Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 July 19 July >

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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanatha Swami[edit]

Radhanatha Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable swami, vanity page, no reliable sources, etc... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources. Expressindia.com i good. Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole - 2007 is good. Journal of Vaiṣṇava studies, 2004 is good.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidas (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 July 2009

  • Strong keep He's one of the most prominent gurus in ISKCON, there're some reliable sorces cited in the article too.--Gaura79 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the proof that, "He's one of the most prominent gurus in ISKCON?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now - I think we need more community input on this point. I did some google book searches. I found one book reference, in an index. Given a slightly different spelling, "Radhanath Swami", lends 2 different results. I don't have enough [any] background on this subject so I can't really say if these are relevant or different people, or anything else. Google scholar yields similar results. (one or two hits on the name; no clarification it's the same individual or not). I'm skeptical of what may be largely primary-source published sources, but on the other hand, there seem to be some sources here. I think any admin would be wise to extend the period for at least another week. Shadowjams (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He is a major person in ISKCON and I don't know much about it. --DizFreak talk Contributions 11:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "A major person in ISKCON?" Not sure that meets notabitly requirements. Where is the proof of notability for a Strong Keep? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's an ISKCON swami, a member of the Governing Body Commission and an initiating guru.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tend to agree that once the unsourced material is removed and considering his biography was reviewed by Prof. Francis X. Clooney, S.J.. "A Hare Krishna Swami Tells All". www.americamagazine.org. [1] he certainly makes it to Wikipedia (even the review is informal and bloggy, still reviewer commands some respect). I would appreciate if people stop adding blogs as the references such as dandavats.com and vnn.org and since User:Gaura removed all the such the article reads much more in line with BLP policies. I would go over it further and prune it more for unsourced material, lots of work to bring it up to the standard but the subject is notable, since 1994 and especially in the recent years. Wikidas© 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline shortages in the Southeastern United States (September 2008)[edit]

Gasoline shortages in the Southeastern United States (September 2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a news story. There's nothing here that shouldn't already be at the Hurricane Ike and Gustav articles. NJGW (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the nomination notes, this is just a news story. Merge the unique, relevant content to the Hurricane Ike and Gustav articles. — AjaxSmack 02:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS ... nothing else needs to be said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More appropriate for Wikinews.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even as news, not so notable. See Peak oil. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep All history started out as news items, and articles should not be deleted just because they are crappy. The question should be what effect did this regional shortage have on national -- or local -- history & society. And none of the delete votes above address that concern. (And there may be none; but because we are not only voting on the article but its subject, a unanimous delete here may prevent Wikipedia from keeping an article written by a future editor from writing an article that makes it clear this topic is notable.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you actually voting keep or just saying you would like future editors to have a chance to write an article in the case that the event one day does become notable enough for it's own article? If it's the latter, then wp:N seems to have that hypothetical situation under control. NJGW (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable event with sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG - which no one seems to have disputed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that the coverage is anything more than trivial. That's the point of wp:NOTNEWS. Ever since the event, it has not been covered. The reason NOTNEWS exists is that raw information with out context is confusing and unhelpful. That's why useful information is integrated into truly notable articles. The real question is "what is in this article that isn't in the two hurricane articles AND necessitates a separate article?" Answer: nothing. NJGW (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what the coverage of this event has been since it ended. Searching Google news for "fuel-shortage Atlanta" (inserting 'Atlanta' because it was at the center of the shortage, and because leaving it out get's 1000's of hits on other fuel shortages around the world), I found only 3 references in passing after October 2008.[2][3] Two of those stories are about price gouging during the crisis. No lasting notability. NJGW (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with this others. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it was reported, as most daily events are. The fact that it came and went with no lasting effect looks like evidence of the lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that no articles link there only underlines how transient this event was. Matt Deres (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko[edit]

Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This upcoming television series has not yet announced by GMA Network, unless it is not yet confirmed and fails WP:NFF. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Distillation[edit]

Cold Distillation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Part of an effort to promote a nonnotable brand of gin (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxley gin, closed as "delete"). One reference seems promotional, or at least based on a press release; the other deals with a method of distilling water, not gin. There appear to be insufficient reliable sources to support an article at this time—particularly one that focuses on a specific brand that has been judged to fail WP inclusion criteria. Deor (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power Pirate[edit]

Power Pirate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, notability is not demonstrated here RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • since your request for notability I added reports from news sources: District of Sound band interview ,The Northwest Current coverage of a performance, preview to a future performance, and description of recording process, as well as an article from the Little Hoya. If these do not satisfy the notability requirement as I read it here on Wikipedia, please reveal exactly what is required in such an article. --M6arate (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, now cited two articles from The Washington Post from June 3rd, 2009. --M6arate
    • This isn't a game of "find their name mentioned somewhere". There has to be significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources which "address the subject directly in detail". These recently added references dont do much to establish notability here. They appear to be simple schedules about appearances rather than articles on the band itself. ,--RadioFan (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NW Current is a full article about their music, performances, and recording setup. The post article briefed artists to perform at the fort reno concert series, and power pirate is part of this article. The various interviews cited were not "finding their name somewhere" but rather actual interviews about the band regarding their training, method, policy, and ability of the members. Shall I write a source for their radio interview as well? —Preceding
  • Earlier, User:Fuhghettaboutit removed the deletion notice from the page, saying it had just barely enough credentials to pass. Since then, several more have been added. I would like to work with you to get this page to be acceptable to your interpretation of the wikipedia standards. (When compared to that of User:Fuhghettaboutit ) The several interviews cited satisfy the notability requirement- being 3rd party sources addressing the subject in detail, as you said to m6arate on the Power Pirate Articles for deletion page.
If you have nothing more to add, please say so and remove the deletion tag. Otherwise, Let me know what needs to be done and I will work on this article until it meets your approval.
Thank you for working to maintain high standards on Wikipedia. --96.255.246.53 (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article has been improved, I still dont think it meets inclusion guidelines. There are a lot of footnotes but the vast majority are blogs or primary sources. I'm only seeing a single 3rd party reference in a local newspaper where the band is the subject of the article. The Washington Post refs do not help establish notability here as these articles appear to be simple calendar entries rather than significant coverage on the band itself. At this point other editors need to weigh in on the article and give their opinion.--RadioFan (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The post seems to pass Wikipedia's criterion. While the edits RadioFan suggested that have now been made were helpful, at this point it seems that the page has met the quality standards required for a post to avoid deletion. --64.129.84.194 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand. I declined speedy deletion because the criterion for speedy deletion I declined under is a very low bar, being simply an *indication* of importance or significance, which the sources do indeed show. At AfD (where we are now) the community considers on the merits whether an article meets our various inclusion policies and guidelines. In other words, you can take nothing from the fact that I declined speedy deletion in this discussion, as that is based on an entirely different standard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources is shown. Stripping out the irrelevant sourcing (the band's own websites, myspace and blogs), which is what is cited for most of the article's content, I see an inter-school newspaper, some local website (district of sound) with an Alexa rank of 7,701,651 which according to Google is linked to by Power Pirate band's site and not one other independent site, and apparent mentions in the Wahington Post and another newspaper but no significant coverage. This thus appears to be an unsigned local band getting some "they appeared here" type write ups for local gigs. This needs quite a bit more for inclusion in a tertiary source encyclopedia. To make that clear, if you strip away every word but what can be verified through the reliable sources, it would appear to me we would have a one sentence article, in the nature of "they exist" and "they played a gig here".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a broader look at citing sources, does Wikipedia consider a reliable news source printing a quote from someone of high enough standard to consider it to be a fact? How would a wiki verify such 'do-it-yourself' activities, if the only evidence is 'it happened' in conjunction with 'they did not pay someone to do it for them' and their word on an interview. They are unsigned, yes- but that is a part what makes their success all the more significant. If I reworked the page, removing things from the version which Barack Obama Chess created and using only sources from the Kate Pierce, Northwest current article- would the article stand? This source has been thrown aside as not credible, but I do not see why- it is a mainstream newspaper in NW DC and the surrounding area- and It does have enough facts to write a brief Wikipedia article. And yes- Power Pirate does link to DOS from their site- crediting a quote to its source. District of Sound may not have a high internet volume, but their write-ups are well-written and regarding relevant music in the DC area. --96.255.246.53 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This article attributes its sources, and shows notability with it's interviews and review article references. I agree with above- The District of Sound may be a small source, but is verifiable none the less. --M6arate (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) — M6arate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Don't Delete Even accepting that the Little Hoya is a "questionable source" and that the Power Pirate website is a "source on itself", I would say that it is in accordance with Wikipedia WP:SELFPUB in that the article is neither 1) "Unduly self-serving" nor 2) "based primarily on such sources." Barack Obama Chess (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) — Barack Obama Chess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The band's website isn't just self published, it's a primary source and does nothing to establish notabilty.--RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is slim, but gains notability from the Northwest Current newspaper article, as well as the numerous interviews. Although the article is short- it is concise. Several unnecessary things I would trim out. I'll get rid of some of the extra bits now. --Sabrebattletank (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also possible they qualify for #7 WP:BAND "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" for their age or unique electronic rock sound. This is a combination not found anywhere else in the DC scene. --Sabrebattletank (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That describes them as unique but has nothing to do with the "local scene" in the city of Washington DC. Washington DC is not known for electronic rock. I wouldn't call this band prominent either.--RadioFan (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't have to be "prominent," just the "most prominent." Here's an example: while "cat" is not a "long" word, it could be the "longest word" in a certain category. Sabrebattletank (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol. nice example. But your argument is completely legit. --M6arate (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. A single article in a small local paper does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a reference to strengthen notability from a music radio show piece about the band. --M6arate (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry to disagree with all the WP:SPA's that have !voted, but I don't see significant, non-trivial coverage by multiple 3rd party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of download websites[edit]

List of download websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of specifics. Although only 4 examples are listed (There are at least several dozen), this might as well be List of porn websites in terms of its potential. Speedy Delete under IAR. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename it to list of software download websites, this was what I was going to do. Anyway, couldn't you have waited at least a few hours/days after the creation? Why such a hurry to delete the article without at least tag it or discuss it on the talk page?. Anyway, we have lots of lists, so why not one about software download sites? I felt wikipedia was missing a place to organize that, and we don't even have an article about "software download sites"... Maybe you can put this list on that future article... SF007 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder what there is to say about "software download sites"? They're websites where you can download software. Isn't the article just in the title? I'd be pleased to hear what you're propose putting in the article (in an interested, not aggressive, way). Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know exactly what can be putted there, that's why I simply created a list (something I considered that was missing on wikipedia). Regarding the article, maybe you can put there:
  • History of software distribution
  • The fact that those sites are usually the main place to get software (at least in the windows world)
  • Info about the fact some of these websites can help tack new versions of software
  • Talk about "update checkers" some websites offer
  • list of software download websites
  • etc...

However, this is not really the point, what I care more is about keeping the list.

And I wasn't trying to be agressive, but I have to admit I dislike very much "deletionist" attitudes when some people work so hard to add content to wikipedia (not really saying the nomination of this article is a case of that...) SF007 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, goodness. I was suggesting that I may sound aggressive, not you! Apologies for the misunderstanding. Greg Tyler (t • c) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. I was the one misunderstanding your words... not a problem! SF007 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion on the deletionist views. However, for that reason, we encourage editors to create articles in their sandbox (By going to their userpage and adding /sandbox to the end of the url) before posting them to an article. Also, the content of deleted pages can be requested from admins. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Impossible to manage, borders on advertising, and could actually link to sites that are themselves violating copyright (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please "could actually link to sites that are themselves violating copyright"? that would just be for websites with articles on wikipedia, so that would be a minor issue. Anyway, we also link to thepiratebay.org and that does not seems to be an issue. SF007 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. could easily become advertising, and it's not worth it if we take into account the information provided. maybe creating a category named "software download websites"?--camr nag 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A valid option is you ask me. SF007 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is fairly pointless as it stands and can only grow to be a directory and WP:NOTDIR applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree this is probably better on a category, the whole point of creating this article was to keep stuff organized. SF007 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Sniffing Death Syndrome[edit]

Sudden Sniffing Death Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a band that fails WP:N and WP:BAND. The article also lacks references and outside of their myspace page I can't verify any of this material. ThemFromSpace 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Rockefeller[edit]

Dianne Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Big pile of issues, WP:AUTO; WP:N etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect seems unnecessary given the non-standard title with an unnecessary exclamation mark. ~ mazca talk 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After-School Special(The Goode Family!)[edit]

After-School Special(The Goode Family!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, should probably be merged with List of The Goode Family episodes Falcon8765 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment did you try and merge it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a merge; incorrectly named article without spaces and with an unneeded exclamation point, and the episode information sounds like it was swiped directly from TitanTV, Tribune Media or TV Guide. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd say "Speedy keep" since the nominator is suggesting a marge, but I recommend Delete in this case. There's nothing useful to merge and the title is not a likely search term. Powers T 12:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, Merge since one lonely review was found. Powers T 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protected Redirect to the main LOE page. Insufficient real-world information here to require this spinout article. Eusebeus (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, malformed title. A redirect to the main article should be made. Abductive (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just speedy deleted a load of similar articles as they were merely copied from another website, and the "plot" section on this one is as well. Black Kite 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 23:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travelers' Philanthropy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Travelers' Philanthropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to travelersphilanthropy.org and responsibletravel.org.

