long to fit into the space described, and probably considerably less. Many of the streets around it, such as Leadenhall Street and St Mary Axe are undoubtably notable, but I can't see any justification in the sources offered to keep this one. Crosby Hall was on Crosby Square, not Crosby Street, and one of the sources given above describes Crosby Street as "a passage only". We're not talking about a city laid out on a grid system here, but one which inherits its layout from the middle ages. There are "streets" that are actually just short walkways leading from one main thoroughfare to another, and this seems to have been one of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A street (or passageway) can pass WP:NOTABILITY, as this one does, no matter what the length. --Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:STREET, if it can be justified that this article is within the 150 most notable streets in London, then by all means keep it. There is no need to have WP articles for every street. jenuk1985 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about this essay (not even a proposed guideline) first of all, the London metropolitan area has over 13 million people, so that means 260. London is the capitol of the UK and historically the British Empire and still the British Commonwealth. Double that. Add the international financial and cultural importance of this city and you can triple that. Besides, if a street passes WP:NOTABILITY as this one does, an arbitrary "formula" as stipulated in WP:STREET is irrelevant. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Streets are generally not notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Care to elaborate how streets that pass WP:NOTABILITY aren't notable by virtue of being a street? --Oakshade (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barstool Sports

Local biweekly sports newspaper with no apparent notability. Lots of trivial personal information about the people involved. AnyPerson (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tons of trivia and unchecked publicity, on the side of spam.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no references comes no notability. A search only turns up a quick mention of this newspaper 1. If this article is kept, WP:COI would have most of the autobiographical content deleted anyway. Sleepy2222 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Migliore

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search of his name yields nothing, but a search for Mike Migliore kovach brings up some press. But it's debatable whether this political race has received significant coverage. It won't be long before all references to the race and Migliore are gone (the page's reference link is already broken). Sleepy2222 (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True, but notability is not temporary. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that I am the article's creator, and while the article does not meet WP:POLITICIAN standards, he does meet the primary notability criterion. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. How so? Are there independent (nonpartisan, that is) sources I'm missing? Seriously, what is the notability here? J L G 4 1 0 4 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete Not notable, per searches and above. A local politician who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN who lost an election? J L G 4 1 0 4 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Piette

CV of a minor business executive. No sources nor even indications attesting to wider repute. CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing asserted, and Google News gives nothing but press releases. I've seen AfD's kept even though there were no sources but press releases; I hop that doesn't happen here. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article based on contribution to Oil and Gas technology. See similar pages at Wenche Kjølås and Annette Malm Justad from Petroleum GeoServices Board of Directors. Also Piette was Chairman of the Oil and Gas Exchange in London, November 2008. [29] Also moderator Schulmberger Information Solutions forum on Global IT Trends in Oil and Gas Octover, 2008 [30] Backgroud with major new technologies in Oil and Gas (middleware and gravity gradient data) justify retention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.201.74 (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC) — 70.240.201.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I still don't see any reliable sources--is the job alone notable? Drmies (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the links in this discussion, his name is only listed. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I don't think having his name listed in an event program (see links above) qualify him as having received significant coverage. Links like 1, where his name is listed but his person is not discussed, doesn't qualify as significant coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy2222 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis that the career is notable, due to the CEO of OpenSpirit--assuming it is notable. . I would very emphatically not say that merely being on the board of a public company is notable, not even companies on major stock exchanges. Being on the board of a really major famous company is notable, of the general level of GE or Microsoft--but it almost always happens that such positions go to people are are already quite notable anyway. Being the CEO or Chairman of the Board of a notable public company--those things are notable, but not any lesser positions for most companies, except the most famous ones. I favor a broad approach to notability of business executives based on their position, but very far from indiscriminate. In this case, it's borderline/.DGG (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your judgement is based on whether the company is notable--I'm not certain I agree, but let's leave that aside--oughtn't you make a small effort to see if that's so before rendering judgement? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Panel member on World Energy TV [31], Interview on Businessmakers Radio Show [32], numerous references and interviews in the Houston Business Journal [33],[34], [35]. CEO of a company recognized four times in Houston Business Journal Fast Tech 50 (no link. HBJ holds their lists closed to linking easily - Fast Tech 50 is the list of fastest growing technology companies in Houston area) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonroach (talk • contribs) 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC) — Vonroach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This 'World Energy TV' appears to be nothing more than short videos hosted on a website, and, based on its classification [here] (note the portion of the URL after 'article'), it appears to be a video-press-release service, not an actual journalistic endeavour. Business Journal newspapers are not really reliable sources, as they're mostly cobbled-together press releases for a local market--and veen if they weren't, you're positing a purely local recognition. In short, this is not just a mere CV, it's a padded one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While 'World Energy TV' has paid content, I believe their segments have run on numbers stations throughout the country. Matthew Simmons is a frequent contributor. And the characterization of the City Business Journals as "cobbled-together press releases" is a bit ungenerous. They certainly do run press releases as you describe, but many (Certainly in Houston [36]) offer original reporting as well. Here [37] is another interview with Piette from the Bloomberg via the Houston Chronicle following bankruptcy filling of Bell Geospace. -- Vonroach —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Zito

