Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 July 1 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. To author of article please leave me a message on talk page if you want a copy of the article on a userfied page. Thanks. JForget 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the South Island[edit]

Outline of the South Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Copies information already found at South Island and other pages; appears to be nothing but a list of links. I can't see any CSD category that fits this. Article creator seems to be, in good faith, creating articles and uploading files relating to a fictitious country of "Zealandia", which is comprised of South Island. NellieBly (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is no place for fictional countries unless they are notable. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The South Island is not a country.-gadfium 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a typo. The editor copied another outline as a starting point, and didn't place a {{construction}} tag on it. The Transhumanist 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not concerned about a typo. Such outlines may be appropriate for countries, they may even be appropriate for states/provinces/regions, but although the outline creator might wish it to be, the South Island is not such a political entity.-gadfium 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's WP:USELESS. It's barely even started. The outline was tagged for AfD when it was 2 minutes old! Let us move it to draft space so we can work on it. The Transhumanist 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- SimonLyall (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's like a shell of/collection of links for/ the South Island article. XLerate (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a work-in-progress - the editor barely had time to sneeze let alone add content to the outline. Looking around Wikipedia, I see enough coverage to warrant an outline. And since the South Island article needs cleaning up, an outline would be a great place to start. See reverse outlining. The Transhumanist 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is overreaching by the Outlines WikiProject. An outline would need to be on a topic that is difficult to navigate. In this case, an island, I think an outline is redundant to the real article. 96.10.153.234 (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We weren't involved. But we are now. Expect a new outline soon (few weeks, tops... hey, we're busy!). The Transhumanist 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that WikiProject Outline of knowledge was involved in the creation of this article. However, I have notified them of this deletion discussion.-gadfium 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that there's no need for an "Outline of the South Island" in the first place, for reasons others have pointed out. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One reason was in error, one was about a typo, and the rest were for the most part arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, critiquing a few minutes editng that was done to the article at most. That's not much to go on to reach such a sweeping conclusion. The Transhumanist 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfying is a possibility to consider. If it can help this editor navigate through the listed articles, or tell him which ones are still missing which he wants to create, then isn't that one of the things user subpages are for? Obviously, we are dealing with someone who would want Wikipedia to have more, better articles about the NZ South Island and who's prepared to do some of the hard work. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Even assuming good faith intentions of editors, from an objective standpoint there's no reason for a page like this to exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Objective standpoint" not substantiated. The Transhumanist 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, deleted articles can be userfied upon request. See WP:USERFY#Userfication of deleted content. Though that isn't needed in this case, as this was clearly a botched draft. The Transhumanist 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:WPOOK's draft space is a safe place to develop outline rough drafts without fear of deletion due to them being too rough. Bare skeletons welcome! The Transhumanist 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World waterfall database[edit]

World waterfall database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : I think the topic of specialized searches came up earlier and I made some comment about merging with a list of that type where notability is marginal. This facility sounds like something interesting to many readers but wiki is not an ad platform and can't do independent/unbiased merit review. I couldn't establish notability- a quick check on fodors.com for example only returned on blog hit. I would suggest requesting the proponents to find notability before deleting. I have a hard time calling this spam if it is what it claims to be- if you believe this is of no value please elaborate. It does seem promotional and I can't find independent notice of this thing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy Delete - per above comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. youngamerican (wtf?) 01:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:39, 31 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 G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement) – ClockworkSoul 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral Grade[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to be notable; no relevant News, Scholar, or Books hits. Now, there may be other uses for the term "Collateral Grade." If someone wants to make pages for those and turn this one into a disambiguation, feel free. But this particular definition is not notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 31 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. Hairhorn bundling articles into the AFD ruined the discussion Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig R. Smith[edit]