I am also nominating the following related pages apart of the same non notable spam campaign:

Center for Responsible Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William H. Durham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Riddled with press releases and copy-vio "self-links to their site and blogs, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Lizardmen (Warhammer). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mazdamundi[edit]

Lord Mazdamundi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I very carefully researched this character, with and without the "Lord". I discovered that it is not discussed in any scholarly analyses, not analysed in any independently published books, nor mentioned in any news items. The level of "internet appreciation" of this character is low; 319 Google Hits. I even compared the page view statistics of this article (less than 20 a day) to others in its game, who are in general much higher. (Those that were not I just tagged for notability.) A note on the talk page from March seems to be a pre-vote for deletion. All in all I felt reasonably confident that this would be an uncontroversial deletion. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 21:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with parent topic. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I do not see what page view stats has to do with suitability for an article: --and if they did 20/d =7300/year--which is substantial use. We're an encyclopedia not an Abridged encyclopedia. Such numbers are totally meaningless as a argument to delete, and we have long reject ghits as a criterion also. This is apparently one of the principal characters in the game, and therefore appropriate for an article. If not actually that important, then a merge and redirect is in order-not a deletion. I deprodded this; I did not deprod some others which I though really were pretty obvious. DGG (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not a "principal character", he is a progenitor. But it really shouldn't matter what role a character plays in a fictional work, but the number of secondary sources on them, zero in this case. Abductive (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if he is not a principal character, then what your argument justifies is a merge. DGG (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if he is any kind of character at all with no reliable sources, the best one could hope for is a merge.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudeku[edit]

Kudeku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NEOLOGISM; Unsourced, potential hoax Falcon8765 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is completely unsourced, and does not explain why it is notable. Google and Google Scholar have zero hits for any independent reliable sources that might confirm any of the purported meanings. It is probably a hoax. - 91.187.64.57 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like WP:MADEUP to me. Jafeluv (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definate WP:NEO, possible hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premjith Rayaroth[edit]

Premjith Rayaroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails our general notability guideline and WP:BIO. The article about him in the Hindu isn't the in-depth coverage of him needed for an encyclopedic article, and as this one event is the only thing he could be notable for I believe he would qualifie as a WP:BLP1E. ThemFromSpace 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the article from that list - he's not that sort of architect. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable - better to include him in an article mention of whatever fantastic innovation he's reputed to have invented......but then that seems fairly unimpressive as well to my non-IT centred mind, but perhaps might have a better chance of surviving AfD. Really, let's prove the innovation is notable first, and then worry about the author- delete for now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the one piece in The Hindu co-published in the Frontline, I haven't been able to find anything else, also unable to verify the name of the app server he developed, so clearly fails WP:V, and given that this was done in 2002, and there's no mention since then, it's likely not notable. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:SpacemanSpiff. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kord (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kord (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted in 2007, this article should suffer the same fate today. True, point two of WP:BAND indicates that a band that had "a charted single or album on any national music chart" may be -- may be, not is -- notable, and I have no reason to doubt that a song by Kord did rank 79th on the Romanian charts for a week in 2005. However, the claim to notability is really quite thin, particularly if we look at the sourcing. The external links are an official site and, of course, a MySpace page, neither of which is very encouraging from the "independent of the subject" point of view of WP:GNG. Footnote 3, sourced to the official site, has the same problem. Links 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 are YouTube videos, which aside from violating WP:ELNEVER, can't actually be used to validate anything (published text is needed for that). Similarly, footnote 7 consists solely of eight photographs. Finally, footnotes 2, 6 and 11 are self-published sites. They are blogs, they are user-contributed, they have not gone through a peer-reviewing editorial process. Given the lack of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", I think the case for deletion is strong. Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Remove speedy deletion tag Kord (band) I think it has credible claim of significance (charting single) and more others notable and reliable sources, like one of the Kord members, Stefan Corbu, was a member in a band of a notable artist named Nicola. I've checked RT100 and they had a charted single in a national music, chart RT100, for more then one week in 2005 [4]. I've checked too about their appearence in a tv show and they had performed music for a network television show, not only one performance in a television show and many performances in tv shows [5] KORD at TEO on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) , they had been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio [6] and TV network [7]. I've noticed that the article has the speedy deletion tag. Maybe you'd like reconsider your speedy deletion tag and remove that tag, because the article it's notable. thanks a lot.Lukasandi (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove deletion tag for Kord (band) This article should not be deleted because it has at least 3 real reasons to stay up. This band is notable because it meets more than one criteria. See Wikipedia:Notability (music). I checked some of the references and: - Kord (band) indeed had a charted single in a national music chart (see references no.1 & 2 from the article and the external links), and the song it was chartered for two weeks, not one, as Biruitorul said. - one of the members of Kord (band), Stefan Corbu, is a musician who has been a member of another notable musician, Nicola. - Kord (band) performed music in many television shows, as can be seen on Youtube, and i know that those videos can't actually be used to validate anything, but what can be more real, than when you see with your own eyes? - the references (notes) no.3 & 7 are not self-published sites, as Biruitorul said. The reference no.3 www.muzica.ro is one of the most important sites from Romania, about musicians. And the reference no.7 Radio Lynx is just a link from a website of a romanian radio, where Kord has been the subject of a half hour broadcast across a national radio. Rallyk (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted G12, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telekinesis Guide[edit]

Telekinesis Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought RadioFan (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Trashwomen[edit]

The Trashwomen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable punk band, no sources and less than 30,000 Google hits. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nissan VQ engine. Premature non-admin closure as article's text is a translation of new redirect target.

Motor VQ[edit]

Motor VQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod originally copied from spanish wikipedia. Rough translation to english reverted back to spanish. Short unreferenced articles which doesn't meet notability guidelines in any language. RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess that we already have an article for Motor VQ - Nissan VQ engine. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Page was a Spanish translation of the lead of Nissan VQ engine. Because of this, I've redirected the page afore mentioned and closed the discussion. Unlikely redirect? WP:RFD.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persuaded (band)[edit]

Persuaded (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 20:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's a clear consensus that the subject of the article passes WP:ATHLETE. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Argetsinger[edit]

Peter Argetsinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable Penschool950 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE as a professional athlete. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is horribly wirtten, but as other editors have shown, sources exist and clearly passes guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Slipknot[edit]

List of songs by Slipknot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundancy: the material is already covered in the discography articles; & no citations Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The songs ARE covered in the 9 album articles! Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The nom just said "discography articles" so I assumed you meant Slipknot discography. Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Majority of songs aren't notable, don't warrant a list. Songs already covered in the track listing section of their articles.KMFDM FAN (talk!) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Slipknot's discography article. This seems like a logical fit and the list is factual and useful for some people. Deleting the list because some of the songs are singles seems ridiculous: that isn't redundancy, it's a separate list. Tavix |  Talk  00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't, since not every song is in that category. Tavix |  Talk  04:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't they? Even then, all notable songs should be in the category, making this list unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address why this list is needed, when the bases are covered by the categories (for notable songs) and individual album pages (for everything else). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it is unnotable to create a list like this. All songs are included in the tracklisting of every album article and this is unneeded. The name of the tracks and the albums they come from is an unreasonable logic for a list I think. There is no additional informational in this list and there never will be, it offers nothing more than what the album articles do and I think merging in to the discography is a very bad idea. REZTER TALK ø 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worthy; no references or citations. —Terrence and Phillip 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no value in this list, it's simply repeating what can already be found on the album articles. blackngold29 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I did add the demos to this list, I don't think this list has any value to it. The demos aren't that notable anyways. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keeps did not adequately answer the BLP concerns of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Braden[edit]

Jim Braden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a person involved in conspiracy theories. I'm not finding significant coverage of this person in 3rd party sources. His name has been mentioned in a couple of JFK books but only one of those goes into much detail, others deal with him only in passing. The article itself lacks reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article lists several online reference sources which constitute significant coverage. Furthermore, user RadioFan attests there is not significant 3rd party coverage, and then goes on to cite passages in several books. Braden is even listed in government files: [www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/cia-files.html] Not sure why Jim Braden was important enough to be included in Senate hearings, but not for inclusion in Wikipedia? Aliveatoms (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's not make this personal please and focus on the article. As I mentioned in the nomination, I'm seeing some mentions but I do not believe there is the kind of significant coverage that WP:N requires.--RadioFan (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RadioFan, I've been focused on the article from the beginning. Unfortunately, I've been distracted by your petty and vindictive nomination for deletion.Aliveatoms (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, lets stick to the process here and not make personal accusations.--RadioFan (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pro tem in the hope of more third party reliable references. I'm not keen on youtube or geocities stuff, but there does seem to be notability to me here withal. Peridon (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability guidelines, as there is a distinct lack of reliable source coverage or Merge to John F. Kennedy assassination#Official investigations if some RS sourcing can be found for significant content. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has been mentioned in several locations, but it all ends up being a case of WP:ONEVENT. And it's not like he participated in the one event, he was just a suspect. Everything else was him trying to disassociated himself from the one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References have now sourced.DrippingGoss (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there are sources there but still not what I'd call significant coverage. Niteshift36 raises a very good point about this being a biography about a person known for a single event. I'm thinking that SpacemanSpiff's suggestion of selective merge into the article on JFK's assignation may be more appropriate than deletion but would like to see more discussion here first.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is highly sourced with material gathered online and from major and university press publishers. Regarding Niteshift36's assertion that this is an article about a person known for a single event (a point which is not included in the initial reasons for deletion): even a cursory review of the article would show that Braden was also circumstantially linked to the Robert Kennedy assassination.DrippingGoss (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you should read it again. He wasn't circumstantially linked to it. He was questioned because he happened to be in the city at the time of the assassination. The police would have been remiss in NOT at least questioning him given that he'd been investigated in the JFK event. If they hadn't questioned him, all the conspiracy theorists would have gone ape shit. Notice it says "questioned", not "arrested", "investigated" or even "detained". They covered their bases, established he wasn't involved and sent him on his merry way. Where do you get "circumstantially linked" out of that? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here that isn't in the conspiracy article. WP:ONEVENT. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - DISAGREE The main JFK conspiracy article features no info on Braden's legal name change, his association with the RFK assassination, his appearance before the HSCA, his current whereabouts nor his maintained legal innocence.DrippingGoss (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment which is why a merge is being suggested here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt WP:BLP1E applies if he's alive, WP:BIO1E, WP:FRINGE suggest that he doesn't rise to the level of a separate article if he's dead. RayTalk 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: This article does not violate any part of WP:FRINGE, in fact, this guideline seems to warrant Braden's inclusion since "in order to be notable enough... a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication..." Braden and the Dal-Tex theory are referenced in magazines including Esquire, in books and publications from major University presses, and extensively online. Also, re:WP:ONEVENT, please note Braden is implicated as a suspect in the ROBERT Kennedy assassination as well as the JOHN F. Kennedy assassination. That's TWO events, so all the DELETEs referencing ONE EVENT should be discounted in my opinion. Lastly, I see the article has been EXTENSIVELY referenced. In other words, all the initial reasons for page deletion have been addressed. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was not "implicated as a suspect" in the RFK assassination according to the article you are defending. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: at this time, the article isn't "EXTENSIVELY referenced". There are references, but it's under-referenced more than "extensively" referenced. For one, it sounds like the references are passing mentions- for instance, they aren't books or lengthy articles solely about the subject. tedder (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NiteShifts' reasoning. If he's still alive, this is WP:BLP1E. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If editors there decide that he should be mentioned, redirect to John F. Kennedy assassination [edit: Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories]. Especially with such a significant and controversial topic, we need good detailed sources which either provide citations or are otherwise part of the historical analysis of the event. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They were a suspect in a crime. Granted, the gravity of the crime here, but I still see this as an attempt at notability by extension. Pres. Kennedy was clearly notable - but somebody accused of killing him...well, the accusation doesn't make him notable, he's just a suspect. Anything better to change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comments re: Delete/Merge Firstly, if the decision is made to Merge, I feel it should merge to Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories rather than John F. Kennedy assassination. Regarding the article's references, I took great effort to find support for each claim made in this article. To me, that would constitute "extensive", or at the very least "thorough", referencing. Regarding the concern that the references are merely "passing mentions", that is not always the case. I have referenced some books that devote as little as one sentence to Braden and Dal-Tex, while others devote entire sections, and one devotes over one full page to Braden. DrippingGoss (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          Furthermore, I would like to say that Merging the page would create problems of having to cram a lot of extraneous information onto the main JFK assassination (or conspiracy) page. While Braden is mentioned there, so is the Dal-Tex Building. Imagine if ALL the Dal-Tex information had to be crammed onto this one small section of the JFK conspiracy page. It would make for very dense, convoluded reading. This is a good example where we can see the problems of Merging this article instead of just keeping it where it is. DrippingGoss (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP James Braden was the only professional criminal to be arrested in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And his location was arguably, the best possible sniper location in that area, with the clearest view of the President as he moved west on Elm St. Braden admitted that on the eve of the assassination, he was in the same hotel with Jack Ruby. He has also been connected with longtime suspect David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, the mafia godfather who confessed to a reliable FBI informant that he setup the assassination. Braden is a VERY important suspect. If any article about him is found to be inaccurate, it should be corrected but under no conditions, should it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobharris77 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Bobharris77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I will restate my belief that this page should be kept by asking the decision-making administrator to compare the current page with it's initial state when the delete tag was added. You will see it has been thoroughly footnoted with reliable sources including University Presses as well as major-house publishers. I feel deleting this article would be a bad faith gesture WP:GOODFAITH as it is an important element in many conspiracy theories surrounding JFK. Furthermore, how can we tolerate numerous articles such as Lee Bowers, James Tague, Joseph Campisi, Emmett Hudson, and dozens others [11] who are ancillary to the JFK assassination, and who in many cases have much less RS citation than this article. If we had to delete or merge all of these pages and add their full information into the main conspiracy pages, it would be a cluttered mess. DrippingGoss (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 166.137.132.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just stbled upon this page doing research. Found it very useful, wouldn't like to see it disappear. 166.137.132.162 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be true, but User:Tedder is correct in pointing out that you have made edits in only this AfD, which has several editors who've done the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POHMELFS[edit]

AfDs for this article:
POHMELFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The 2 refs are to a blog (wp:rs), the external links fail encyclopedic notability (wp:n). -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-05t20:19z 20:19, 5 July 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, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only reliable source with significant coverage that I can find is this Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdeS[edit]

AdeS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not indicate in what way this product is notable, it is a minimal 2-line stub. The single reference given is to an article which briefly mentions the brand as being acquired by Coca Cola some years ago. It was prod'ed, but the prod removed with a reference to a google search which mentions the product some archived Google news articles. I did not check all of them, but the first one is again a trivial mention which merely lists this brand among many other brands in Indonesia. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:54, 5 July 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, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accurate stub article about a business, with cited news coverage. Expansion potential. Acquisition by major corp indicates significance in national market. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big and significant company. I added a few external links there. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rufino Pablo Baggio[edit]

Rufino Pablo Baggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Limited number of Ghits and GNEWS hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 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, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Sources don't indicate notability. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Telehealth. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeleHealth[edit]

TeleHealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:DICDEF. Already exists at Wiktionary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There do not appear to be any sufficiently independent third-party references to underline any notability. Black Kite 11:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Materials and Processes Simulations[edit]