Non-notable individual. JaGa^talk 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Vectorville (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search finds a lot of press coverage to support notability: [38]. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (edit conflict) Meets WP:ATHLETE—played two seasons of professional hockey in Finland.[39], [40], [41](primary source) Additionally, there are hundreds of articles with (trivial) mentions of him as a player agent. A few of these are slightly more then trivial mentions as well. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this meets WP:ATHLETE does it not? JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to above, does not pass WP:ATHLETE, which requires a player to play in a fully professional league. Per hockeydb.com, Zito never played in SM-liiga, which would be the highest level of pro hockey in Finland. --Smashville^talk 05:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - WP:ATHLETE only requires the athlete to have competed in a "fully professional league", that league does not have to the be the "highest level of pro hockey in Finland". Only amateurs have to have competed at the "highest level" for their sport. So the question remains—what league did Zito play in, and was/is it a "fully professional league". LinguistAtLarge • Msg 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to hockeydb (which is pretty reliable), he didn't play in Finland. I haven't been able to find a source to show that he played pro hockey at all. The above "source" is a mirror. It is asserted in the article, but there is no proof to back it up. --Smashville^talk 06:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Ynhockey. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bag O Rags

Non-notable ship. The article serves to advertise this website. JaGa^talk 02:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Not notable enough. Vectorville (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Really just spam! Notability not established despite exclamation points! Drmies (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of any notability. Alberon (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The Man Agree? —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4, recreation of previously AFDed material Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bootleg Series

AfDs for this article:

No notability asserted outside of being Kid Rock bootlegs, no sources found, bootlegs generally are NN. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super strong Delete: Very un-notable. Vectorville (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll one-up on the above super strong delete — how about speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material. MuZemike 08:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apnea (model)

Only sources of notability are primary sources. Same article creator as James Dormer Schneider (also in AfD) - there seems to be a pattern. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established. OR Ceran^→//forge 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Having worked for a number of notable web sites does not make her notable. This source helps, but it is about the Suicide Girls web site and (among other things) how it treated her, rather than being about her in general. JulesH (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration

This article has been tagged for WP:NPOV for over a year now. It is getting ridiculous. This article is nothing more than a partisan screed attacking the FDA. While I agree with most of the points the article makes, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't think this article ever has the capacity to be neutral. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep POV problems can be addressed by editing the article, not deleting it. The article's references are strong and support WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. This is an enormously important subject.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to see a much worse article. Plenty of refs, what side is it biased toward? Nobody seems to have discussed the neutrality tag for six months, it should be taken off if controversies are so inactive.John Z (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much better than expected--this is very close to a fully satisfactory article; with a little attention to selection of the good representative documentation out of the great mass that has become available. Someone needs to volunteer to guide it. DGG (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I don't think it's synthesis, so I cannot find any other reason for deletion. Criticism articles can be written neutrally if great care is taken with the sources. MuZemike 08:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. Afd is not clean-up and we are always improving articles. The FDA is a major federal administration that has existed for many years. Criticisms can be found in and sourced to numerous media including books, newspapers and documentaries. POV issues is a clean-up concern. -- Banjeboi 08:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from http://www.fdareview.org/ the references are solid and the article about the FDA itself is too long already to include a well-reasoned and complete coverage of the relevant criticism. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subarticle of main FDA article, and contains well referenced POVs. Even if not neutral (it's unclear that it is in fact non neutral, and on the contrary, seems reasonably well sourced), removal of articles that have not achieved NPOV yet makes no sense in nearly all cases, and NPOV cannot ever be perfect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result was delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. — TKD::Talk 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APE Project

Delete nothing to indicate that this project or it's software is notable - no independent sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted. Pyrrhus16 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GreyCat (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Software is linked at Ajax Patterns (wich is a reference in HTTP Streaming) Psilya (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from the original author. : The APE Project is still at the begining, but it already had real congratulations at French Open Source Conferences. Links have been made here and here for exemple.
- Another link here Psilya (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can also find lots of links with the previous name of APE (previous name was ACE (Ajax Chat Engine)) : A blog explaining ACE BlogMarks Nexen DicoduNet Developpers Forum Psilya (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Sources found by Psilya meets our threshold for notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and the "sources" that the article creator has come up with seem to be largely blogs and forums, and hence NOT reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the project was notable, the article would have been written by someone else. Also, the failure of the author to provide reliable third-party sources. The links provided above are to blogs and forums, and are thus not reliable. -Atmoz (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vipe