Craig R. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The prod was contested two days ago. All that I can find is trivial mentions in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not all CEOs are notable. The same user has a list of CEO entries, many of them not notable for anything else. Some of them are already up for deletion. Some may be borderline cases. I would like to add the remaining entries to this nomination, so they can at least be looked over for notability:
Albert P.L. Stroucken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John W. Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daniel Dimicco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claiborne P. Deming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stephen F. Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hairhorn (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fairly unknown CEO.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all articles should be set for deletion under their own names, not as a list. This deletion listing could be skewed because multiple articles are up for deletion.
  • I put them in the same nomination, because they are all short CEO articles written by the same editor, and all nominated for non-notability. It's more work to go through, but it's an appropriate multiple nom. If people only want to vote on one entry, vote on one entry. Hairhorn (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep These include chief executive officers of major companies Nucor and Owens-Illinois (a fortune 500 company). Another is CEO of Praxair? These are very important and powerful companies and chief executive officers of companies this size are inherently notable and undoubtedly there is enough content out there to establish that. I'm not sure why these are at AfD at all. Craig R Smith was cheif executive officer of Murphy Oil, one of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. for a dozen and some odd years. These articles should be expanded. They also serve on other imporant boards and are major players in finance, governance and education. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Craig R Smith notable simply for being CEO of Owens & Minor? That's it? Hairhorn (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • quote - They also serve on other imporant boards and are major players in finance, governance and education - endquote. Then put verifiable links onto the Biographies Trevor Marron (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Delete - They are only notable if you consider the position they hold as being notable, they are then only notable by association to that position. None of them have any articles about them in major publications etc. So where do you draw the line? Is the CEO of EVERY company of note, simply as the CEO? I feel they are not. Wikipedia is not a collection of indisctiminate information and if we go adding CEOs then that is where it is going. By all means a CEO can be mentioned on the company's article if there is one, but they don't justify a BIO based simply on their job or income. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"None of them have any articles about them in major publications". That is demonstrably false. See this article in Forbes re DiMicco http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0511/081-executives-companies-business-test-of-mettle.html Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do know the difference between a biographical article about someone and an article where someone is interviewed about something, don't you? Trevor Marron (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Please keep it civil. I think a lengthy interview with Forbes fits the bill for showing notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which? The nom raises the point that "[s]ome may be borderline cases." Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm the nom and I didn't say that. Hairhorn bundled them together and said that. Joe Chill (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and major industrial businesses generally meet the GNG, although coverage is not necesarily in easily accessed online sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being CEO of a major corporation is at least as strong an indication of notability for a businessman as having released two albums is for a pop singer or having played a match in a professional league is for a sportsperson. And please don't quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS back at me - this argument is not based on the fact that such other articles exist, but that they are accepted as having automatic notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note details of DiMicco's career and his membership on the Manufacturing Council -- a body set up by the federal government to "represent" manufacturing have been added. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job there, his article is looking more like an entry should, not just 'He is CEO for ABC and earns XYZ' The AfD really does need splitting into individual discussions. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- I suppose (but cannot say for certain) that similar development can be done to at least some of the others. Clearly someone created some weak stubs of CEO types with their affiliation and salaries and nothing else. I think that doesn't mean that they are fit for deletion -- necessarily. The only thing these articles seem to have in common is their style and their author. That's not a great reason in my opinion to bundle them in one AfD. I would favour closing this afd and opening new ones for each of the different CEOs. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm annoyed that Hairhorn bundled them together in my nomination. I wish that users wouldn't count the others as part of the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Railstone[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. All Google references recent (last 4-6 hours), possibly even a mass-organized violation of WP:NFT. --Volleyren (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Paige Railstone IS real, but her CD is only known because people keep grabbing an unfinished copy off of file-sharing servers (I admit, I am also guilty!). She is now working on finishing her CD. A Wikipedia article should not be created for her at this time. Wait until she's sold more CD's or done a few shows with a few thousand people in attendance before creating a Wikipedia page.Cara6190 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a prank. Same thing goes for Ms. Railstone's main claim to fame, Off the Railstone, which is also undergoing AfD. Favonian (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanispam for non-notable would-be dj -- the record (if it exists) is not yet recorded as her website notes "Hey guys, welcome to my new website! I'm still working on putting it all together, so for now this is it. But soon I'll be droppin' a few phat tracks from my upcoming album here. " Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Paige's album - Off the Railstone is her first album and she is currently working on a new album. The comment on her website - "Hey guys, welcome to my new website! I'm still working on putting it all together, so for now this is it. But soon I'll be droppin' a few phat tracks from my upcoming album here." - is probably referring to her website, not her album (above comment). Paige is widely known and becoming increasingly popular and doing so by becoming closer to her fans. Lubblobba (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — Lubblobba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Don't Delete don't know why you think that' a prank. I'm a big fan of Paige's [[Off the Railstone]]!!!! It was an Internet only album, that's why you might not have heard of it yet. But believe me - It's EPIC!!