Materials and Processes Simulations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This piece of scientific software does not appear to particularly notable. Previous 'prod' because of the same concern was removed by an IP user without giving an argument addressing the issue. Searching on google has not left me hopeful that evidence can be found that this is notable. TimothyRias (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I tried to explain to on my reply to the deletion suggestion, Materials and processes Simulation technology is a tool for the researchers and developers and I personally think it should be added to wiki, as a chemist I have used several softwares which can also be found in wiki with less to offer. It is possible that I am having a formatting issue with the page, but I thought I have followed the page creation documentation closely. If you would like to learn more about Materials Processes Simulation, please follow this link http://www.scienomics.com/Products/maps/index.php, I would be glad if you would give me a helpful suggestion on how to retain this information on the wiki so that other chemists can help populate it too, meanwhile I am trying to rephrase my discussion to point to the fact that MAPS is a useful software, if it meets the needs pls do me a favour, remove the delete template.
Thankyou
--RosaWeber (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the software is useful or not is completely irrelevant. The keypoint on deciding if there should be an article on it comes down to notability. (please read WP:N for the relevant guideline.) Currently, the article does nothing to assert that MAPS is in anyway notable, nor have I been able to find any evidence on the internet to suggest that it is. Maybe MAPS is notable in someway, in which case you should provide evidence (from a reliable source). (For example a review in a professional journal or the like.) There is lots of useful software that is not notable. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication of notability: even the article's author does not claim there is, only that its subject is "useful". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MAPS is mentioned in one of the most respected peer reviewed Journals for Physical Chemistry (J. Phys. Chem. A, 2009, 113 (12), pp 2967–2974) and if you do a google search with the terms "Materials and Processes Simulations", you will find MAPS in the first page of google.
Thank you once again --RosaWeber (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to the above comment (1) Is it just "mentioned" in the Journal, or is there substantial coverage (e.g. a significant article about it)? It is an important difference. (2) After reading the above comment about a Google search, I have repeated the search and looked at every hit on the first page of Google results. I found the company's own website, the Wikipedia article, a directory entry or two, a couple of pages that barely mention it. This could not by any stretch be called substantial independent coverage. One of the Google hits [12] was to a page where someone merely says that the Scienomics website does not give enough information about "Materials and Processes Simulations" to enable one to evaluate it, and goes on to say that he has "been disappointed by other folks making similar claims in the past". No, the fact that the software can be found in Google hits is no guarantee of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked the journal reference. It is simply mentioned in the acknowledgements thanking Scienomics for providing the software, nothing more. (TimothyRias (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Responding to your comments 1) TimothyRias already answered that question, the google hit for CCL as you would confirm is a discussion of almost 5years, (the year Scienomics was founded) which I find not fair to be held against this article. Please take a look at this [13] :-) a French magazine discussing MAPS explicitly. and then you can also look at these links: NAMD [14],LAMMPS [15] Towhee [16], but to mention a few. Please also note that some Websites, Journals and even articles refer to MAPS as (scienomics software)which is 100% true.
I would also like to refer you to the Scientific Book published in 2004,which explicitly discusses MAPS J.-R. Hill, L. Subramanian, and A. Maiti Molecular modeling Techniques in Materials science CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2005, ISBN 0-8247-2419-4 --RosaWeber (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This book is listed on a page of "publications" on the web site of Scienomics, the company which publishes the "MAPS" software. It is not clear to me what this means: it may be simply a list of publications which they think is useful in promoting their software, or it may be a list of publications in which they had a hand. In the latter case clearly it would not be an independent source.
The NAMD web page cited does not mention "Materials and Processes Simulations". The LAMMPS web page cited merely says "The company Scienomics has created an interface to LAMMPS as part of their Materials and Processes Simulations (MAPS) platform which is described at their WWW page. It can be used to visualize and perform analysis on the output of LAMMPS simulations." The Towhee page merely says "Scienomics sells software that puts a friendly face onto the Towhee program (among others). Their MAPS software provides a GUI and some additional thermodyamics tools for those who prefer an industrial style software interface." None of this could be called "substantial coverage".
The French magazine article mentioned above (here: [17]) is the first I have seen which might constitute significant coverage of this software. One article like this, actually about the software, is far more relevant than dozens of sources which just mention it. Whether there is enough there will be for the closing administrator to decide, but it is enough to persuade me to withdraw my "delete". Postscript, added 25 July 2009 I have looked more closely at the web site on which the French article appears. Although the article itself looks fine, the web site offers publicity services to businesses, so my revised opinion is that the French "article" is probably a paid for or self-promotional piece. Unless someone can specifically produce evidence that this is not so I think we have to discount it as an independent source, in view of the nature of the site on which it appears.
On a separate matter, the point of describing the Google hit which mentioned the lack of information was not to indicate that someone had a poor opinion of the software, which would be irrelevant anyway, as notability of a subject depends on people giving the subject coverage, whether that coverage expresses approval, disapproval, or neither. The point was that the mention was trivial, and I gave it as one example to show that merely getting Google hits does not indicate that there is significant coverage. Although Google searches are a convenient way to look for information which may establish notability, they do not themselves establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you James --RosaWeber (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The French article seems promising for providing a minimal amount of proof of notability. Unfortunately my French is not good enough to completely understand its nature nor that of the site it is on. For example I can't really determine if it is an advertorial of something of that sort. Hopefully somebody with a better of command of French can comment on that. (This has been one of my main concerns that this wikipedia article was an attempt to advertise the software, which is not what wikipedia is for.) (TimothyRias (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
See my "postscript" above on this matter. The more I have looked at the matter the more I have formed the impression that TimothyRias's fears seem to be well-founded: the whole thing may well be a bit of very professional self-promtion, dressed up to look like objective coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article was written by an independent journalist.--RosaWeber (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would just be careful to not make notable the antonym of obscure. That is, it could be possible for an entire journal article to be made possible with a piece of software and have it get only a sentence or two mention in "Methods" or an acknoweldgement. This may or may not come up on some publishers' searches. I think in the past I've found pages on molecular dynamics simulations and other general areas. At minimum, a few passing mentions in referred journals probably makes it notable but obscure at least for inclusion in a list of software in the general area. If it really only is mentioned a few times, and there is a competing piece of software, perhaps it could get a sentence of two mention in an article about the dominant software that performs a competing function. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging from the table of content s of the book cited, [hhttp://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/57373651?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Fcatdir%2Ftoc%2Ffy054%2F2004061917.html%26checksum%3Daef60a0b27fe8cb392cf982c389c8fc4&title=&linktype=digitalObject&detail=], it does not appear to have any one section devoted to this software--how can we tell if it offers detailed coverage. As for the papers, if that's a complete list of the published papers using this software, it may well not be notable. DGG (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying your comments I would like to start from the issue of the French Journal: As one can read, competition is mentioned there as well together with the interviews of Scienomics customers (Magali Charlot, from Rhodia and Hervé Toulhoat, from IFP). The article discusses the process through which MAPS is born, i.e., the IMT-Consortium. The people that where interviewed explained themselves, the concepts and advantages of MAPS. I guess that these people (together with all other members of the consortium, BASF, Unilever, Eni etc) are notable enough and their independent judgments should count.For non French speaking people who are interested in knowing what the French magazine had to say, please follow this link, but I warn you before hand...it is a poor translation, i hope you can cope with it like I did ...enjoy :-) http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/la-modelisation-se-met-a-l-ecoute-des-industriels.N51176&ei=bedkSua3GI6sjAfS6pz5Dw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLa%2Bmod%25C3%25A9lisation%2Bse%2Bmet%2B%25C3%25A0%2Bl%2527%25C3%25A9coute%2Bdes%2Bindustriels%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG -- About the book I had cited please in see 1.6 Software Related to Materials Modeling .................... . 20 discusses MAPS along with other similar engines. Cited Publications I had cited just a few publications, looking at other software entries in the wiki, you would agree with me too that they do not have endless entry of publications either. --RosaWeber (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.6 is one section of one chapter of the book, and that section "discusses MAPS along with other similar engines", so that MAPS is not the focus even of that one section, but just only one of several programs mentioned. On the face of it this does not appear to indicate substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


additionally I am sure you would like to see this too. http://www.materialssimulation.com/node/296. But please do not ask me for translation because I am not Japanese, I just stumbled into it a few minutes ago. --RosaWeber (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis of the above responses. There are no genuine independent references for notability. DGG (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the French article. It's a short discussion of the history, goals, and development of MAPS, and mentions that an IMT consortium (an industrial consortium) was created specifically around that software, to unify and concentrate efforts on materials modeling. It's definetaly more relevant that someone's grandmother's homemade nanomaterial simulation software. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may well be true, but it is nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. The only sources which have been offered which conceivably might be thought to be significant coverage are are The French article and the book by Hill, Subramanian, and Maiti. From the account above it seems unlikely that teh book gives substantial coverage. As for the French article, I have given reasons above for being doubtful about its independence. RosaWeber states "That article was written by an independent journalist", but how reliable an assessment is this? RosaWeber (the original author and main contributor of the Wikipedia article) has told us "MAPS is mentioned in one of the most respected peer reviewed Journals...", but omitted to mention that "It is simply mentioned in the acknowledgements thanking Scienomics for providing the software, nothing more." (TimothyRias). RosaWeber has given references to web pages which turn out to just mention the software, or, in one case, not to mention it. RosaWeber has given us a reference to a book mentioning MAPS, but DGG expresses doubt as to whether it gives substantial coverage, and RosaWeber's reply "does not appear to indicate substantial coverage". Apart from edits to the article under discussion here, edits to this AfD page, and edits to his/her own user page, almost all of RosaWeber's edits to date have consisted of adding unambiguous spam links for MAPS or its publisher to articles. I think under these circumstances we have to consider the possibility of a conflict of interest. If there is indeed such a COI then the statement "That article was written by an independent journalist" cannot be relied on; even if there is no COI RosaWeber's record (described above) cannot inspire trust in the statement. I have to conclude that no reliable evidence has been presented for substantial independent coverage, so there is no evidence of notability. I am also strongly tempted to conclude that, as TimothyRias suggested, the whole thing is an attempt at promoting the software. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've purged the sales-pitch passages, the article is now much more neutral. I'm pretty sure that the publications section is about as worthless as it gets, at least from what I can access ATM, and should probably be removed.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What this article needs right now is a list of university physics and chemistry departements that uses MAPS in a non-trivial way.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Faith[edit]

Michael Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Michael G. Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity pages on non-notable businessman.—Chowbok ☠ 19:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campion Cougars[edit]

Campion Cougars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merge tag since June 19, 2009 with absolutely no discussion. School team does not merit separate article as per WP:N. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The deletes had more concerns that just whether the song would be made, which went unaddressed by the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.S. (Let the Music Play)[edit]

S.O.S. (Let the Music Play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only source for future single is Jordin Sparks saying she thinks the song is her next single. Therefore this article fails WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordin did not say she thinks its the next single she said it is the single, it is being advirtisedas the next single and it was sent to the media as the next single therefore it IS the next single —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.22.112 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Confirmed release! 217.237.151.208 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not matter if it has been confirmed as a single. It is not notable enough for its own article. 124.182.180.66 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The release is confirmed and already has many reviews. It has been played one BBC Radio 1 and Kiss Fm in the UK so the release is likely very soon. Jayy008 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle-core[edit]

Noodle-core (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn as clear notability has been established SilkTork *YES! 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cap (London pub)[edit]

Black Cap (London pub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article asserts notability without any supporting sources. Fails WP:Company. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. A search revealed nothing more than the usual pub directory listings. Has had a "notability" tag for over a year. I am told that it is one of Europe's most significant gay clubs, though I found no evidence of that. It is listed in a London gay pub directory here as simply one of over 25 gay pubs in London with no mention of its significance. I can see an article being constructed around First Out - London's first openly gay bar, and Admiral Duncan pub quite rightly has an article - but I am dubious about this place. SilkTork *YES! 18:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Directory listings are not the most significant coverage, though repeated coverage in notable guide books is helpful. I am doubtful here as the Black Cap is being listed in each case as one of a number of gay bars in London - rather than being singled out for individual attention, and statements such as "Camden's premier gay venue" are more indicative of the pub being dealt with in the Camden Town article rather than as a standalone. The guide books / directories throw up other gay pubs which also seem to have some strong statement made to distinguish them, such as Comptons of Soho - "Soho's oldest gay pub", Hoist - "One of Europe's most famous fetish clubs", BJ’s White Swan - "The gay legend in London’s East End". As we are an encyclopedia rather than a travel guide, I'd rather see something more meaningful than a series of articles on pubs which say little more than "popular gay pub in Camden" or "popular biker pub in Soho". SilkTork *YES! 21:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qwfp's research above. It should be expanded, of course.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is this pub the same as the "Mother Black Cap" pub or are they different establishments? Otto4711 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you mean the one in "Withnail & I", that's fictional (a conflation of this Black Cap and the Mother Red Cap in north Islington). There did used to be a "Mother Black Cap" in West London (now the Tavistock Arms), but that has nothing to do with this. – iridescent 16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scenes were filmed in Notting Hill. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the same reason I declined a {{prod}} on this; while the Admiral Duncan is famous by virtue of being the venue for David Copeland's bombing, the Black Cap is far and away the best known (and IIRC, now that the Astoria has been demolished, the largest) gay club in London as well as the focal point of the British drag scene. – iridescent 16:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per the above, requires expansion and also sources to establish notability - I have added the resuce tag for this purpose. Artw (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely well known for its drag cabaret. Reg Bundy (notable enough to have a London Times obit) performed there for years -- I added a ref per this fact. Doubtless there are many more refs to be found/added. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added several new sources re notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Peng[edit]

Chen Peng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A person born in 1987 (22 years old) that according to the article "is a famous Chinese historian among the most prominent ones who engaged in the historical research of Women's history and general political history of Tang Dynasty". I wasn't able to confirm any of that. Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An arbitrary number of roles may indicate notability; but unless that suggestion can be backed up by reliable source coverage that notability is insufficiently demonstrated to meet our guidelines. ~ mazca talk 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daya Vaidya[edit]

Daya Vaidya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Has not done notable roles. Roles played don't give encyclopedic significance to the subject. Hitro talk 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Christopher Glenn[edit]

John Christopher Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable autobiography. Beach drifter (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of funny animals in the media[edit]

List of funny animals in the media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:LC (the list is of interest to a very limited group and possibly unmaintainable), also widely obsolete because of List of fictional animals and List of anthropomorphic animal superheroes. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Funny animal is defined though, so it's not inherently POV. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup, Move and Keep Clean up the article, try to thin out non-notable characters. Particularly ones without their own Wiki Articles. And remove the movies, this is a list of characters not movies. And remove non-comedic Characters like Sonic the Hedgehog and My Little Pony (WTF?). Keep this list down to the notable and influential characters, (such as Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, etc.) And we should move the page to something more appropriate for Wikipedia (I propose List of Animals in Comedic Culture.) To quote Linus: "It's not a bad article, it just needs some love" KMFDM FAN (talk!) 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not rename to List of Animals in Comedic Culture or remove non-comedic characters. Funny animal is a term that has nothing to do with whether the character is humorous. Edward321 (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Better suited as a category. Regardless of what happens, remove "in the media". They're not showing up anywhere else. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete My pet is hilarious, but she doesn't deserve to be on any list (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your pet doesn't deserve to be on the list cause it's not in the media. It's a list of funny animals in the media.KMFDM FAN (talk!) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    11 commercials, 3 TV movies, 8 music videos ... nope, not in the media at all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator did point out that there is a specific meaning to the term "funny animal". Your pet is in no way related to the scope of this list. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, based on that she doesn't belong. However, the original comment was rhetorical. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that word means what you think it means (? check wikt:rhetoric). Or, you are admitting that your original !vote was intentionally confusing (in which case: please don't. things are confusing enough around here already...). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The word means exactly what I meant. The !vote was certainly valid, the part about my dog was rhetorical. Let's be careful with the WP:AGFing please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not questioning your goodfaith, I'm questioning your choice of example. Why were you bringing up a breathing mammal as an example, when the discussion is clearly about fictional anthropomorphic characters? Was it just an attempt at humor? Did you (along with some of the other participants here) just not read the "Note that Funny animal is defined though" part of the nom? Were you trying to use rhetoric to convince us of something? If so, what? (If you understand what I'm getting at, then you can treat these as rhetorical questions and ignore them ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want my opinion about this, you should discuss the fate of this article rather than that. Deletion discussions are confusing already. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article mostly doesn't list characters, but rather the titles of works that the characters appear in (Bambi, TMNT, etc). Perhaps renaming would be a workable option (as Wesley suggests above)? Also very western-centric. Parts of it could be rescued. I'd lean towards keep for a !vote. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 previous AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of funny animals in media (no consensus, February 2007) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of funny animals in media (2nd nomination) (no consensus, October 2008). And no attempt to discuss or clarify scope on the article's talkpage. C'mon people, this is basic due diligence. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ouch. A classic case of a list with an overly-broad definition, being inappropriate per WP:SALAT. Several encyclopedic lists can be split out from the subsections within this list, but this is too broad even for a category. ThemFromSpace 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of making this a category instead of keeping it as a list. Any reason why this should remain as a list, or why this shouldn't be turned into a category? Kotiwalo (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, then turn it into a category. it's too much to make it a stand alone article but maybe a category would fit. just don't call it funny, since it's not very objective to use such an adjective in an article, even less in a category.--camr nag 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually funny animal is defined (see my nomination message). It is an animation term referring to all anthropomorphic animals (not just the actually funny ones). It has caused a bit of confusion though. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, then that should be noted on the introduction of the potencial category.--camr nag 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but maybe it should still be renamed to something that isn't so confusing, like anthropomorphic animals or something like that. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    that's a better option.--camr nag 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:CLT this should never be a list. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote -Category- I've changed my vote in favor of making this a category. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of category too, does anyone oppose cleanup, checking, and moving to a category? Kotiwalo (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Thurlbeck[edit]