Proposed student project that won a competition offered by a redlinked organisation. The title is a neologism that isn't used in any of the references. Article's creator has conflict of interest and Wikipedia is not a publisher of his original research or a self-promotional service. Somno (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity. JJL (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--indeed, nothing but vanity. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to publish your thesis (ideas). -Atmoz (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful ghits beyond Wikipedia itself. Obvious vanity. Anaxial (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruntville

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Non-notable website. Schuym1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (see below) - There is some press coverage in Google news archives, but most of it looks like trivial mentions. If someone can find references to establish notability, I'll be happy to change this to a keep. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 00:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Might meet criterion #3 of WP:WEB since it looks like their content (computer hardware reviews) is reprinted/syndicated on many other review sites. [47] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Anything of encyclopedic value can be covered in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. ninety:one 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my Talk page, but unsure if it carries over. There are specific differences in SBA Requirements for due diligence. For example, histories of applicable prior NAICS codes and PHII requirements after only 5 years no matter the types of underground tanks. User:Msteinbach:User talk:Msteinbach 18:44, 12 January 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the differences are minor they can be discussed. I'm not an expert on this area, but it seems to me that a single article could easily describe multiple similar standards. JulesH (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor detail of US government bureaucracy. If every regulation of every English speaking governmnet had a stub article, Wikipedia would be in a real mess. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment; it looks like the subject could be discussed in Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment#Other_types_of_ESA, or the increased due diligence requirements mentioned for SBA Phase I ESAs could be discussed in Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment#Scope_of_the_Phase_I_ESA. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Arthursson

Non-notable (at least so far) Swedish startup CEO. His supposed notability rests entirely on the company/startup Xcerion. The article Xcerion XIOS, which seems to have been created at the same time as this article, was AfD'd and deleted in April 2008. Nothing has been added to this article since then to expand it, establish notability or remedy orphan status despite templates. Swedish Wikipedia has no article on Mr. Arthursson, but an article sv:Xcerion, but the only edit of it since October 2007 is my removal of its interwiki link to the AfD'd article. Tomas e (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Pyrrhus16 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Sólyomszem (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FatWire

I googled 'fatwire' to find out what that software was. Top hit was the company website www.fatwire.com.

Naturally I chose the next hit which was wikipedia.

The page is blatant advertising. It is written entirely in corporate self advertisment style.It contains no discussion of the company or its products. It is not neutral. It contains a number of claims which are debatable to say the least. There is no added value above going to the company website and reading similar material there, except possibly that wiki is better laid out.

This is not what I would expect of wikipedia. Possibly fatwire could be included in a list of web content management software on a page about that, if there is such a thing.

Walworth (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean List of CMS software :) What about the over 400.000 other hits I get in Google? I'm not surprised that the official website and Wikipedia are the top two hits. They usually are for any subject.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ the current version as blatant advertising. Deletion may well be without prejudice to recreating a better version. Note that a better version will use standard capitalization in phrases like Web Content Management. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regular delete, see below. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep I re-wrote the article. It no longer reads like marketing drivel from a sales brochure. Still no claim of notability and poor references. To be honest, I deleted most of the possible references because they were tied to sales like writing. They are in the history if this is kept and someone wants to spend more effort to improve this article. Miami33139 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Miami, I'm not going to be the one to rewrite the article, but whoever feels the urge, here's a Google News search, whose results clearly establish the company's notability. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google News search discloses mostly a number of stories or press release copies about acquisitions, or confluences of the words "fat" and "wire". The only possible RS I found on the first few pages was a 2001 review in PC Magazine of a $70,000.00 software package: that is a dead link. Given the dates, it is possible that the review was for a product of a different company. I don't see this article making the case for importance of this non-consumer tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: What a drag it is to try and look for articles NOT provided by AccessMyLibrary (or PR Newswire)--I wish Google News had the option to look for non-press release-type publications (does it?). Still, this article from the NYT already takes the notability case halfway there, and this article is not a press release, though it cites from it, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for your efforts. Especially in trying to rewrite which I was lazy /unsure to do. I am still not sure it provides much value beyond information available from the company website. I guess my summary is that it probably isn't notable. Personally I don't count cut and paste press releases as being 'coverage', but then I am not the only lazy person in this world. The NYT article is written to be directly about the IT economy on Long Island, and uses Fatwire as a supporting example. It is not directly about the company as such, possibly this is hairsplitting on my part. Walworth (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 02:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Reputation Management