--Thefriedmiss (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)— Thefriedmiss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Don't Delete WHY DO YOU PEOPLE THINK THIS IS A PRANK!She was the DJ at my friend's batmitzvah, and if this was a prank, it must be a pretty big one. Google her! Search her on facebook! She has hundreds of fans, and I think she will be the next big thing. SHE IS MADE OF AWESOME! bmk5x (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)— bmk5x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Come back when you've got another album, kid. Blueboy96 15:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O she DJs bat mitvahs? And is teh AWESOME? Sorry, I didn't realise that! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: She's amazingly talented; and she's currently working on another album, so get your facts straight, kiddo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.128.11 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable, no reliable sources whatsoever. Might need protection from recreation too. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not real. You know it, nerdfighters. Stop vandalising Wikipedia. John wants you to stop. Cadwaladr (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article needs more sources if it is to remain. I was able to find one (and added it to the page), but that is not nearly enough. She may be a great artist, but until she gains some notability a Wikipedia page may not be needed. Cadwaladr (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpet152 (talk • contribs) this comment was not added by Cadwaladr. Struck forged signature. Tim Song (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • My mistake. I copied and pasted the format and forgot to change the signature. The previous comment was indeed from me. Trumpet152 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - a real person, but hoax facts fill the stub. She is not notable per WP:BIO or WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete $20 says the article was created by "Paige Railstone" and i'm sorry paige, but you can't go around making pages thinking you're notable or anyone has heard of you outside friends/family. Str8cash (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • $50,000 says that this page was made by a group of dedicated fans and Ms. Railstone has not so much touched it. If you think that her friends and family are the only people who have heard of her, then check out her quickly growing Facebook fanpage, where there are currently almost 600 fans and growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xvindicator (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — Xvindicator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Neutral I simply wanted to note that the opposite of "delete" is "keep", not "don't delete." --Milowent (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the admin will be able to work out the intent of these "editors". Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have listened to Paige's music for a while, and she did not create this page. She has many loyal fans, and she should definitely deserve this to be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeak616 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @809  ·  18:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles mureddu[edit]

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

Contested CSD. The subject does not appear to be notable; no News, Scholar, or Books hits. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:N, WP:BIO --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I doubt whether the CSD should count as contested; there's some evidence IP user who removed the CSD tag (I use quotes because he probably just signed out). Both changed only the same two articles. Edits are interleaving. Tim Song (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murai[edit]

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

All that I can find is trivial mentions in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep - subject is the CEO of a fortune 500 company and the former president of another major company. A quick news search reveals tons of coverage about him including 5 interviews in the first 10 hits alone. See [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Huang[edit]

Robert T. Huang (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 in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep subject is the CEO of a fortune 500 company and easily meets the GNG. Plenty of news coverage can be found if you leave out his middle initial: See [2]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @809  ·  18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Thrasher (politician)[edit]

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

Unknown political candidate who lost for the House of Representatives in 2008. We have a history of deleting/not creating political candidates for the House that lose unless they have extensive media coverage. BrianY (talk) 22:51, 31 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. One two three... 07:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Earth[edit]