Neville Thurlbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This BLP stub seems like an obvious BLP1E case, no reliable sources have written about this individual apart from in regard to the one legal case mentioned. Polly (Parrot) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also invovled in breaking a story over David Beckham's private life [22] and the recent phone tapping scandal [23]. Thank you Google 92.23.165.153 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also "outed" a labour Cabinet Minister - do we have a BLP4E policy :-) 92.23.165.153 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As chief reporter for one of the world's highest-selling newspapers he's pretty obviously going to be notable, and that's confirmed by the sources found above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not sure whether leading reporters for major newspapers are necessarily notable, but the sources on this guy ensure that he is. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm usually very critical of WP:BLP1E and of what I often see as false notability for journalists, but neither apply to him. Certainly more than one event and his notability is beyond trivial mentions, has significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly someone who has had a colourful career. Numerous cites. Francium12 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Heartland Wrestling Association. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Luchacore Championship[edit]

American Luchacore Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not see a reason this deserves its own page. It may be notable enough for a mention in the HWA's article, but not its own page. I say delete or merge.--WillC 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —WillC 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN title, no indications it is notable (especially since it's promotion is just barely notable itself. Maybe merge the content to the main HWA article. TJ Spyke 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Even the nominator says that the content is notable enough to be kept in the main article. Merging it is the obvious way to go, then. Creating an AfD in a case like this is inapporpriate, and I request that the nominator withdraw this AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I nominated it was: I thought it was fake, I was torn between keeping and deleting, so I instead decided to let other users decide.--WillC 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Confirmation from Heartland Wrestling Association that the title is not fake: [24]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, good. I'm still unsure if it is should be mentioned though.--WillC 17:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Heartland Wrestling Association. The championship is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the main article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous commentary. GetDumb 08:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browsealoud[edit]

Browsealoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A user blocked indef for promoting similar software pointed to this article, and lo and behold he was right. No sources for claims of notability. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No indication of notability, no sources of any kind to back up the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per the first two links provided by Joe Chill (though the first one is somewhat weak and reads like a PR piece. This link, though, is a blog and likely can't be used to establish notability. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Public Technology link appeared in a Google News search so it is reliable. A WebProNews link is in the article and a link that says that the software won an award is also. Joe Chill (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per this, this, this, and more. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reception section, an external link, and a link that says that the software won a major award. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Premier[edit]

All Premier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem notable--WillC 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular! 2: The Dream Continues[edit]

Spectacular! 2: The Dream Continues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted PROD was Fails WP:NFF. Also This article is a substantial copy from Spectacular! for the infobox. Web hits that mention this as a film project are from non-reliable sources such as blogs and gossip sites which are speculations about the future. Cast list is copy from Spectacular!. Musical numbers are pure invention and have no basis on anything. One of the purported cast is a Disney contract actor with zero chance of being in a Nickelodeon project. Variety reference is non-existant. NrDg 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Previous AfD nomination here, which involved Zac Efron in the cast and Hotel California as a song (mm-hmm). No sources at all once again, and no, Mitchell Musso isn't going to jump to Nick anytime soon, nor is Pink Floyd going to let Nick actors turn their classic song into a peppy musical piece. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one falls somewhere between non-notable and hoax (though I think Hell will freeze over before Pink Floyd gives a crap about that Eagles song...). - SummerPhD (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was referring to Money being in the song list of this article, which will never, ever (x381) be sung in a kid's flick. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment My bad. (Next version should list "Layla" and be done with it.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of Death (comic book)[edit]

Shadow of Death (comic book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The creator contested the prod. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take EXTREME insult at the use of the word "trivial" IF someone would actually take the time to LOOK they would see there is plenty about inZane Comic and the Shadow of Death series on varies site. Goin' in and lookin' at two pages doens't tell you anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathZ13 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC) — DeathZ13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I did multiple searches and only found trivial mentions that are summaries of the series and places to read it online. I'm not insulting you. Joe Chill (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should choose your words more carfully. TRIVIAL is an insult any way you look at it. Maybe there is not enough out there to make you happy. But that does not make it trivial. Shadow of Death has an official webpage.. is the first known comic book to have an official theme song. Is listed on Comic Vine, DrunkDuck, indyplanet, myspace and other websites! And if that's not enough for you then so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathZ13 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about making me happy. It's about satisfying the guidelines. The word trivial is used all the time on Wikipedia. The sources are trivial according to WP:BK. Myspace is not a reliable source. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At the risk of antagonizing everyone present, I will state that I feel neither side has made a truly air-tight argument regarding the article's worthiness. In this "no consensus" closing, I would invite the article's supporters to work to strengthen the text and referencing. I would also invite the article's opponents to consider revisiting this as a second nomination later in the year, in the event we hear nothing further from Mr. Snowdon and/or his supporters and that his accomplishments are, indeed, a flash in the pan. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Snowdon[edit]

Barry Snowdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a local street sweeper who foiled a mugging and dealt with a small fire some months later - article apparently written by someone campaigning for this person to get an award and in a style that reads like a local newspaper piece. Wholly non-notable outside of his local area and wholly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's campaign for an award. Fails WP:BIO. Astronaut (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Completely unnecessary. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - A first glance it might appear to be just some local interest guy, but he actually just won a national award for his acts - don't be fooled by the name of the award "Local Government Council Worker of the Year" as it refers to the nature of those competing for in, not the scope of the award. Additionally, he has been covered by more than a dozen time in reliable sources for his actions/awards:
  1. Article about recent award
  2. Second article about the recent award
  3. Third article on recent national award
  4. Article about being nominated for the award he just won
  5. Local article asking people to vote for him
  6. Article about people campaigning for him
  7. Another article about people campaigning for him
  8. Article about his 2nd heroic act
  9. Earlier award for his first heroic act
  10. Another different award
  11. TV show surprises him with recognition + free trip for his actions
  12. 2nd article about same TV surprise
  13. Article about being nominated for yet another different award
  14. and more

Considered collectively, this is clearly coverage that goes beyond "one event" or mere "local interest news." He has been recognized by numerous different people over a 2+ year span. Problems with the article's tone can be fixed via editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I really do think that "one event" applies here. It was really for putting out a fire that he was nominated, and the coverage stems from that nomination and subsequent win. This is classic local paper filler material, and as Barry himself says ""I'm not a super hero, just a road sweeper who takes pride in keeping Warsop clean for the residents." Exactly. To excuse the pun, a flash in the pan. Fences&Windows 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Receiving a national level award passes notability standards, though the article should be trimmed. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on sources found by ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if newspapers talk about the event more than once, it's still WP:BLP1E. And awards for the one event aren't seperate events. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except it was at least two separate events. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor acts of bravery that got him some local press coverage do not amount to notability. Fences&Windows 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the sources are local, nor are all the awards he won. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources provided by ThaddeusB are all local: thisisnottingham.co.uk, teletext.co.uk/regionalnews/eastwestmidlands, fenlandcitizen.co.uk/latest-east-midlands-news/, chad.co.uk, mansfield103.co.uk all deal specifically with the East Midlands area of the UK. The report on accessmylibrary.com says "From Nottingham Evening Post". Astronaut (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A local source would be specific to Warsop. A source dedicated to a specific region, is by definition regional, not local. (And several of the sources do cover the whole country, but divide their coverage up by region.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP this is notable and interesting article for the Wikipedia. Needs clean-up though. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor acts of bravery and awards for such are not notable enough for wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the meet the WP:GNG, then yes, they are. This one does, and so is indeed worthy of Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on likely transient "fame". A clarification on BLP1E however - it has been pointed out before Lee Harvey Oswald could fall into this category. The event is an important part - not just the one. Do we have an article on the mugging? Do we have an article on the fire? Do we have an article about the campaign? No, No, No. If the event is not notable then the participant in the event seems even less so. The fact that there were two non-notable events does not exempt someone from BLP1E - excpet via wikilawyering. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The these other artcles do not (yet) exist, does not diminish the notability of this one. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have the deceny to read stuff you link to, and have the decency to read how my comment above was split into two elements - and that my argument to delete is not based on "other stuff not existing". Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the comment placed as and where it was, and responded. Please yourself try to extend a little good faith. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read AGF one day, when you have time - you may be astounded to learn if goes both ways. The facts are simple - In my opinion this in a transient award which does not merit coverage. In addition (with respect to my commentary and not my opinion on the article) there was conversation above regarding BLP1E that needs to be settled - BLP1E has too much focus on one rather than event when it should be the other way round - the event drives the notability. But that was my comment on the above discussion (you are, I am sure, aware AFD is a discussion, hence why it was moved form VFD many years ago) which I made in one place with my delete opinion. There is no requirement to break up this whole process with responses under each individual comments - I have faith in the closing admin to work through the debate. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you have an opinion and that mine differs from yours does not make either of us automatically right or either of us automatically wrong. I found the sources and argument presented by User:ThaddeusB to be quite convincing, and have myself begun improvements to the article, rather than just let it sit there and be debated in its poorer form. That multiple local acts of heroism were deemed notable enough to then receive continued national attention and national awards kinda pushes it over the bar for me, thank you. We may not agree in this instance, but improving the article i\nmproves Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have twice shoved AGF at me tonight Michael when you clearly have no clue what it is about. This started over your badgering of my oppose at RFA (now retracted) and even though I came to your talk to thank you for you work at the article you relentlessly push your bad faith and ill informed opinion as to where my oppose is grounded. Please drop it. I've got my opinion, you've got yours. It's interesting to note your "...you have an opinion and that mine differs from yours does not make either of us automatically right... comment when I'm not objecting to your keep vote isn't it.... I'm going to bed so feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD Pedro :  Chat  23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve article and sourcing of notability through normal editing[25] AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All eleven Google news hits are local news sources. Astronaut (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have begun the needed cleanup and sourcing to the article. While the acts of bravery themselves were "local" and of questionable note, the events have since received national exposure and recognition, thus meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG. Had it stayed local, the recognition might not be generally notable outside his town. But now that recognition has moved nationally and been recognized in a broader context, assures its worthiness for inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, mentions in Mansfield Chad, This Is Nottingham, Mansfield 103 and Fenland Today are no more than local coverage and a very long way from "national exposure and recognition". The article will therefore still fail to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG. Astronaut (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disgree and will continue to improve the article. Thet local actions have taken national recognition, even if some of the sources are "local" paper though others are not, allow his notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found an additional source - BBC Nottingham story: "Local hero street cleaner Barry Snowdon has been named as the bravest council worker in Britain." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add these to establish notability:
  • And these to build the article:
    • Profile at gov't page: [27]
    • Profile at award page: [28]

--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) And a couple more decidedly not local sources:[reply]

--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is not notable. Collecting a string of mentions of a couple of incidents in various newspapers does not establish notability, otherwise every parochial incident which gets mentioned in newspapers for a day or two would be notable. Local newspapers often give coverage to quite trivial matters: often even more trivial than this, and the fact that this man's exploits have been mentioned in local newspapers in Nottingham and Mansfield comes nowhere near satisfying Wikipedia's standard of substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this might usually be the case... except it stops being local trivia when that local heroism receives recognition on a national level... with a national television show and a national award, and then been subsequently covered in sources outside that locality. Ceratainly the local press are proud of this fellow, and their coverage is extensive, but wider coverage exists and has just been added to the article. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree at all. I have known national press and television to decide to give coverage to utterly trivial events. For example, a bus conductor was sacked for allowing tea to be served to passengers on his bus. He wrote to a local newspaper, and from there it spread to numerous national papers. The incident does not deserve an encyclopedia article because of that coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the bus driver receive both regional and national awards for his actions? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't subjective - national coverage establishes notability. We don't decide what deserves coverage, our sources do and we go with it. To say otherwise is an argument for "I don't like it". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline which says that "national coverage establishes notability"? I am not aware of one. If there is then I wonder how it is reconciled with the general notability guideline requirement for "significant" coverage: surely trivial coverage does not become significant coverage just because it has appeared in a national publication. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • National coverage doesn't automatically confer notability. A good example would be the recent AfD on Stephen Trujillo, who was also decorated for bravery. He was specifically mentioned in one of Reagan's State of the Union speeches and his bravery was speeled out in the speech. The speech was covered by nearly every credible news service in the US. A large number of them, of course, many national outlets did sidebar type stuff on Trujillo. But the Trujillo article couldn't withstand the AfD a stand alone and it was merged to another one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage" refers to the length/quality of the coverage, not the nature of the material covered:
  • Clearly nearly all the 20+ sources meet the definition of "Significant coverage."
    Note, that by official guidelines local coverage would be sufficient to establish notability. There is not an official consensus that local subjects aren't notable and proposals have thus far failed to establish guidelines on how to determine if a local subject is notable. However, there is a general precedent that local celebrities need to have coverage beyond their local newspaper to be notable, which is why I pointed out that this "local figure" does have coverage beyond his local paper. It is not an official guideline that national coverage establishes notability, just as it is not an official guideline that local coverage does not establish it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Birley#Charnock. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charnock Hall Primary School[edit]

Charnock Hall Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable elementary school; fails WP:N. PROD removed by article creator without reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Potter Musical[edit]

A Very Potter Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising of a non-notable production; created to take advantage of the latest Harry Potter film release. sixtynine • spill it • 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only claim to notability is an item on Michigan Public Radio. This warrants, at best, a sentence in the Harry Potter article or in an article on trademark/copyright infringement. Racepacket (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable play. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very unfortunately, this falls towards delete. This is a really well done musical, and I highly encourage you all to watch it, but unfortunately, this has only one minor mention in a reliable source, which isn't enough for inclusion as a stand-alone article. NW (Talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Notability. This only needs a mention in the Parodies of Harry Potter article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it weren't for Wikipedia i would probably not have found this brilliant musical. Sermoa (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Discussion of this piece of work is all over the internet and Wikipedia is the only complete source of information. Yes, it could be considered a plug for the video, but since no one profits from the viewing, that seems irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.130.254 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the IP's only edit. Joe Chill (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also only the second edit the registered "keep" user has made as well. sixtynine • spill it • 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither of the 2 "keep" edits addresses Wikipedia's notability policy. In fact the first one implies that there is a lack of documentation elsewhere: the exact opposite of asserting that there is substantial coverage. The second one also says "Wikipedia is the only complete source of information", again the opposite of what is needed. The fact that nobody is profiting is irrelevant: WP:PROMOTION refers to "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several reliable secondary sources regarding the production of this musical, and having an article like this is and can be a potentially great resource regarding the production. And as far as addressing the notability policy: it's notable in its unique status as a popular non-profit project based on a very popular series of books and films. This show is in no way affiliated with the films in any way, so its illogical to claim that it is some sort of advertisement for the films or is attempting to benefit from the success of the films, especially as this project gained notability independently of the newest film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.20.11 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments in response to the above "keep" comment.
      1. This is this IP editor's only edit to date.
      2. If there are "several reliable secondary sources" then it would be good to be told what they are. So far the links and "references" posted are largely self-promotional. We have been given links to a YouTube clip, to io9 ("a science fiction blog", according to its Wikipedia article), to blip.tv ("a hosting, distribution and advertising platform", according to WP article), one brief news report originating from Michigan Public Radio, which reads very much like a report paraphrased from a press release, and an even briefer mention by Detroit Free Press which tells us the show has had attention on blogs and is a "hit" on YouTube. This is certainly not extensive independent coverage.
      3. The sentence beginning "And as far as addressing the notability policy..." still ignores the WP notability policy: it says nothing about independent coverage, and "its unique status as a popular non-profit project" has no connection with that policy at all.
      4. It is difficult to see the point of "its illogical to claim that it is some sort of advertisement for the films", as nobody has made that claim. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that several articles published in legitimate forums (Detroit Free Press, Michigan NPR), numerous personal and news blog postings, interviews with cast members, and thousands of viewings on youtube this article meets the notability requirements. At no point do Wikipedia's own guidelines regarding notability state how MANY articles must reference the subject in question before it is considered notable. The standard of web notability on Wikipedia (for which I think this play must be most closely categorized because it is loaded onto youtube and they are as yet no definitive play guidelines) state:

"1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

and elsewhere it is stated:

"a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

I will state that, in my opinion, two reliable secondary sources, the original material, interviews, etc. constitutes "significant covered" for a small, student play put on youtube. The fact that this has garnered any professional press is, in my opinion, significant because in most large cities a school production is largely irrelevant, even on a slow news day.