It's not clear that this article discusses anything other than standard Public relations techniques, wrapped in a new fancy name. The link to a single provider smacks of advertising, although the article has been revised from its initial form to address blatant advertising issues. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to public relations. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a redirect. The best redirect would be to the existing article, Reputation management, and I do not see how addding the word "professional" makes it a reasonable search term. A spam neologism like this does not warrant even a redirect.DGG (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the topic presumably is Reputation management; however that (terrible, terrible) article doesn't look to contain information about people. I would be tempted to advise a merge, but I'm both reluctant to add more to such an overweight and badly sourced article as that and unsure as to the notability of "Professional Reputation Management". – Toon ^(talk) 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism, sounds more like a buzzword for headhunters and relations people, barely enough context to actually make it a subject able to have encyclopedic coverage. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Cquan. This is stealth spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot. While Analytic Hierarchy Process itself seems to be an elaborate way to prevent any decisions from ever being made, this page was apparently made to draft proposed additions to this page. As such, it ought to have been created as a subpage to the talk page. I moved this to Talk:Analytic Hierarchy Process/More Hierarchies. As such, Miscellany for Deletion rather than Articles for Deletion now has jurisdiction, and this proposal is closed as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic Hierarchy Process/More Hierarchies

Delete this is covered in the main article: if something is too detailed to be covered it is probably inappropriate for a tertiary project like an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The material on this page probably belongs in the main article, but it needs first to be seen and discussed by those who are working on the article. The main article is already very long, so we are reluctant to put additional material into it without prior comment. If this is not the way to do what we are trying, please let us know how we should do it. Whatever you do, PLEASE don't just delete the page without giving us a chance to capture what is on it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move. Since subpages are disabled in articlespace this article is mistitled (because of the slash); it should be moved to talk if people at the article want to discuss it's inclusion. (To nom: spinning out subsections in order to keep the main article relatively short is recommended practice per Wikipedia:Summary style. Since we don't have paper restrictions we can be as detailed as we want as long as it is verifiable (and as long as the basics are covered first) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MGML: I don't understand what you are saying. If subpages are disabled, how do we "spin out subsections"??? Lou Sander (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MGML: Never mind. I followed your link and read it. Lou Sander (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ade. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherryade

Non-encyclopedic; reads like a how-to for preparing as much as anything else. No references. There's nothing that couldn't be adequately covered in another article, either soft drinks or lemonade. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to ade, soft drinks or lemonade. Pyrrhus16 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to soft drink as this is a useful search term, but there's nothing to merge; the only unique content in cherryade comes in the form of a how-to manual for making cherryade. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To that or to ade? —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say that "Cherryade" is nothing more then a neologism... --Pstanton (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A name used at least as far back as 1870 (in Gunter's modern confectioner, published by Dean & Son, London) is hardly a neologism.
Ironically, it is ade that is the neologism here. It's not a category name for a class of drinks. (The category name is soft drink.) It's a simple suffix, -ade, meaning "made from", that happens to be productive, and it is arguable whether it has been lexicalized yet. It seems ironic to be wanting to redirect the article with the attested word title to the article with the title that isn't a word yet. Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an even older reference to cherryade in The Keepsake (Mansel Reynolds, 1843). Just a passing mention in a list of beverages, but I agree, it's hardly a neologism. Majorly talk 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cut down all the fluff and stubbed it. I'll see if there's anything else to add. Majorly talk 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Don Omar#Discography . Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDon

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this album won't be released for several months, nothing is verifiable. Closedmouth (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Don Omar#Discography as a plausable search term. Could find no sources to establish stand alone notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Barnett

Working actor, but fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Unable to find any non-trivial coverage--even in the fansites, etc. Bongo matic 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Huge body of work for a supporting actor, but not much in sources toward him specifically. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "fails to meet notability criteria, but keep anyway." I guess that's why WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. Bongo matic 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on "in other words", thank you. Since the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, and his contibutions have been verified, it might reasonably be extrapolated that his many and onging contributions to film and television establish that he is doing something right enough so as to be called back time after time... itself an indicator of minor notability. The current sources show that even in his non-starring roles, he has caught the eye of reviewers... pretty good when one considers that major films can have dozens of supporting actors. A difficulty in finding immediate and less-than-trivial sources is hindered by his having to share press coverage with the likes of major stars such as Johnny Depp... where on the balance scale of who gets the coverage, it is obvious who is going to win. Guidelines are not ironclad rules, else each would not begin with the caveat "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." My thought here is that if the article were to be kept, and a continued search for further sources undertaken... perhaps by United Kingdom wikipedians who have access to local resources inre their television and film industry (hardcopy articles and local library resources and the like) that I do not here in Southern California (though yes, I am still digging)... that further sources will likely appear. To err on the side of a cautionary keep might best serve to improve Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