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

The primary purpose of this article seems to be to promote "Deviantart user Cebius", which is also the Wiki name of the page's creator. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possibly speedy as spam? Artw (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've de-spamified the article. What remains is pretty poor though. Artw (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the article up to a good standard. Notability is shown below. Anarchangel (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The promospam could be dealt with through editing, but I'm not convinced this game is notable enough for an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I was a little hasty with this article, so i did'nt thought about some thing when i was writing this article. Please don't delete it, since this IS my first article afterall, this mistake will not be repeated again. I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebius (talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search for 'Alien Earth Beam software' on Yahoo gave, on the first page alone, these sources: Moby Games, Gamespy, IGN, Answers, UVlist, and Gamestats The final of 10 hits in 10 entries on the first search page (which shows quite a potential for sources) is the Gamespy bio of developer Beam software, aka Krome Studios Melbourne, which shows that they also created 1993's Shadowrun (SNES), the first of the four games based on the Shadowrun PnP roleplaying game. The reviews show that it was released in 1998, within a year of Fallout, has a similar 'weathered portable computer' game interface, and the same branching dialogue. As the Shadowrun SNES article shows, they were one of the earliest companies to feature interactive dialogue choices, and their dialogue system for the SNES game is a forerunner of the dialogue acquisition system used in Morrowind. I forgive Cebius for having spammed his name all over it, but only because it was an unforgivable omission to have left it out of WP (and even left off the Krome Studios Melbourne article...which he also spammed. Sigh.), and therefore his save of this piece of history makes up for it. On the other hand, the spam is gone, and the article is still here. Do you really want to mess up a happy ending? Anarchangel (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The game review incarnations of Gamespy and IGN and Moby games did not exist when this game was released. Gamespy and Moby games were established in 1999; IGN, in 2002. Full reviews of a game that is no longer available when the reviewers first begin their website is treatment that only the most popular of games can hope to receive; it is significant that Alien Earth is mentioned at all. Look at the reviews for the other Beam games linked on the Gamespy Beam software chronology, including the cult classic Shadowrun (SNES); from Gamespy, that's all the review any game going to get, in any case. "I think that's pretty good coverage for a disintegrated pile of rubble" - Ford Prefect, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Anarchangel (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - article significantly improved. Artw (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Krome Studios Melbourne. I looked over the sourcing, and while it verifies the game's existence, only one of the reviews even comes close to significant in size (the one from The Computer Show), and that appears to be a self-published source, failing WP:RS. Gnews and Gscholar produced nothing, from which I conclude that the title fails WP:N. RayTalk 19:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in third party reliable sources. A search for this mostly gets back results that are not this game. Triplestop x3 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the links provided above to Moby Games, etc. are all directory entries with boilerplate descriptions likely pulled from press kits. They are not significant coverage such as a game review or article abouot its development. I was unable to find any such sources but I can be persuaded to keep if anybody can find this coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to List of phobias. (X! · talk)  · @809  ·  18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megalophobia[edit]

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

No valid sources besides various dictionaries and phobia lists that such phobia indeed exists. In other words, it is just a word, and its place is in wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to list of phobias. Too many non-notable, one sentence phobia entries these days. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect: unconfiremd existence of e adisease, and no sense to redirect to a page which does not explain the term. Mukadderat (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or a very weak redirect to List of Phobias. Given the stuff in the list of phobias page, it doesn't make any sense to keep a redirect to all of them. The disease has a mention in a dictionary and about.com, so can't be totally non-existent. Greenleaf (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @809  ·  18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ron Jackson Show[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio program. Limited GHits and NO GNEWS. Fails WP:NOTE ttonyb1 (talk) 22:16, 31 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. Tan | 39 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahit Muja[edit]

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

article expresses no notability for subject other than the size of his bank account WuhWuzDat 21:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You would think being a billionaire alone would make you notable, but I can't find any genuine coverage of this guy, just user-generated content. Possible hoax: the company seems to exist, but their site screams "Geocities" more than it screams "billionaire". Hairhorn (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This is the first Billionare I have ever heard of, who uses Yahoo!, as their email provider, or lists their email publicly (per the website Hairhorn listed above, products page). WuhWuzDat 23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the administrator to remove the AfD message at this point ivan cetnic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Cetnic (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC) — Ivan Cetnic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I invite the administrator to remove the AfD message at this point.User_talk:sulmues-- 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Cetnic (talk • contribs) — Ivan Cetnic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CommentDoes anyone else think its a bit sockish that the above comment was added by Ivan Cetnic, but signed Sulmues (later autosigned by sinebot)?? WuhWuzDat 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is fixed jenifer grantComments by confirmed sockpuppet struck out

I am very sory I did coopy the sulmues statmant ant pased in to this page the sulmues and Jenifer Grant fix my bed writing in inglish, I jest tray to help SORRY. Ivan Cetnic 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)— Ivan Cetnic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: The AfD message will remain on the article until this discussion has been closed, and consensus has been reached (Typically 7 days from the time the discussion starts). WuhWuzDat 02:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOLLLLL, no problems are fixed, "Jenifer". The subject is not notable, no amount of tinkering with the article is going to change that. Good luck with your sock case. Hairhorn (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:I added new references about subject and the company user: GreenNYCGreenNYC (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)— GreenNYC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comments by confirmed sockpuppet struck out[reply]

Comment, no new references have been added by GreenNYC. WuhWuzDat 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go around accusing people unless you have evidence!! check my references Wuhwuzdat 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenNYC (talk • contribs) Comments by confirmed sockpuppet struck out