I also feel that, though these are not current Wikipedia rules and I respect those current rules, widespread personal blog reporting and page hits/video viewings should constitute a valid proof of notability considering the era in which we live and the very reason Wikipedia itself has become so widely used and increasingly respected. The concept of notability and the relevance thereof is widely disputed even on Wikipedia (there are Wikipages devoted to the various arguments for and against notability requirements) because of the incredibly subjective and Western/Professionally/Globally biased nature of the concept of notability and the invalid assumption that search engines provide proof or a lack thereof with regard to notability.

I do not believe that the article is written from an advertising point of view, but rather that it unbiasedly addresses the creation and performance of the play and subsequent internet popularity. I understand how it could be seen as advertising but also feel that it is near impossible to source an original play, film, work of literature, etc. without referring to the art in question and that it is extremely responsible to make the performance or piece viewable in the sources.

99.135.198.163 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)lunamorgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamorgan (talk • contribs) [reply]

FYI - one keep vote per person, please. Nathan T 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely non sourced with anything approaching notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gauthier[edit]

Daniel Gauthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable and no reliable secondary sources are found. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have made several searches and failed to find any third party coverage at all. For example, a Google news search for "Daniel Gauthier" fonts produced nothing; "Daniel Gauthier" produced 15 hits for other people of the same name but none for the font designer; the first 30 hits from a general Google search produced numerous sites which make his fonts available for download but nothing about Gauthier except the "interview" linked from the article, which is on a site offering his fonts, and cannot be regarded as independent. Other searches produced similar results. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a lack of substantial, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. He's a working designer, but does not satisfy WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Wrestling at the 1977 Summer Universiade[edit]

Freestyle Wrestling at the 1977 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unless I missed the moment when we became a sports almanac, this entity (I hesitate to call it an "article") should go. Perhaps freestyle wrestling did occur at the 1977 Summer Universiade. Perhaps, during those halcyon days of the early Carter administration, Mr. Shells did go deep behind the Iron Curtain, surrounded by Soviets, other Eastern Bloc types (and a smattering of Mongolians, from that oft-forgotten eastern outpost of Soviet domination), a contingent of Japanese, and an Iranian competing just before the last gasps of the Pahlavi dynasty were to commence that autumn. But we are given not a hint as to why we should care. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable amateur competition and several other events from the same competition have their own articles. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of the 9 articles in Category:1977 Summer Universiade, 7 of them were created by the same author within the past couple of weeks. The same editor, Leeswoo00 (talk · contribs), has been creating a lot of Universiade related articles, often containing only tables of results. Perhaps merging into the main article for each year's Universiade article would be a better approach. Astronaut (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for multisport competitions like the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games or the Pan American Games, the format has been to have separate result table articles for each discipline. While it would be nice to have some narrative or discussion of highlights, that should not be a requirement for having a separation of the results by discipline. Think of these as stubs for future growth. Racepacket (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Universiades may be sufficiently notable to have general articles about each overall competition, but I do not believe they are notable enough to warrant going into sport-by-sport detail like this. Put it this way: the 2009 Summer Universiade just ended last week. Did you see it on television? Do you remember reading any articles about it in the newspapers? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Comment Actually the Universade airs on Fox College Sports...which means still nobody talks about it outside of amateur circles. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into 1977 Summer Universiade. That article is only a page long. This article has nothing to give any context to the table of results. A merge of the two (and the other individual sports from 1977) would be better in every way than the status quo. --Stormie (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the useful encyclopaedic content, and delete the material that violates WP:DIR. GetDumb 08:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kleómenes Stamatiades Concha[edit]

Kleómenes Stamatiades Concha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A 15-year-old actor. Page contains lots of tivia and little substance - borderline speedy deletion candidate. Created by an unregistered user in place of a redirect; I was feeling generous and moved it to a separate page (but the user didn't respond to my message and didn't edit the page since). Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I'm really sorry I didnt answer... but I've been busy... I've answered in the discussion...
I think this page is not violating any law... I mean, it is an enciclopedic article... it is a 15-year-old actor...
I think it is a good article, considering everything it says (obviously you have the last word.)
And yes, Ive the same problem with es.wikipedia... But as I said before, I just dont know why do you want to delete this article...
I mean, I'm a fan, and I saw that there wasnt a page for this actor, so I created one, with 100% veridic data.
I created in spanish, and in english...
I'm new at wikipedia, so I dont know all the rules, and laws... so, please, can you help me to know why is this article a bad article...
what may I change???
(This is what I posted at the discussion)
Im really sorry I havent answer... Thank you ver much for changing my article...
I' really dont know why you want to delete this page, I think it is enciclopedic...
Of coarse, I had the same problem with es.wikipedia... But I really dont know why you want to delete it, I mean; I'm a fan, and I saw that there wasnt a page for this actor, so, I created one...
I think it is an enciclopedic theme... it is a 15 year old actor...
I think it is not promotion... (of coarse you have the last word)
well... I'm really sorry I didnt answer this before....
Thank you very much again... 189.141.55.238 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we ourselves found when trying to research the article is that we are having difficulties in confirming anything at the page. What you would need to do to answer the concerns is show that the actor has been written about in either newspapers, magazine, news reports, or in books... and then include those sources in the artcle. Please read WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS to better understand what conditions must be met for inclusion in Wikipedia. We're here to help... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference in the article is a personal page at http://www.kleomenes.com/ -- and that has no information about the person, just a drawing of a Volkswagen 181 Safari. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, then, If I post the issues of the magazines, and the youtube direction for some videos,will it be ok?? I have them... well, some of them... hope this helps... just adding, the page has been under constrution, like for 3 months... when I discovered it... So, I will add the information... (Can I write youtube adresses??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.55.238 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube and social networking sites, blogs, forums, etc. are not considered reliable sources so please don't add these as references, thank you. Astronaut (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, then I can't do anything... maybe when kleomenes.com is open... 189.141.55.238 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. SNOW closure. Enigmamsg 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hiller[edit]

Lee Hiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN autobio spam from a COI editor Triplestop x3 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Forth The End Of Days[edit]

Bringing Forth The End Of Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK: non-notable author's only book, published by a vanity press. Prod contested without explanation or improvement. Hqb (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stevenson[edit]

Paul Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability. Hundreds of university professors have published their work, this one is no different, and there is nothing unusual or special. Further more the article is a significant copy of pages from his employers website, as found by CorenSearchBot. Patchy1Talk To Me! 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Better to expand this article and create others on people who have published 60 papers. Abtract (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There does not appear to be anything special about this person. Triplestop x3 15:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • note. I have fixed the copyvio problem (if one existed) and added some more substance. Abtract (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Among papers where he's first author, the best only has 15 citations in Google scholar; two his other papers, where he played a non-leading role as part of a larger team, are a little better cited but not well enough to convince me that he passes WP:PROF #1. There is no sign that he passes the other WP:PROF criteria. And the heel size formula in the Grauniad, while an amusing sidelight, does not seem enough to base a biography on. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Order of authors is unassessable information in this field. Apart from that I agree with above comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HOAX Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The valley cr3w[edit]

The valley cr3w (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unsourced article on a Channel 4 series that has apparently been on the air since 2000, but remarkably doesn't seem to have generated any evidence of existence on the Internet - no reviews, no news articles, not even any fanfic- , barring this article. Would appear to be a hoax, although possibly not quite blatant enough a hoax for a speedy deletion. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like the nominator, I can't find any evidence this show actually exists. Unreferenced, unverifiable, probable hoax. --Muchness (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 google hits. Triplestop x3 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with haste A nicely written article... encyclopedic and quite informative. However, even Channel 4 itself cannot offer evidence of its existance[29]... and this is quite strange considering the allegation that it is still aring after 9 years. Another interesting mis-fact, is that although a Stan Boardman exists, he is an English actor and not a producer for Channel 4... and he has no credits for anything even remotely named "The valley cr3w".[30] Another point to muse is that the alleged series writer Anabel Fisher does not seem to exist either.[31] My opinion is that this article is a blatant hoax... nicely written and well formatted, but a hoax none-the-less. Considering that the author User:Jessandconor performed only this one edit ever, I find myself wondering just who the SPA actually is... and if an experienced editor is chuckling now over this very discussion. Delete. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Game[edit]

The Perfect Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreleased film (no planned release date) with one source: a blog. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The blog mentioned is an official blog by a journalist from the LA Times, and is perfectly valid as significant coverage in a reliable source. There's also this. --Michig (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The filmed premiered in March 2009, and has enough coverage in reliable sources before and after the fact to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NF. In considering the cast and the historic story, more available sources will likely become available over the next few months as Lionsgate decides to cash in. It improves the project to allow this encyclopedic and sourced article to stay and further grow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice article. The film is about an interesting historic event, and has plenty of coverage about it out there already. Dream Focus 04:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trains (video game)[edit]

Trains (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangalore bus routes[edit]

List of Bangalore bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE. There is no need to list every bus route in Bangalore on Wikipedia, and besides the existing list just appears to be a random list of WP:OR. SBC-YPR (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I wanted to know that, I'd look at the article about the Fifth Avenue Coach Company article. Any more sarcasm you need me to respond to? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the current article isn't even historical - it's about the routes operated by an existing company, and besides it has absolutely no sources whatsoever. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial decisions are outside the scope of this AfD, so discussion to merge can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Farm in popular culture[edit]

Animal Farm in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems most of the Animal Farm pages are at AfD today and this one, by far the most unencyclopaedic one, got missed. rectified. delete. Jack Merridew 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess of unsourced trivia. The notion of "Animal Farm in popular culture" is not notable and having such an "article" only serves as an attractive nuisance — masses of original research about the supposed meanings of song lyrics. It's a load of dreck unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom offers no rationale for deletion, apart from other related articles are being listed at AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "unencyclopaedic". I'll expand on that. Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Something in popular culture" is a standard formula on WP. This one is better than most of the type. Changing the policy and getting rid of them all is also an option, but good luck with that. Borock (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I would like some commentary, rather than a pure list. Additionally, some entries need to be clarified for verifiability. e.g. which episode of Coronation Street or Top Gear? etc. The JPStalk to me 17:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought we got rid of most of these articles two years ago. While we've kept a few, generally they tended to be magnets for unencylopedic fancruft, which is all we have here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, we kept about 1/3. Nominations stopped when it became clear the consensus was turning to keep. I look forward to restoring about half of the deleted ones in an improved manner, once its clear that consensus is still strong. A large part of the academic study of both literature and popular culture is made out of studying just these references. For many of them we should by now be able to find excellent sources. DGG (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IPC, although merging back into Animal Farm would also be an acceptable outcome. WP:IPC is designed to minimize such merging/splitting. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Animal Farm, removing every entry that isn't specifically sourced, which (as matters currently stand) would be all of them. It's clear that Animal Farm has had an impact on culture, so there surely are some references to be found. However not every single possible connection is necessarily worthy of inclusion. So merge. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a really unexpected nomination. AF is one of the most prevalent references in popular culture, and every one of them can be immediate sourced--to the primary work in which they appear, which is the source for straight descriptions such as this is. A quotation from a song is a source. Adding to Wikipedia what we see in front of us is not OR. Secondary sources can probably be found for almost all of them. I agree with Lar that not every possible connection is suitable for inclusion, but all significant reference in notable works are suitable. Only those who disapprove of all in popular culture articles could possibly regard this as unencyclopedic, and that view has been soundly rejected by the community. I note the nomination also, which seems to indicate a determined attack on all the subsidiary articles for this particular work, since no specific justification was given other than "the most unencyclopedic of all of them" . DGG (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not sure that if I see "Napoleon was a boar, a crashing bore" in a song lyric that I should immediately jump to the conclusion that the song is Animal Farm influenced. We tend to want to see references rather than just draw inferences. For example, take Pink Floyd's Animals ... Sure, it seems likely the group were so influenced, but why not dig up a reference to an interview with Roger Waters or whoever saying they were drawing from the story, or at least a reference to a critic making that claim? The article as it stands now is unencyclopedic. (but our response to that should be to fix it, rather than nom it for deletion) ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed detailed citation of that sort should be done when possible--it makes the article much more valuable-- but yes, I think it obvious that the quote you gave is a reference, and that anyone with a memory of the book is expected to recognize it. DGG (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made that quote up on the spot. So it's clearly synthesis and would have no place in a properly sourced article. Again, cites are needed either from the artist/author/musician stating the influence, or from a critic who spotted it, or to connect something is to synthesise inappropriately. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, the proper full sourcing is to exxactly where in the work it is--then anyone can check. That takes care of deliberately incorrect entries like your example. DGG (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Back to the Animal Farm article. Most of the items cited in the article are trivial, not encyclopedic. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's nice not to have all of this crap in the main article. Although most of it should probably be deleted, it'll keep popping up so it's more realistic to quarantine it in its own article. Ideally, the article should be improved along the line User:Lar suggests but fat chance of that happening. — AjaxSmack 02:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    “quarantine” is an apt term for this sort of problem; this “article” is not the place, however, for that; Wikia.com is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The only bits that are possibly of any significance are Animals, which would be better covered in the main article if sources emerge, and Snowball's Chance. The rest is junk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge anything useful back into the main article. The grand majority is useless and cannot be used at all. At most, one or two paragraphs of information can be used in the main article. TTN (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It can definitely be improved with more commentary and citations, but it's interesting stuff of the type I've seen in many Wikipedia articles. --Gloriamarie (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is in a pretty bad state, as an assortment of disconnected, mostly trivial, references, but there are definitely enough cultural references to make this a notable subject. One bugbear of mine is that this type of article always has a title "in popular culture". Why not just "in culture", so that we could include such unpopular artforms as opera and ballet? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Someone with more time on their hands than I have might like to look at Google Books and Scholar search results for "some are more equal than others"[32][33] and "four legs good"[34][35] to see if there is anything useful there that would help make this a proper article about Animal Farm in (popular if you must) culture rather than just a laundry list. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back to the main AF article; this is the kind of fictional article I think makes the most sense. Savidan 17:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the original article. what the hell? did the "in popular culture" section get old enough to have an article on its own? look mom, i have an article!--camr nag 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh, please; this is a random collection of snippits, factoids, and name-drops without any concise subject. I know we're not supposed to call things cruft, but in this case it's calling a spade a spade. Without getting into the nuances of our style guidelines this goes against several of our content policies including WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:OR and if an encyclopedic article is possible it would need a complete rewrite, scrapping all this triva clutter in the process. If anybody's willing to do that than be my guest, but what's here isn't worth saving or merging. ThemFromSpace 06:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although as Phil Bridger pointed out this is currently a very unsatisfactory article. (There are a couple of examples I'd remove because they are either trivial or ambiguous. And why aren't there any examples from the 1950s or 1960s?) -- llywrch (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wikipedia often documents how much something has influenced popular culture. It deserves its own separate article. Dream Focus 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per WP:LSC. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shinto shrines in the Netherlands[edit]