week Keep All of these parts may be as supppporting actors, but there are great many of them. I conclude him a dedicated but not every successful professional, and the overall career perhaps worth an article. DGG (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand your arguments, but those seem like great reasons for inclusion in IMDb--where the subject of this article already has an entry. Bongo matic 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Character actors are under-appreciated but become notable with volume which this actor has done in numerous notable productions. Not every actor can be or should be a "star" but neither should their contributions to good theater and acting be dismissed as non-notable. -- Banjeboi 09:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a notable body of work. Alberon (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale is confounding. If we were able to find authoritative sources that Joe Bloggs was an assistant auditor on 500 corporate audits--even if for notable corporations--nobody would suggest an article on him would be appropriate unless there were articles about him. Why different, just because the business is the movie business? Bongo matic 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep looking for better articles, but (and I know this doesn't count) he's a very familiar face to me on British TV. Alberon (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, Joe Bloggs does have his own article... but this AfD is not about him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But his auditing oeuvre isn't mentioned or cited. Can you please find and add the ref? Bongo matic 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to AfD and it will be WP:RESCUEed if it can be. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. kur ykh 06:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saerox

Speedy deletion contested. A google search for notability brings up nothing. The two links/references are from the site itself and instructables, a user content generated site. -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. The creator of the article is the sole developer of the OS, which has made no google news hits, and the "third party" ref in the article was posted by the same person. Little content, no way of verifying it due to the lack of coverage in independent sources, and no evidence of notability. – Toon ^(talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Not enough information to identify the context --Pstanton (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. Synergy 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Carlock

PROD removed without edit summary or justification by anonymous IP; reasoning remains the same: A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 January 26 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a musician that appears to lack sufficient notability. Rogerb67 (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is only here because an anonymous editor removed the PROD notice with no edit summary and no justification; it doesn't need debate. Can't it just be deleted as unopposed? --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding: [48] [49] [50] [51]. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening the debate. I'm not really joking. None of the references you give are "reliable, third-party, published sources" that give "significant coverage" per WP:N; The first, Google books, gives only 3 references that appear to be about Dave Carlock, each of them is an entry in a directory, does not give "significant coverage" and thus does not indicate notability. The second links to discogs, which is open to edit like a wiki, and thus not reliable. Assuming the details are correct and could be found elsewhere, notability is not inherited per WP:ITSA and WP:BAND does not apply to recordings that an artist mixes, produces or "appears on", only ones on which they are the named solo artist ("releases" in Discogs terminology). Studioexpresso does not look like a "reliable source"; it looks like a commercial site offering production services. It is neither reliable nor independent. The final link is to a press release, which does nothing to establish notability. In summary, none of the references you provide establish notability, nor appear to provide useful avenues to explore in order to establish notability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think the producer of Pink, Blink 182, Rancid and The Transplants is not notable, even tough he got a Grammy in 2004, you might delete him. Have fun!--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article and discogs entries carefully; he is not producer of all those acts. He certainly did not get a grammy; he got a "Grammy Award Certificate—Engineer"; i.e. he was engineer on the "bonus tracks"[52] not the main album[53] of a record that Pink got a grammy for "Best Female Rock Vocal Performance"; I'm not up on the precise role of an engineer in producing a pop record, but I presume it's possible he did not even have any direct input on the presentation of Pink's vocals on the final album, or that as "bonus tracks" the tracks he engineered for were not actually considered during the Grammy decision process. He was a session musician or engineer for most of the records he mentions. Discogs does not credit him with any records as producer; cf the eminently notable producer [Max Martin]. His article does appear to have been written in such a way as to imply that he did produce all those records and get a Grammy. I'm sure that was unintentional. As far as I can see, a P in the last row of a discography entry indicates the article claims he produced that record. Records his article claims he has produced are:

"Rough Day" by Johnny Morales
"Our Song" by Laura Scott
"Deelish" by Desiree Cuchiara
"Suffocating/Paralyzed" by Charlie Kim
"Criss Cross Applesauce" by Shelby Spalione
"Inneraction" by Shevyn
"Dragonfli Baby" by Jackie Ray
"End Of Reason" by End Of Reason
"Transplants" by Transplants (genuine joint credit on an album by a genuinely notable band, but remember WP:ITSA)
"Haunted Cities" by Transplants (genuine joint credit on an album by a genuinely notable band, but remember WP:ITSA)
"Blisstique" by Blisstique
"Electric Ladybugs" by Electric Ladybugs
"De Anima" by Counterpush

i.e two joint credits for charted releases by a single notable band. But there are no inherited notability clauses for producers in WP:MUSIC, only "musicians and ensembles", for works on which they are featured artists. Perhaps Carlock could be mentioned on the Transplants page.