The Subjekt Sahit Muja is a big suporter of anti Serbian muvment mr Muja supported Terrorists from Bosnia against Serbian People. I dont understand why Jenifer remuve all my writing is shee fucking Him. 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC) And fuck you WuhWuzDat you american dick sucker. fuck All albanians and americans to. Ivan Cetnic] Ivan Cetnic (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan this is very offensive indeed,Lion0107 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, I'd suggest removing that personal attack before you get banned completely. The new "references" fall into three categories: (1) Google and Yahoo searches (not a reference), (2) Articles which do not mention the subject of the entry, and (3) Hilarious user-generated content masquerading as news (From "India News": "Mr Sahit Muja is a very wealthy and powerful Albanian nationalist in the USA.", "Mr Sahit Muja is very well educated and extremely smart.", "Mr Muja is self made millionaire." (uh, didn't you say "billionaire" the first time?)... etc. The last sentence of the article is "In 1992 Mr".... that's it, that how it ends). In short, an incredibly lazy and cynical attempt at self promotion for a non-notable subject, Hairhorn (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Cetnic. I generally live by; "You cannot blame someone for being stupid, ignorant, naive or misinformed, however you can blame them for trying to force their supposedly flawed opinion onto you or anyone else." Jenifer Grant (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC).Comments by confirmed sockpuppet struck out[reply]

Albanian Minerals and Bytyci Company is a Big established Mining Company and Sahit Muja is the owener.Lion0107 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another sockpuppet? You didn't notice that no one was convinced by the previous ones? If "Albanian Minerals" is so big and established, why do they have a crummy flash webpage where "trading" is misspelled in the title of the main page? And seemingly all of the mentions online are from sites with user-submitted content? Just wondering. Hairhorn (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability, none of the sources meets WP:RS and a couple of them don't even mention the person. --bonadea contributions talk 17:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I invite an administrator to have a look at this AfD and perhaps consider closing it. It's a mess, and I haven't seen any credible keeps--for a good reason, since there appears to be no notability here. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I struck out the comments by confirmed sockpuppets of Ivan Cetnic, and attempted to fix the formatting of this badly mangled AfD. WuhWuzDat 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If the lack of sourcing wasn't enough evidence, the sockpuppetry confirms it. Edward321 (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @809  ·  18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given and no improvement. Notability asserted but does not pass standards for inclusion. Only source lists this person as #48 on a single list of models, which is hardly notable. Wperdue (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems to be a simple advert. Once this model achieves notability... but just now... no hits on news.google.com... no clear hits on google. Just not wp:notable yet.- sinneed (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to List of phobias. (X! · talk)  · @810  ·  18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trichophobia[edit]

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

No valid sources besides various dictionaries and phobia lists that such phobia indeed exists. In other words, it is just a word, and its place is in wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to list of phobias. Hairhorn (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to list of phobias, remove the link in the list and add a brief description. --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect: unconfiremd existence of e adisease, and no sense to redirect to a page which does not explain the term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: lists are for wikipedia articles, not for dicdefs. Mukadderat (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, User:Wgiwiki, for future notice; even though you are the copyright holder of this material, you agree to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and GFDL by submitting it. Knowing that, be careful with what you put up in the future, as you don't have the power to have it removed from the Wikipedia servers. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Golf Index[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable rankings system, and I'm at a loss to understand how this survived its previous nomination. Zero google news hits and web hits that consist solely of press releases indicate clearly that the wider world and especially the golfing press pays it no notice whatsoever. There must be coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and in this case that is evidently not possible. wjematherbigissue 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This entry in the Wikipedia "encyclopedia" has been posted for almost 2 years, and the reason it survived the last episode of "articles for deletion", is because according to Wikipedia guidelines, "popularity" alone does not establish "notability", and that a topic's "worthiness of notice" is to be considered also. {Please read them).


Definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dia Pronunciation: \in-ˌsī-klə-ˈpē-dē-ə\ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child — more at few Date:1644 - - - Definition: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.

Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", as it says so right in the name noted in the logo in the top left hand corner of this page. Encyclopedias are not based on popularity, they are collections of information on topics and subjects that many people don't know about. This is "fundamental", as why would anyone regularly use an "encyclopedia" to research information they already know?? Encyclopedias are meant to provide unknown knowledge, and if people who attempt to contribute here are not interested in maintaining this fundamental theme, then perhaps they should go edit another project. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I am afraid you are not understanding Wikipedia correctly, and there are clear WP:COI issues with your opinion and contributions. WP is not here for you to use as another avenue to promote your wares. Please base your arguments on WP policy. The subject of articles must satisfy the general notability guideline. The length of time it has gone unnoticed without being deleted is irrelevant. Over 6 months have passed since the last AfD discussion, and still no reliable sources have covered these "rankings". It absolutely fails WP:N. wjematherbigissue 10:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I am afraid "you" are not understanding Wikipedia correctly. I have clearly indicated that I am the publisher, and which is in compliance with WP:COI.