List of Shinto shrines in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List with only one red link. Rubenescio (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Gubser[edit]

Steven Gubser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable - article is about a minor academic figure, provides no arguments for his notability. Djr32 (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Multiple awards, medals, and notable fellowships; profiles in the NYT and USA Today. Amply satisfies both WP:PROF and WP:BIO (for his pre-university achievements). Hqb (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Along with the reasons mentioned by Hqb, he has two papers with literally thousands of citations each in Google scholar, and an impressive h-index of 46, so I think he clearly passes WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly cited author; passses WP:PROF #1. Salih (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep How one decides that a full professor of physics at princeton, perhaps the strongest physics dept. in the world, is a minor academic figure , escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has the prodder looked up, as anybody can do easily, the Google Scholar cites for this subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Per Google scholar hits here. Clearly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and possibly other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: Publishing papers, receiving grants, and even getting tenure at a prestigious university (though not generally considered the strongest physics department in the world!) is what academics do, and doesn't necessarily make them notable. I would see these all as being a great start to a career, without necessarily passing the notability test. (The newspaper mentions, which have been added since the AfD nomination, relate to his high school achievements which don't count under WP:PROF.) The highly-cited paper is probably the strongest argument - string theory isn't my area, and typical numbers vary a lot from field to field, so it's hard to judge where to draw the line here. I thought he was borderline, there certainly seems to be a strong feeling that he's notable! It would certainly improve the article if these matters were covered in it, rather than only being brought up when it's proposed for deletion! Djr32 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The high school achievements may be irrelevant for WP:PROF but they seem in this case to be highly relevant for WP:BIO: we don't delete articles on people who are notable for something else, merely because they also happen to be a professor. Although in this case as I've argued above it's moot because he also meets WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors new to the academic AfD pages always have the option of lurking on those pages for a while to familiarise themselves with the standards that prevail there before making further academic prods. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Not sure there's any need for the patronising tone. My WP experience is mostly in WP Physics, rather than trying to be part of the AfD clique... As to the IPhO, I note that we have articles on very few of the other people who have won it over the years! Djr32 (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Applying this argument to other subjects, then since writing novels is what novelists do, then we should start deleting numerous articles there; since performing in plays, movies & on tv is what actors & actresses do, that's another topic with lots of cruft in it; & since fighting battles & war is what generals do, we have another area with lots of cruft in needing attention. Simplistic arguments are very often dangerous ones. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. As thoroughly established above, Gubser is a major figure. String theory isn't my area, either, but even I have heard of this guy, who (along with Juan Martín Maldacena, Edward Witten, and a couple of others) discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence. {{Expand}} is a better way to go than AfD for articles that need improvement. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article present at the end of this debate is essentially a completely different one than the one that was nominated - a very large-scale expansion [36] by Uncle G at the end of the listing period has resulted in an article with a different name, an expanded topic, and almost completely different content. Any consensus that has therefore developed earlier in the discussion is therefore ultimately rather irrelevant. With the discussion leaning towards "keep" even without the improvements, I do not see much sense in continuing the debate at this time. ~ mazca talk 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public houses and inns in Grantham née Blue Pig[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Public houses and inns in Grantham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:Company. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. This is an average local pub with no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Research reveals a local newspaper story about ghosts in the pub - though no national sources other than the typical pub review sites, BeerInTheEvening, etc. WP:Company states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." I did consider a redirect to Grantham - however, there are other Blue Pig pubs. A possible solution is to redirect Blue Pig to Pub names, and to create a redirect for Blue Pig, Grantham to Grantham.

I did PROD this yesterday, but it was then pointed out that this article had been to a previous AFD and was kept. SilkTork *YES! 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pubs aren't notable, but buildings that have existed for 400 years and run the same business for 200 years are. Plenty of coverage in Google Books. However, if this article expands, it should be about the history of the pub and the hilding, not what drinks promotions are on this week. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't pick up significant material on this pub in Grantham in Google Books - though I did pick up discussion on pub names in Lincolnshire which include several pubs with the name Blue Pig - so a redirect to Pub names might make sense. Being a 200 year old pub is not in itself notable, as you'd need to go back 600+ years to be notable - such as Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem. 1800 was a peak pub building period, so many pubs in the UK are around 200 years old. SilkTork *YES! 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being built 200 years ago may not be notable, but surviving 200 years is more so. This is an older building as well. Although this really needs a few links. JASpencer (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I wasn't clearer. The majority of pubs in the UK date from the late Georgian and Victorian period. Some of the buildings were purpose built as pubs (mainly late Victorian), while others were converted from an existing use. The fact that a pub has been in business for 200 years is quite common, so is not in itself notable. And as Peterkingiron says, 16th century buildings are not unusual (nearly every town in the UK has several buildings of that age or older - the local church will almost certainly be pre-16th century) and are not listable just because of their age. It's a question of identifying what needs to be a standalone article, and what can be dealt with within the local article. I would say that the Blue Pig pub is so unremarkable that it may not even warrant a mention in the Grantham article, let alone a stand alone (though it does have a mention in Grantham). If people want to find information on local pubs they could turn to one of the many pub directory sites (put in Blue Pig Grantham in Google and the most popular will come up) - if people want information on notable pubs they will come here. We don't yet have a specific guideline for notability for pubs, though we do have a specific guideline for businesses (which is what a pub is), and that guideline is WP:Company - this pub does not meet the criteria for WP:Company as the only sources are a local newspaper and internet pub directories. If a reliable source (not vague Google "hits") can be found which asserts notability then we can close this AFD and work on building the article, but as it stands, this is just another pub. SilkTork *YES! 09:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per hits from Google News and Google Books, however the article needs to be expanded especially to assert it's notability, as it stands right now it's barely keepable. -- œ™ 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As a 400-year old building, it is presumably a listed builing. That might possibly make it notable, but buildings of that age are not exceptional in England. I thus have grave doubts as to its retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a grade II listed building. Keith D (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but if it is to be kept, I think it needs expansion. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grantham. Keep the history and mark it as a redirect with posibilities. It's almost certainly article worthy with 400 years of history, but there's nothing in the current article to give notability. JASpencer (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cobb County School District. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Middle School (Georgia)[edit]

Cooper Middle School (Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable middle school, lacking reliable sources to establish notability by WP:GNG or WP:SCH.

Prod removed by creator, with statement "Removed prod template; we don't need this anymore really; this article really doesn't need citatations yet; english" tedder (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JGH, why did you prod tag it instead or merging it or putting a merge tag on it? DGG (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because, in my experience, a merge tag on a single author, orphaned article such as this is likely to languish interminably. Typically, the creator will oppose the merge and it's a standoff. A prod, on the other hand, has the advantage of a specific deadline for action and it gets a third set of eyes involved, as opposed to unilateral action. JGHowes  talk 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and there is no content worth merging. I'm normally fond of keeping school articles, but not this one. I don't like it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Merge to district as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UBER (T-Pain album)[edit]

UBER (T-Pain album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One source for the whole page. All of the information is either copied DIRECTLY from the source or unsourced. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 08:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

UBER (T-Pain album)[edit]

UBER (T-Pain album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Again...? This time there are no sources. I say redirect to T-Pain and protect the page until new information is given. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The situation is exactly the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia (about a character by the same author). With respect to merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquinil Selei, also in the same situation.  Sandstein  05:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaibriol III[edit]

Jaibriol III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - if we ever get an article on The Ruby Dice it will mention him, but he isn't a generally notable character and as Jack says, no sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate character list.Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as on of the central characters of the Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Otherwise merge per previous editor. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. Any significant character should get a one or two paragraph description. We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to relevant articles about the book series. Probably doesn't pass notability on its own, but certainly important enough to an award-winning series that deletion seems extreme. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - no evidence of notability outside the series; thus fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Savidan 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:SS spinout, or alternatively merge per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete AfDs are not votes. This character fails to have real world notability. Article consists of pure plot regurgitation. Abductive (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the series is notable, then all the major characters in it are notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Character doesn't meet our notability guidelines as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Furthermore, the article is written entirely from an in-universe standpoint, violating the guidelines at WP:WAF. This also contains no references for verification and it reads like original research. I'm not confortable suggesting a merge as this currently violates two of our core content policies. ThemFromSpace 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The situation is exactly the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia (about a character by the same author). With respect to merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquinil Selei, also in the same situation.  Sandstein  05:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquine Iquar[edit]

Tarquine Iquar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate chracter list. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous editor. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. A We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to work in question. Nothing in article worth merging though. Savidan 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 86 Google hits, nearly all of which seem to be on information aggregator sites. Abductive (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If its not a main character, then I agree, just put the information compiled with other minor players of significance, on a character list page. Dream Focus 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure where the editors above are suggesting we should merge this to, as the series' article redirects to the author. A merge/redirect to a character list would be acceptable, if one existed. Anyway, this article fails our notability guidelines as the character hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The content within this article fails two of our core content policies as it contains no sources for verification and reads like original research. ThemFromSpace 07:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyhianna Selei. The article is entirely unsourced (not even to the books) and contains almost only plot summary. It violates WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") and WP:N. The "keep" arguments do not address the lack of sources that is central to our core policy and have to be disregarded. Instead, they address the notability of the book series, which is unrelated to the question of whether there are reliable sources covering this character. The deletion of this article does not preclude, as DGG suggests, a brief and sourced description of the character in a parent article.  Sandstein  05:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia[edit]

Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I can't find a suitable target for merging, so closing this as keep to allow for continued discussion on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelricson Garlin Valdoria Skolia[edit]

Kelricson Garlin Valdoria Skolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As no consensus defaults to keep, discussion to merge can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurj Skolia[edit]

Kurj Skolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as on of the central characters of the Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Otherwise merge per previous editor. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or keep Any significant character in a notable work should get a one or two paragraph description. If it's a sufficiently major character, it should get an article. We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is certainly no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable in real world, only to plot. WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. These articles about minor characters from the same series could have been combined. Savidan 17:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows, no real world notability, no scholarly analyses, no internet buzz even. Abductive (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those above have already mentioned some great reasons to keep it. If the series is notable, then all the major characters in it are notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that is a guideline or policy on Wikipedia. There is, however, a policy WP:NOT#PLOT, which this article violates. Abductive (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As no consensus defaults to keep, discussion to merge can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eldrinson Althor Valdoria[edit]

Eldrinson Althor Valdoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as on of the central characters of the Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Otherwise merge per previous editor. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or keep if important enough in the story. Any significant character in a notable work should get a one or two paragraph description. We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is certainly no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same reason above. not notable beyond contribution to plot. Savidan 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this character isn't central to the plot, and that isn't a valid reason for keeping articles on Wikipedia anyway. Abductive (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If its a main character in a notable series, they get their own article. There is enough valid enough to justify that. Dream Focus 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point me to this guideline or policy that says, "main character in a notable series, they get their own article". Abductive (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyhianna Selei. Unsourced content should not be merged, but I will restore it for merging on request if sources are provided.  Sandstein  05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taquinil Selei[edit]

Taquinil Selei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The article is entirely unreferenced. Our notability guideline requires third-party coverage, which does not appear to be in evidence. The "keep" opinions do not address this.  Sandstein  05:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyhianna Selei[edit]

Dyhianna Selei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I cannot find any reference to licensing on the Fan Wiki page from which the entire page was copied, I have Speedy Deleted it as G12. In regards to the article itself, as was pointed out, this one fails WP:NOT#PLOT however that disputed policy is framed, and a far better version is contained in the history of the redirected article [37] Black Kite 11:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee White (NCIS episode)[edit]

Yankee White (NCIS episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was moved to Yankee White (NCIS) on 28 January 2007 to maintain consistency in episode naming for NCIS episode articles. The now redirected page was deleted on 7 February 2007, and again on 22 February 2007 (CSD G4) after it was recreated. A new editor has now recreated the original article, which is uncited and consists only of a plot summary, episode credits and trivia. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." This article does not conform to these requirements in any way. I nominated the article for speedy deletion, also under CSD G4, but the speedy was declined.[38] There was no need for a deletion discussion for the original delete as the article was moved to another page and the subsequent redirect became redundant. That the article is bigger than what is in List of NCIS episodes is not an issue, since the page should, in the event that there is a need to retain it, only be a redirect. The original move and subsequent deletions seem valid so this should have been a non-controversial delete. AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plot length is about 10 times as long as that of a proper episode article (e.g. a GA), and if someone was seriously interested in writing a propoer article, a plot summary of proper length is already present in the history of the old redirected article. The rest (trivia and a cast list) has no place in a proper episode article anyway. Nothing worth saving, not even as a redirect. – sgeureka t•c 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for a standalone article. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NCIS is one of my favorite shows, but Wikipedia has moved beyond the early days when people thought that every episode of every TV show was "entitled" to its own article. I'll concede that this one would be more notable than others, since it was the pilot/series premiere, but even if it's kept, Sgeureka is right-- this is TFL, too long. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cursory search shows that it is notable.[39][40][41] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs a re-write, but there is some notability and it is the pilot episode of a successful series. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As already indicated, the correct location for this article is Yankee White (NCIS) and there is a much better version of the article in the edit history there.[42] There really is no sense in keeping this version. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw it. I just don't think that short entry is equal to the longer plot recap of the one in this AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plot summaries are supposed to be concise. The one that is the subject of this AfD is far too long. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. While I agree that a standalone article for the series pilot is useful and most likely meets the criteria for notability, there's nothing in the existing version of this article worth saving.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio? Did anybody notice the text is from http://cbsncis.wetpaint.com/page/1.01+-+Yankee+White? Abductive (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several editors agree that the content is unsuitable for a merge at this time. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Pigs[edit]

Rebel Pigs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term is not used in any analyses of Animal Farm and is made up entirely for Wikipedia. It covers minor characters, and was deprodded. Abductive (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how does that affect merging the content? DGG (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I created an article on Characters with moustaches in the movie Network which treated the minor characters in that movie who happened to have mustaches? No other reviewers or researchers had even sliced the movie or its characters up this way. How would you merge that? Abductive (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#DELETE is the normative guideline. I don't see anything there that would clearly support deleting this in lieu of leaving it as a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole article is pure synthesis, absent any cites of critical literary analysis in reliable sources it all needs to go. It suggests that there is more text removal needed in the main AF article as well. delete and do not merge anything back absent solid citation. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-canonical term smells like original research. Savidan 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Term does not appear in the book, which I re-read this week. These pigs are just a brief mention and yon article is original research. I've removed the merge by Dream Focus and have renamed the section to "The young pigs" as they were described in the book; I've pared the whole section back. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Abductive (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pleased to have had a reason to re-read this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grafton Village Cheese Company[edit]