His involvement with other notable acts mentioned above, as claimed in the article are as follows:

Pink: "E/Instr/BGV/" which I tentatively decipher as "engineer, instruments, background vocals"; i.e. engineer and session musician
Blink 182: "Pre-Prod E/Arr" - pre-production engineer and arrangement?
Rancid: "Writer/E/Edit" - writer, engineer, editor? Indeed he is credited as co-writer of the song "Spirit of '87". Common sense dictates that being co-writer of a single non-notable song of a charted album does not automatically confer notability. Also "M/E" and "Edit".

In conclusion we have an article that is a puff piece that appears to be successfully giving the erroneous impression that the subject is significantly involved with notable artists, while in fact his actual contribution is much lower. He is co-writer of a single non-notable song on a notable album and co-producer of two albums of a notable band. I must admit I missed these lower claims amongst all the puff, but I still think they do not amount to notability without "significant coverage" in "reliable third-party sources". It may be that with this additional information "mined" from the article, such references may be found. I will take a look. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done further research on the "Grammy"; in fact it was awarded for "Trouble" which is on the regular CD, on which Carlock is not credited as engineer. Thus while he may have got a nice shiny certificate (presumably handed out to everyone who worked on the album from which the track was taken), his actual involvement in the Grammy-winning product appears to have been as a session musician ("Organ, Bass (Electric), Keyboards, Vocals (bckgr), Drum Programming"). --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per above essay.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By which notability criterion? --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 years of notable work in the music industry: [54] He engineered the Grammy award winning "Trouble (Pink song)" for which he got his certificate [55] [56] [57] - not some unimportant bonus song as you might claim. Sorry, but he's all over the place on Try This.[58]. Open your eyes!--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability criterion (general, biographical or specifically on WP:MUSIC) states that this demonstrates notability? I really can't see it. Either he fits one or more specific criteria on WP:MUSIC or elsewhere, in which case he is notable, or he does not, in which case he isn't. Directory entries, like your allmusic citation, specifically do not confer notability in general per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-5. I don't see a criterion that states "over X credits on album notes" or "getting a certificate for engineering a Grammy-winning track" confers notability (I'm happy to concede he did engineer this track; the fact is he does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8 from this Grammy; Pink does). And calling his work "notable" is firstly a circular argument, and secondly an argument of inherited notability per WP:ITSA. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected your above statement and did not say he is only notable for that boring Pink song. He might not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8, but about every other - well let's drop #6. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then;

#1: I do not see any "non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" on this page; directory entries specifically do not demonstrate notability as discussed above.
#2: Sorry, I can't find a "Dave Carlock" mentioned on any national chart. Please provide a reference. Being a session musician, part of a group, producer etc. is not sufficient; there must be a charted hit featuring "Dave Carlock" or a recognised stage name of his as a headlined person.
#3: Again, this applies to the headlined artist(s), not people buried deep in the album notes
#4: Cite your source.
#5: Can't find it; please cite. Again, this applies to the headlined artist(s), not people buried deep in the album notes
#7: Simply crazy. Which style or city? Citation please.
#9: Which competition? I've seen no mention of competitions. Or do you mean the "Grammy Certificate" which you appeared to have conceded?
#10:Again, this applies to the headlined artist(s), not people buried deep in the album notes.
#11: Which major network? Citation?
#11: Which major network? Citation?

--Rogerb67 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guy, you really must be blind. Gotta go to bed now.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I still don't accept HexaChord's arguments, however research following on from a closer reading of the article has turned up some (relatively) reliable sources which will assist in writing a reasonable article to replace the current one; these references together with the allmusic directory entries at least come close to establishing notability, and more sources may come to light as a decent article is written. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good boy.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Keep arguments were based upon speculation and not within policy. Smashville^talk 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leland William Modjeski