Grafton Village Cheese Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

STRONG DELETE What makes this cheese company notable enough to warrent its own wikipedia page? The only sources are to a few small town newspapers which hardly reaches the level of wikipedias sourcing requirements. The author fails to provide any sales, distribution, or anything special about this cheese company to differentiate it among the thousands if not millions pf cheese companies in the United States. Additionally, this article reads like a press release, not giving any information other than it opened a new 2500 sq foot facility. Wikipedia space can be dedicated to people and things that serve a higher more noble purpose. Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Broomhill, Sheffield Shootings[edit]

2009 Broomhill, Sheffield Shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable one time event; fails WP:N, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), and WP:NOT#NEWS. Prod removed by article creator without explanation or reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GO ON THEN, DELETE IT! AS IF I CARE! DO IT THEN! OOOH, YOU'RE TOO SCARED! OH DEAR. JUST DO IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldWikimapian (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We don't delete articles for being stubs. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Dental Association[edit]

Florida Dental Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

STRONG DELETE This is an unnecessary stub. The author should complete the article or it should be deleted. Wikipedia has too many stubs and uncited articles. These articles should be deleted and not given space like articles that fail wikipedias open ended and non-uniformly treated notability requirement. Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football Manager 2010[edit]

Football Manager 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This game has not yet been officially announced, and nothing about the game will be announced until "mid August". All that is known currently is a single screenshot of the work in progress new skin that was posted on Twitter by Sports Interactive director, Miles Jacobson when drunk (see previous link). There's nothing to include in the article yet, and anything that is included would be speculation. See also prod reasoning. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOVE Though I am hesitant to say this because the author has not put in much effort on the page. But if dreaded walrus is correct, then the page should be moved to the author's user page until the release date or until the page is properly constructed. Could it fall within wikipedias guidelines? Probably, but I believe this article is premature and the proper action is to move it under the author's user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidproquo1980 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certainly not opposed to userfying it. It doesn't need to be kept that way until the release date. Simply until there's actually something to write about the game, you know? Dreaded Walrus t c 06:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just delete it, per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:V, frankly: all of this is speculation and everything but the infobox would probably be better off rewritten once we actually have some concrete details. There's just... nothing really worth saving. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it as this isn't an American football game. --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just speculation at this point as no such game has been announced and is just a rumor at this point. This is true for most sports games, we know EA Sports will make a Madden NFL 11 but that doesn't mean it needs an article yet. TJ Spyke 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 01:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hi:) I've made a few changes to this page to generally make it tidier and more organised, added some links to it and generally padded it out. Don't see any harm in keeping it seeing as it's development has now been confirmed and there is something to write about on the page. Can easily be added to when more information is revealed, and may be useful to people who are looking for information on a future game. There is also a page on FM10 here. Cheers, arsenal_2111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.190.155 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has not received any significant, reliable, third-party coverage. A screenshot posted by one of the developers is nowhere near enough to start an article with. Marasmusine (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:56 7/8/9[edit]

AfDs for this article:
12:34:56 7/8/9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable occurrence. Google returns nothing but blog posts, and admittedly the occasional reliable source, however none report on it in a way that actually asserts anything. They just repeat that, yes, at such and such time it will be 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Happens every 100 years......it's called trivia, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Niteshift36. Trivia, not encyclopedia-worthy. • Anakin (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as plain trivia. Alexius08 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete waste of time. Of course, most people use at least two digits to express the year, so the pattern has no real validity unless one accepts an unconventional notation of using a single digit for the year. How many other similar articles would we allow, e.g., 08:08:08 8/8/08? Racepacket (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Racepacket indicates, this article is a complete waste of time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember that 1:23:45 on June 7, 1989 got brief notice also (even to the point that it made page 7 news when a baby was born at that time). And 1:01:01 on January 1, 2001 was special, and so will 1:11:11 on January 1, 2011, but this article, created two days before the event, has served whatever newsy purpose it might have had. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compeat Restaurant Management Systems[edit]

Compeat Restaurant Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:CORP, lacks third party coverage [45]. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one or the other, Parkerparked: "Delete" means delete, and "cut down" means keep.
  • Delete. "Notability" seems to be derived mainly from the fact that they got hit by Katrina. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? If they're notable, they're notable. Groomtech (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of drugs banned from the Olympics[edit]

List of drugs banned from the Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also:

Air pollutant concentrations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gaius Iulius Caesar (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles were imported from Citizendium. There are two problems with this: 1. This requires permanent attribution of the text as coming from Citizendium, no matter how many changes we make later. 2. The licence is not compatible, as Citizendium is not dual licenced, but Wikipedia is. This sets up a class of articles that have to be treated as single-licensed, Non-GDFL article. In short, it means that Wikipedia suddenly has a class of articles under a different licensing scheme from all the others. We can't set up a special class of differently-licenced article, surely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Importing CC-BY-SA content is certainly allowed, per Meta and Meta again. --Falcorian (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Falcorian. Yes, we can (and do) have 2 classes of article. See the license notice at the bottom of the screen? Only CC is guaranteed ("Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"). GFDL may also apply ("additional terms may apply"), but that's purely on a per-article basis and is the responsibility of the re-user to verify. In other words, you've got it backwards; the GFDL articles are the exception, not the rule.
Excerpting from the Terms of Use (emphasis mine):

Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License:
For compatibility reasons, any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under CC-BY-SA or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible. All text published before June 15th, 2009 was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility.

And regarding attribution:

Importing text:
If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. [...]
If you import text under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). [...] Regardless of the license, the text you import may be rejected if the required attribution is deemed too intrusive.

Considering we already attribute PD content sources w/ {{FOLDOC}} (and the like), I think {{citizendium}} can hardly be deemed "intrusive". --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a talkpage notice box to indicate CC-only articles? 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. As noted, this type of importing is allowed and envisioned by Foundation-level policy. It's true that we should make a bigger effort to notify people about the license issue before they reuse such contents, but there's no policy violation here.

— Gavia immer (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The article's content will fit within wikipedia's guide lines. However, it comes across as authoritative with horrible sourcing. Such an article should easily have one cite to the national olympic committee. If the authors fix this than my position will change, but until then it should be deleted. I know wikipedia is not always to be treated as authoritative but the topic of this article and the content it contains must be heavily sourced and verifiable. If not, then the wikipedia community is being reckless.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. It needs clean up is not a reason to delete. --Falcorian (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or if WP:ATA is preferred, see WP:RUBBISH. And it does cite the Anti-Doping Agency's own document on the subject... --Cybercobra (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Fitial[edit]

Josie Fitial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wife of politician, notability is not inherited. And she has done nothing special on her own to gain herself notability. Marcusmax(speak) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I read the CNMI papers and did not even know of her! Though I read plenty about her husband. I also worked in CNMI politics too. I agree this article should be merged or deleted, but probably deleted. She is a quiet figure and has not contributed anything positive to the CNMI.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Most first ladies are well known public figures. The same arguments could be given for deletion of Cherie Blair. • Anakin (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, Cherie Blair is notable in her own right. She was involved in a political race, has been a controversial figure etc. and has sources that can prove she has done this stuff. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fitial, like most First Ladies and Gentlmen, is important to her own local region. She has been active in charitable causes and other organizations in the islands. I will keep added additional information throughout the weekend. (I'm at the computer much this weekend). Scanlan (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im glad the locals look up to her, and I happy for her that she met 3 US presidents. However the fact still remains that without her husband there is a 99.999999% chance she wouldn't have her own article. Plenty of people have sent letters to Presidents and first ladies the only reason she got a story on it is because of her husband. Plenty of people do local charity work, in fact most firs ladies and gentleman do charity work and it only receives attention because of their spouse. I admit meeting 3 US Presidents is a monumental achievement, but what did she do with them did she just say hi and get shoved away, or did she do something notable. I would be willing to withdraw my nomination if you can find sources to indicate she has done something notable in her own right, perhaps ran for local office, caused a controversy, caused a major governmental change in her region and I will immediately reconsider. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three presidents was just something I added at the end for interest. It wasn't met as the basis for article. She is notable in the CNMI, as are most first spouses in their places of residence. I'll continue to add info this weekend. Thanks! Scanlan (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - she has gained some press, but first ladies/husbands are not pre se notable. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Additional information and sources were added yesterday. Keep Scanlan (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Notability and importance is vague, a few more inline citations should help strengthen the article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I'm deleting this early under WP:IAR as utter crap beyond any hope of salvation. The entire thing is a mindless rant that makes very little sense at all. I don't see that it's worth wasting the community's time over this article. If you feel I shouldn't have done this speedily, email me and I'll send you the text. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic harassment countermeasures[edit]

Electronic harassment countermeasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic editorial that doesn't seem to have proofs or rationale for it to be included here. I nominated it for deletion since speedy deletion doesn't seem to apply here. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tripperondatrack[edit]

Tripperondatrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Too Offishull Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mixtape Takeover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of why this musician/artist is notable. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced, and has been for a month. His record label (which he created) has been nominated for AfD below. He's only released a handful of singles, only four of which have charted, and all relatively low at that (note, the link for "Just do it" in the article goes to the wrong page). A search for "Just do it Tripperondatrack" returns an astonishing five hits, three of which are on WP or the Toolserver, and this was apparently his highest-charting hit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest multi-use buildings in the world[edit]

List of tallest multi-use buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list seems to be both overly specific and overly vague at the same time. What qualifies as a separate use for a building? Better question, why do we need a separate list for this? Poorly referenced besides, I'd recommend this be deleted, or failing that, merged into the standard tallest buildings list. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not have a list for this type of building? It just needs to be populated. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of tallest buildings in the world. I'm not sure what "multi-use" is supposed to mean, and the article doesn't explain that term at all. That phrase is subjective and I suspect all of the world's largest buildings are used for many different purposes. ThemFromSpace 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi-use means a combination, such as a skyscraper that houses offices, hotels, apartments, etc. in one building. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have trouble with this term. Most skyscrapers are not comprised of just offices. Does a food court count as a multi-purpose building? A shopping mall? Unless there is a clear definition for what constitutes "multi-use", and it is verifiable that this definition is used by either architects or the media at large, then I'd have issues keeping this article. ThemFromSpace 03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list contains the "tallest" multi-use buildings in the world. Most skyscrapers only have one use. Some have more than one use. I don't really understand what the big issue is here. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirect doesn't seem worthwhile, as the title isn't likely to be used. If the title were to be used as a link, "multi-use" would have to be defined there, anyway. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This would work better as an article about multi-use skyscrapers in general, rather than a list of which of the world's tallest buildings combine offices and residences. My suggestion would be to put the emphasis on the "multi-use" aspect of such structures, rather than simply repeating the info about year of construction, height in meters, etc. At the moment, this really is (as the nominator says) overly specific and overly vague at the same time. I do think that there's a topic that would be notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacking any evidence that this is a classification that is commonly used among architects etc, I can't see this being more than a list that has questionable criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be okay with redirecting this article, but i still think that it should be kept. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomfield Park[edit]

Bloomfield Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As this doesn't exist (yet), this appears to be a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and is written rather promotionally besides. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice against recreation - This can be rewritten by someone uninvolved with the project in a more neutral and less predictive manner if it is truly notable. There are references, but this is such a biased start I think a clean slate would be better. Chillum 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with possibility of being re-created if the place is ever finished, and in a more neutral tone at that. I don't think there is any need for an article about something that doesn't yet exist. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitchface[edit]

Bitchface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All that I can find is two trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. True, we should avoid biting the newbies, but this article needs to be judged on its own merits. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick London[edit]

Rick London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was originally tagged for speedy deletion but there is kind of some claim to notability. He shows up a lot in Google in association with some famous people, which I know is not notable in itself, but I felt it warranted wider discussion. ... discospinster talk 00:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dearth of third party sources. Website looks so amateurish I'm amazed at the claim about being #1 on Google - are there any official tables of this? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix This page should be moved until it is fixed. The sourcing is bad and certain statements such as the the "first cartoonist to go green" definitely needs to be substantiated. I put little stock in the google ranking, since that is an art on and of itself and any competent web guy could help manufacturer that statistic. I would say moved before deleting, the author needs better sources and to verify some of his/her claims.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK)[edit]

Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to copy, practically verbatim, information that is better used as parts of the articles they describe. I don't believe there is any need for this article and it looks like a content fork to me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevent, referecned, and not-WP:UNDUE-violating content to relevent individual season articles, and redirect this article to Big Brother (UK). --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much already there anyway but I suppose it would be worth checking. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then just redirect it then... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, the information in the article is taken pretty much directly from the individual articles (BB1, BB4, BB6, whatever) and thus redirecting isn't really an option. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete show trivia best left at individual series articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've changed my mind due to Chris Neville-Smith. As one of the most controversial programmes on TV, I think this should be kept. DJ 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge honestly better off inside the show's article itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep well sourced article that deserves it's seperate existance. Artw (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps it needs to be structured better, but as one of the most controversial television programs in Britain, it certainly should be kept. I mean, if a show like Torchwood can have its own criticism article, then Big Brother certainly deserves one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosherdude91 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not needed at AfD. If user keeps recreating, request protection at WP:RFPP. Malinaccier (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tansuit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tansuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was re-created following previous redirect. No reliable sources found to verify notability. Redirect is inappropriate because the subject is non-notable, also the subject (Tansuit) is an implausible misspelling of the character's actual name (Tansit). —  X  S  G  01:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Material form this page was merged to the redirect so deleting is absolutely not an option - deleting would not allow for proper attribution as required by on content licenses. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change should just have been discussed and then reverted back to the redirect. No need to use AfD when there is a clear and obvious consensus on article content. DGG (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 04:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS&T[edit]

AfDs for this article:
BS&T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a hoax, wasn't sure it was blatant enough to speedy.

Also listing this related article Shaking My Maracas, another hoax by the same individual. Polly (Parrot) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreation once she meets WP:MUSICBIO}} Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Kaprelian[edit]

Tamar Kaprelian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer/actress with one non-chart single, no album, one minor acting role. No evidence of notability outside of YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, blogs & forums; and no writeup in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC Astronaut (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough due to the release of her song on iTunes but I agree we should wait until her album is released. Facha93 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see where she passes WP:MUSICBIO. Having a song on one episode of a show is a step towards notability, but only a step. Being on iTunes..... that isn't going to get it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep mildly notable, but it's borderline. -Falcon8765 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline notability, but on the wrong side of the border. Perhaps she will be notable if and when her album comes out, but she isn't yet. ThemFromSpace 00:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Themfromspace. Pretty good chance of future notability, but not yet. ReverendWayne (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun (novel)[edit]

Shotgun (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 87th Precinct. - Altenmann >t 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - normally, I would lean towards redirecting, but nobody is going to do a search for "Shotgun (novel)"; they'll go to shotgun or directly to the 87th Precinct page. Book seems to be out of print; nothing to indicate it's been adapted to another medium. Matt Deres (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I found the NYT Book Review. It's the only one I've found so far, but archives of 1969 newspapers are mostly still on Microfilm or in databases I don't have access to. I find it unlikely the Times was the only paper to review this book... likely there are ample sources out there to meet the notability guideline the nominator mentions, and a review in pretty much the best known American book review publication is pretty solid evidence. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Mostly due to the review in the NYT. Since the book is dated I'm willing to grant that additional sources may be found to boost the weak claim of notability established by the review. Since the article doesn't break any of our policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR its doing no active harm to the encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the keep "votes" provide exceedingly weak arguments. Nonetheless, there's no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Road Comprehensive[edit]

Waterloo Road Comprehensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing at all notable about this fictional building. Completely redundant to Waterloo Road (TV series) and seems to be another excuse to cram even more description about the plot of this show. Everything in this article is about the plot of the show; there is no need for this article at all. And, vitally, it contains absolutely no real-world context. The JPStalk to me 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, no third-party sources have been offered to suggest that this article can ever come up to standard. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears on results, it is used as a synecdoche of the plot, not the building itself. Redundant fork. The JPStalk to me 08:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, the school itself is not notable by our standards as it hasn't been the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, much of this material is unreferenced, going against our policy on verification. Going beyond verification, this also appears to be nothing but a synthesis of plot-related material without any actual analysis from a real-world perspective. Wikipedia isn't a place to write plot summaries about minor and nonnotable elements of fiction. ThemFromSpace 00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep under the assumption that some of the many reviews of it have talked about it in a significant way--The plot of the overall show can have many components worthy of separate discussion and this may be one of them . if not, merge, or at least make a redirect. No reason is given why there shouldn't be a merge. The material is certainly verifiable, from the primary source, as appropriate for this content, and is thus neither OR nor SYN--just simple description.. NOT PLOT is a disputed guideline, and in any case there is no consensus for it referring to more than the overall coverage of a fiction in Wikipedia. When in a merged article, it wouldn't apply in any case. RW perspective can be added--this is a question of editing, not deletion. Agreed, the detail is excessive--this again is a question of editing not deletion. And, what is more, the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in WikipediaDGG (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If reviewers "have talked about it in a significant way", why did the writers of this "article" not feel that their comments worthy of a mention? Rather than rambling on about the plot? Regardless of PLOT being a disputed guideline, let's use common sense! All of this description about this show is excessive -- the parent article; the billions of character articles, and now this? The JPStalk to me 07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The JPS is just looking for another excuse to get rid of everything and anything to do with Waterloo Road. Despite ALWAYS complaining about every article, he makes no effort himself what-so-ever to improve them. Also, the article is a massive improvment on what it was originally and how can you say it has nothing to do with the building itself???? Look at the article - 2008 Fire, 2009 Demolition, the fact it was facing closure in Series 1, the future of the school etc. I suggest you take a long hard look at those guidelines yourself JPS because its looking very much like double standards. The only aspect of the article that you can really aim some critic at is the way its written, which CAN be changed, despite you saying the articles "have no hope". I repeat KEEP 92.21.58.113 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's so nice to hear another reasoned argument based upon Wikipedia guidelines. I've been keeping an eye on WR articles and have seen absolutely no improvement over the last few months. The emphasis is still on plot. Minimal references. No real-world context. User:Themfromspace articulated better than I why this is unacceptable. The JPStalk to me 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG made a correct assessment. The Waterloo Road Comprehensive has been covered in-depth in real-world context in multiple reliable sources[46] as well as in reviews[47]. That the article has sat and not been improved within some arbitrary time is a reason to fix it through cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. The fact that the authors have not (yet) done so is also not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia does not demand it be done in some arbitrary time frame. If the sense is that the article has too much plot, that's yet another reson for cleanup and editing using the ample available sources, not for deletion. This discussion is about this one article, not the series or other series elements. As with all reliable sources, a reader must be able to (in principal) check the source themselves to confirm the profferred text. If a reader can read it, watch it, or see it, we do not always expect to have the little things written up in the newspapers. For some non-contentious facts, the primary source (the series) is occasionally acceptable for some simple WP:V. However, as stated above... there IS enough to source this article about a notable element that itself has been documented in Reliable Sources. Per WP:DEL, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page", and "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Per Editing policy offers "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress", and "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't." MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, those results are misleading. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears on results, it is used as a synecdoche of the plot. The term, in those results, does not refer to the building itself. The building/institution is not the primary topic of those sources; certainly not significantly different from the parent article. The JPStalk to me 07:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will find thw time to bring the article up to standards and the sources needed for this and the parent article. Its should't be deleted, it just needs improvement - along with the other WR articles. Trust me, it can be done. Harleyamber (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although i am to blame for this, as i was the user who rehauled the article from what it originally was, i agree with the other users who have said it should be kept. I see now that i myself need to improve on how to write an article for wikipedia :( and i apologise for this. However, i would be more than happier to aid a re-write on the article so it meets wiki guidelines, although i may need help. Anyone upe for it? (Once again, i apologise for this. I thought it was all correct) Newtree21 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you envisage as the improvements you can make? We just don't need any source; notability is asserted when the subject is the primary focus of the reference (as opposed to the show). The JPStalk to me 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (then redirect if desired) - only sources provided constitute "trivial mentions" not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG (referenced at WP:WAF); the articles are about the work of fiction generally and mention the building only in passing. This does not establish notability outside the fictional universe. Savidan 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eek! Delete non-notable fictional building; JPS and and Savidan are spot on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable?? Its only non-notable to you three becuase more than likely you haven't seen WR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.58.113 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking at the 74 Google hits, the term is used to represent the show but not by any reliable sources. It has no independent life of its own, which is actually unusual for fictional schools. Considering that fictional works that take place in schools will have a name for the school, it would take analyses in reliable sources to justify having a stand-alone article for one. Abductive (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Independent coverage has been established. Dream Focus 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Out of the 74 Google hits? Abductive (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the articles/hits maintain their substance if you reword them by removing the phrase about the school? Yes. The JPStalk to me 06:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most participants in this discussion seem to agree that the article fails notability requirements. There are a few editors arguing to to the contrary, but with somewhat weak rationales, including "It exists". –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama O's and Cap'n McCain's[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Obama O's and Cap'n McCain's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about two products which are not notable. This material should not be it's own article. At most, this could be mentioned in another article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, absolutely insane, no reliable sources that I know of to prove notability. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy nor enough information to be more than a stub. It should be integrated in the 2008 Presidential Campaign article. Additionally, the only external references are advertising sites making it violate policies against spamming. Bytebear (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Silly marketing gimmick, no doubt. But apparently real, and minorly notable enough to deserve an article. LotLE×talk 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable cereal in their own rights (hence why they had to have a joined article in the first place). Since we cannot redirect this title to both pages, I say delete and redirect the individual names to the individual people (also make sure that it's at least noted on their page somewhere if it already isn't). There's barely enough for for a paragraph on either one's page, and when you split it up it's even less. Delete - redirect individual titles. I have Googled Obama O's, through Google News (which is a better indicated that Google Web, because the latter includes about 95% unusable sources). Not much for McCain's cereal either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reliable sourcing does not equal notability. I nominated this article for deletion for lacking notability. I consider the issue of reliable sourcing to be secondary. If the nominated article is notable, then any product referencing Barack Obama will be worthing of having its own article. President Obama is obviously notable, but that doesn't make the nominated article notable. SMP0328. (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to comment all you want but please only one !vote per discussion. Since you are the nominator, your nomination statement is your !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, duly noted. SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I think it is good and proper for nominator to state a vote explicitly. One presumes it is usually "delete", but not always. Sometimes a nominator (who acted in good faith by nominating) is convinced to change by discussion, and that is worth clarifying (in either direction). Moreover, sometimes the comments that pertain to a "delete" vote are not identical to the narrow grounds for nomination itself. I disagree with Ron Ritzman's striking the vote. LotLE×talk 19:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the only thing I struck was the bolded word "delete", not the comment that followed it. I would have done the same thing if someone had !voted "delete" early in the discussion and then !voted "delete" again later. In long discussions, it's sometimes hard to track who !voted and it's even possible to forget who the nominator is. Also you're correct about nominators changing their position. However, except for "procedural" nominations where the nominator explicitly states he has no position, it is assumed that the nominator wants the article deleted and the closer will count that as the first delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a disagreement as to whether the nominator (in this case, I) can vote, and because I don't know the correct answer, I have restored my "Delete" vote. SMP0328. (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote is basically that "if we let this one in, we'll have to let them all in." That isn't how it works; we're determining this article's notability on a singular basis. Also, reliable sourcing is not the same as notability, but is the method in which we determine the notability of the subject; how else would we determine it? If enough sources describe, explain, or just report upon the subject, we could assume that the subject is notable. I have changed my vote to "weak keep", because sources are few and relatively weak, but I think the source adequately show the notability of the product. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia policy evenly applied to all articles or is it applied on an article by article basis? If it is the latter, then arbitrary application becomes a possibility. My main reason for wanting deletion is that the nominated article is not notable. The last part of my "Delete" comment is in response to those who would claim that Obama being mentioned in the article makes the article notable. SMP0328. (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then my point is moot if you were just being preemptive. However, I believe the latter of my points still stands; reliable sources are how we determine notability, and this subject is proven to have reliable sources backing it up. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge RS and notability. RS is one of the policies regarding whether material should be in an article. Notability deals with whether material is worthy of being its own article. I'm claiming that even if the material in the nominated article is reliably sourced, making it worthy of being in Wikipedia, that material is not notable and so it is not worthy of being its own article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not merging the policies, I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. I'm saying that to determine notability, we use reliable sources, as defined at WP:RS. For example, if the only sources promoting the notability of this subject were blogs, or social networking sites, then it would not be notable (unless it were an extreme case, but that is not the case here). However, those supporting a keep !vote have provided what I believe to be adequate sources to determine the notability. To say "[r]eliable sourcing does not equal notability" would be incorrect, because without reliable sources, we cannot prove or disprove the notability of a subject. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe material can be reliably sourced, but not be notable? SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would be hard pressed to find a case. I know something similar to the opposite can exist, but I've never seen a case as you described it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable campaign ephemera. Edison (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Well the pictures do tell alot and if there are sources it should be kept. Parker1297 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cute, but not noteworthy. Will never grow to be anything more than a baby stub. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a complete and utter failure of WP:N. The bulk of the coverage is from non-reliable sources, and what little mention does occur in RS is that the back-end, "funny story of the day" of the news cycle, i.e. [48]. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that I am the only one preventing the deletion, I hereby grant this article to be deleted and clearly classify it as uncontroversial
• S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per addition of sources. Good work, people. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Don't We Get Drunk[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Why Don't We Get Drunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only one source. Song didn't chart, was only a B-side, no non-trivial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources, they are listed in the notes. It's a fairly famous song (most of all among Parrotheads) even if it didn't make the charts. Few novelty songs make the charts, but that doesn't make them less well know among an artist like Buffett's songlist (who is, in a way, a living novelty). The song is part of Jimmy_Buffett#.22The_Big_8.22_and_Standard_Songs. The article needs cleaning up but should be kept. -- Cozret (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's one secondary source and a primary source. Do you really think that's enough for a full article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the choice is currently between delete or keep, yes. Now, if you believe the content should be merged with another article, you can still put in for that after your delete fails. --Cozret (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable song. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Songs are often enough notable without charting, especially for performer-songwriters whose main appeal is ouside the singles-buying demographic. Enough current sourcing to sustain article, though expansion certainly possible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple Google Books hits indicate that the song is well known in popular culture. It appeared on Buffett's first greatest hits album Songs You Know by Heart and was played at every one of his concerts for many years. I just found a good source to add to the article, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Ten Pound Hammer that the article needs more sources. But it's a very notable song, being extremely popular dispite "only being a B-side". Geeky Randy (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bologna Research Institute for Surgical Knowledge[edit]

Bologna Research Institute for Surgical Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, no third party coverage [49], google search mainly shows mirror sites. maybe some sources in Italian? LibStar (talk) 14:45, 11 July 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, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The problems are fixable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha XJR400[edit]

Yamaha XJR400 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No content. Just an infobox. Biker Biker (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just as many articles need rewriting of lists as text, this article needs conversion from an information box to text. The box has a lot of information. It would be easy to write complete sentences to incorporate the information in text. Fg2 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an infobox does not constitute an article. Besides that, there is noting to show as to why this subject is notable, fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 11:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say that "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" applies to this article?? This is a old bike, which means that there are not all that many (actually only 717000 Ghits) pages on the internet, this does NOT mean that nothing is written about it. --Stefan talk 01:44, 18 July 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, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Esradekan. Wikipedia is not a directory. The JPStalk to me 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No content is not a reson for deletion, article actually have content (although only a info box), is notable (I assume that all vehicles are notable), as stated in the deletion policy the page should be improved not deleted. --Stefan talk 01:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has content now and it's marked as a stub. Eventually it will grow, especially since we have been sorting, linking and categorizing many of these lost sheep.--Dbratland (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Just an infobox" is an invitation to anyone familiar with Wikipedia formatting to help develop the article, not to call for its deletion. How is nothing better than something? For anyone with an interest in building an encyclopedia rather than playing an MM-whatever-it's-called game to see who can "win" discussions I would have thought that the answer would be pretty obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources available on Google Books, and maybe a few on Google News. The article just needs love. tedder (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice I has marked the article as a stub. I am netural here. My stubbify diff here[50]. Text adding diff by User:Stefan here[51].The Junk Police (reports|works) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus despite being listed for two weeks, so no prejudice towards a speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny-Films Oy[edit]

Funny-Films Oy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This one has been around for a while (created May 2006, last edited July 2007), but given that, it is entirely unreferenced. When I do a google search I can find zero reliable sources about this production company. Based on that, I do not think the subject meets the minimum inclusion criteria as spelled out at WP:N. Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to be a legit production company: [52]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubts about their existance. What I have doubts about is their notability as defined by WP:GNG or WP:CORP. We can verify the existance of millions of companies worldwide; it does not mean that reliable source material exists to support an article at Wikipedia about them. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article may be valuable to the Finnish Wikipedia, but not notable in English. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and get help from experts over at WP:WikiProject Finland. Not being notable to the English-speaking world does not mean it is unsuitable for en.Wikipedia, as I am encouraged to remember that it does not matter to wikipedia that it might not written up in the New York Times or Washington Post when WP:UNKNOWNHERE suggests "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB urges a wider view and acceptance that even if something is dificult to source in English. An article on MTV3 gave it coverage in 2002 and shared that it was a subsidary of Funny Films Ltd. which itself is a subsidary of Yellow Film & TV -Group, the biggest in its field in Finland. I do not read Finnish, and had to rely on Google Translate for even that. However, I can reasonable accept that its Finnish notability is fine for us here too. Just needs some loving atention from Finnish-reading Wikipedians. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no trouble with accepting the possibility that non-English sources could verify the notability of this company. If someone could provide those sources, I would withdraw my nomination. However, I have not seen any evidence of such sources as yet. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:18, 13 July 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, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gfire[edit]

Gfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability, nor is notability evident. Google hits can be considered representative of even a non-notable OSS project. Not to get too much into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it is a plugin for the (certainly notable) Pidgin, about no other plugins of which have articles heretofore been written. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find lots of forum posts and download sites but no coverage about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 17 July 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, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (DJ Khaled album)[edit]

Victory (DJ Khaled album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
We Got This (DJ Khaled song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
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, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. It doesn't matter if he is working on the album of not. As an unreleased album that has not generated sufficient 3rd party coverage, it fails WP:NALBUM and the song, which hasn't charted, fails WP:NSONGS. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_18&oldid=304219821"