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:ONEEVENT, Wikipedia is not a news source. This guy is famous only for jumping the fence at the White House. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was also nominated a while back with other intruders, but a lot of them met the notability criteria. This one, however, doesn't. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unless someone can come up with some more sources and indications of further notability, this seems like a BLP1E case to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ONEEVENT, or really ZEROEVENT, as I don't think simply jumping over the White House fence with an unloaded weapon meets encyclopedia notability standards even for that event. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other articles addressed in the first AfD, they should probably be re-considered under WP:ONEEVENT, as the issue was never dealt with in the first AfD, which was closed for procedural reasons. I haven't researched the backgrounds of these other men, to determine if they are notable for events other than their White House incursions; but if they are not, their articles should be redirect/merged to articles on the incidents, rather than the men themselves. (Note: it looks like the other incursions are more notable than Modjeski's, and so could merit articles of their own). Baileypalblue (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this really does look like a BLPzeroE to me too. ON SECOND THOUGHT it is a near miracle this isn't just speedy deleted as CSD A7 garbage. JBsupreme (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep attempts to shoot the president, even apparent attempts to shoot the president, are highly notable parts of history whether or not they succeed. This odes not see to have been one of the more serious attempts in recent years, but it still got nationwide coverage, as one would expect. That is quite enough for notability. . This is not what LP one event means- those who do things like this do major public crimes of potentially national importance, & the press the public, and Wikipedia treat them accordingly. DGG (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not disputing the notability of the event, if there is an article for the event, it should exist. BLP1E, however, clearly states biographical articles shouldn't normally exist for one events, where the person can simply be mentioned in the article for the event itself. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the event might be notable in the relevant article, WP:ONEEVENT clearly says that biographical articles usually shouldn't exist. I see no need for anything except perhaps a small mention on the page for the White House. If that also fails, the whole event can be mentioned at WikiNews and linked to that page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to White House intruders. The short info in the article can, and should, be easily housed here, where it doesn't violate WP:ONEEVENT. Other intrusion events in this article don't have as much info, but we shouldn't shy away from starting a small-scale article expansion by merging this over. At the VERY least, this should be redirected. SMSpivey (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per SMSpivey above. White House intruders is a suitable target for this material and there is no need to delete stuff that can go there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with DGG's great points, attempting to kill the president is enough to make a person notable. 54 google news hits,[59] including Washington Post x4, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, New York Daily News, Miami Herald, MSNBC, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Kansas City Star, etc...4 books[60] By the narrow definition of one event here, the 9/11 terrorists should not have a page, nor Hinkley. They, too are only famous for one event. Would changing the name to Attempted 1995 assassination of Bill Clinton make this article acceptable? Because one event states, "Cover the event, not the person." Ikip (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

Modjeski did not attempt to kill the President, and it's questionable as even an apparent attempt to kill the President -- the Washington Post article cited, written immediately after the event, instead describes it as either a suicide attempt or an attempt to see the President.
I've already stated I don't believe this incident is notable enough to justify its own article (in contrast to some of the others linked in this AfD) -- not every White House security breach is notable enough for an encyclopedia, even though every one will receive media coverage; this is a good example of the reason why WP:NOTNEWS exists.
If, however, consensus finds this event to be notable, it should be covered in an article on the event, as you say: "cover the event, not the person" per WP:BLP1E. Attempted 1995 assassination of Bill Clinton is not an appropriate title because it wasn't an assassination attempt; perhaps May 1995 White House incursion, adding the month for specificity and uniformity because other years have had multiple White House incursions, so their articles would need to include the month.
If you want to fight a narrow interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E, Modjeski is a poor test case, because he doesn't have the cultural impact of your counterexamples (Hinckley, 9/11 hijackers); a looser interpretation of WP:BLP1E would mean keeping the Hinckley bio and deleting Modjeski. Regards, Baileypalblue (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mazar

A writer with no apparent notability from what I have found when I looked. The entire article is original research. kelapstick (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks sourcing and no assertation to notability. Pyrrhus16 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Far too much of the alleged notability appears to be inherited. He may be a significant figure, but I would like to something more about his religious background, his ancestors being Jewish, not Christian. The periodicials with whcih he is associated do not have articles. I fear that he is NN, but I am not yet saying delete, as I would hope that some one can establish notability during the AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches turn up practially nothing notable on Mazar. No sources on his writings, his university positions, or political importance... the very things that are supposed to be giving this person notability. The closest I found is two Amazon books where Mazar is mentioned briefly within the book: http://www.amazon.com/phrase/Daniel-Mazar/ref=cap_bod_5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy2222 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely an assertion of Notability, far less any evidence for Notability. Sources ... what sources? Delete. Springnuts (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiman

Non-notable rapper, article was previously deleted via WP:PROD for lack of notability. I searched back then for reliable sources to help provide notability, but was unable to find any. The article has been recreated and still has the same problem of notability, with the only reference being the rapper's myspace page. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As a recreation of deleted material --Pstanton (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy as does not apply to PROD. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no intimation of meeting WP:MUSIC. No significant 3 rd party coverage. Dloh cierekim 06:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could have been A7'd regardless of previous PROD status. No assertion of any of wp:band 12. tomasz. 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined G8 as it does not apply to PROD, and asserts significance, a lower standard than notability, so A7 does not work either. If, however, no keep argument arises and no RS supporting N appear, perhaps some uninvolved admin will SNOW it. Dloh cierekim 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio G12 (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/10-25-05/imparato.html) Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Imparato

Delete as COPYVIO (blatant is the standard of G12, this is more of a cut and paste job with some wording changes, so I'll bring it here. See this source and judge for yourselves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--nominator is correct, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrontAccounting

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is one line long. No notability. Found a blog post about it at http://www.pbooks.org/blog/2007/05/25/frontaccounting/, but it hardly saves this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy2222 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ant & Bee Corporation

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ant & Bee Corporation

Promotional article about a non-notable corporation. Article is heavily copy & pasted from the company website. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wildthing, fear not faint hearted one. i'm coordinating 30 user's contributions to this article. We will be adding content in the next few days to conform to WP:CORP standards. we will also be modifying content that was copied from the company website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo32312 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep in mind that this can be seen as a conflict of interest. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - the assertions made within the article aren't impressive and do not mark them out as having a big influence in their area of expertise (4th-largest supplier of HR to a state govt). Google news hits are restricted to a Credit report. No significant coverage, and no coverage at all independent of the subject. There's no evidence that the company's scope is even national, never mind international, and the lack of 3rd-party sources entirely buggers up the prospect of passing WP:CORP. Non-notable COI-fuelled entry. – Toon ^(talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable company with no independent sources to establish. There is not even an assertion of notability and the anon-IP removal of the CSD is fishy to say the least...this should have been speedied. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minishare

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It only has a handful of downloads and no significant reviews. Fails WP:N and WP:V. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find a credible third-party mention of this. Most searches turn up postings of the software by the publisher. Closest thing to significant third-party interest in this software I found is a forum thread with 13 posts at http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=376051 Sleepy2222 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos (game)

Delete lots of ghits but nothing like a RS showing real-world notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [61] leads to a number of articles, including [62] from the washingtonpost. I assume it's the same game. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This search seems to narrow things down. The same report is repeated four times in different publications. There's also a name-dropping here, but it doesn't count for much. SharkD (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above article, is, just one article. Establishing notability requires multiple articles, as per WP:WEB --Peephole (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the first link was that there are a number of sources. Times of India even mentions the game for example. [63]. Plenty of sources. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Times Of India makes no more than a passing mention. I went through some of the links you provided through google news, and most of them weren't about the game. --Peephole (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It appears most of the other sources are either non-reliable (forum discussions, etc) or talking about a generic title, "Kings of Chaos". The only other article from a reliable source is The Age and that's a reprint of the Washington Post's article. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends whether a single report counts more if it is repeated in multiple journals, though I doubt this is the case. SharkD (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. There appears to have been some reporting on this, but at this time it is rather weak and sporadic. There is no deadline though and this may be a notable game, but the article requires work. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until it can be proven to be notable, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coverage in Washington Post. Let's start deleting NES and Atari games because people will have a hard time finding digital sources on those. Frantically scramble to save a notable subject, my puppets! 216.37.86.10 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MB02+

Delete essentially a technical specification for the product, but no explanation or sources to tell us why it's notable. Not every model of computer system or equipment is notable, this among them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing notable is that it is for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. It should either just be mentioned in the Sinclair article, or the Sinclair article should at least link to this article. Otherwise, it is not notable enough to be an article. Besides, anyone feel like rewriting this? Awful lot of spelling and grammar errors. Sleepy2222 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Chou Tzou

The subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria for athletes. One of the references does not appear to mention the subject, while the other two link to Facebook. A Google and Google News search for his name finds nothing. The Seoul International School page lists him as a notable alumni ("a professional body builder") but I was unable to find any sources that verify this. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entirely unsourced BLP. First source doesn't seem to mention him, and Facebook profile != source. Ever. David^(Talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - The assertion that he qualified for the finals of a competitions is not backed up by the source to which it is ref'd; in fact the source doesn't mention this guy at all. Zero Google news hits ever, and an ordinary google search provides no hits for the name whatsoever. The other references are to facebook of all places, and the guy in the profile photo doesn't look too much like a pro bodybuilder from what I can see. This looks like a hoax to me, and if not that, then at the very least he doesn't seem to meet our verifiability (or notability) guidelines. This needs to go. – Toon ^(talk) 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utmost Delete Not only does it read like an advert, there again are no sources to back up the claims made.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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