As you have stated as "a matter of fact" that I am using Wikipedia to "promote my wares" in some sinister way, is OFFENSIVE and should be deleted. That is simply NOT true! The World Golf Index is a FREE website and sells nothing. This article on Wikipedia is a simple statement of fact of what the World Golf Index is.

There are many golf organizations and tour players that use this information, and with many direct links. Accordingly, any assumption you have made here on what establishes some level of popularity is merely your opinion. Further, Wikipedia WP:N has NO criteria for "hits", and clearly allows for "merit". (WP:N) "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." This article is "worthy of notice" and is in absolute compliance with WP:N and Wikipedia policy. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Whilst your defence of your product is admirable, the facts simply do not back you up. WP:N states clearly that the subject of an article must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The World Golf Index has not. wjematherbigissue 07:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Anyone can buy a web domain, sit at home studying tournament results and create a "ranking system". An internet search fails to turn up a single neutral source for this particular one - all links are either to their site or to their press releases - so it fails WP:N. And the article's creator and main contributor is someone whose name - wgiwiki - and profile page - a link to the "ranking" homepage - strongly suggest a violation of WP:COI. There seems no reason to keep it. EJBH (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Yes, and anyone can build a house... if they have the tools, material, and the will. Some just prefer to watch and make comments. If anyone can do this, then why haven't they, or you? Do you have an understanding of international copyright, or statistical copyright? Do you have press credentials? Have you researched anywhere other than a search engine on the internet? Do you even know what you are commenting on? Further, if you read the other entries on this page you would see that I have clearly disclosed that I am the publisher, which is what is required to be in compliance with WP:COI, and otherwise respecting my "profile page", well at least I have one.

The obvious fact that someone else may be able to publish something, is "not" criteria for deleting this article. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.90.100 (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL and respect others and their opinions. Their knowledge of issue involved in compiling your site are irrelevant to this discussion. The only issue is one of notability, which can only be established through verifiability through significant coverage reliable independent (secondary) published sources. You, your website and press releases are all primary sources and, while they may be able to verify the facts, they do nothing to help establish notability. This is your opportunity to reveal where we can find significant coverage in secondary sources, in order to do precisely that. At this moment, I do not believe there is any. wjematherbigissue 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest that the mere possibility of someone compiling a ranking system is a criterion for deletion. But it serves as an illustration of the need for WP:N, because without secondary sources, your system is no more notable than my hypothetical one, which I can upload onto my hypothetical webpage any time. And if I found enough golf enthusiasts they could each design their own system and create their own website. But none would be notable enough for WP unless they achieved a degree of recognition by the golfing world - hence the need for independent sources.

Regarding copyright, you are being unnecessarily defensive - my analogy didn't call for an exact copy of your system. I assume yours works by inputting golf tournament results into a formula; so another person could use a different formula to obtain different rankings. So long as they don't impede on your status - by advertising themselves as "the only complete ranking system" in ignorance of your own one, for example - they don't infringe copyright. Regarding searching for sources, no I did not look further than a search engine. Are you then implying that there are independent sources available, and that I didn't look hard enough to find them? If so, great! Provide them here, we can reference the article to them and WP:N will be restored. If not, I fail to see your point - we will still have no evidence that such sources exist, which is the crux of the argument. Finally, regarding WP:COI - I apologise, you are correct that you are not "violating" the terms. Please remember however, that you are still advised by WP:COI to exercise caution when editing or discussing an article in which you have interests. EJBH (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep. This is entirely notable, because it's a very useful ranking system, and golf fans should be able to know about what this ranking system is. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perceived usefulness is not a criteria for inclusion. I note that you have flagged the article for rescue. How do you propose that is done given that there has been zero coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:N? wjematherbigissue 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It apparently has 2 external links: Its official site and the press release. Besides, if someone could rewrite the article by expanding it, the article could be improved substantially. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two links, neither independent. As said, it has zero independent, reliable sources. It therefore fails WP:N. Simple... EJBH (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been nominated for deletion, and no consensus have been reached. However, I've retrieved a very significant argument from there, courtesy of User:Wgiwiki:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.


The World Golf Index is a performance ranking comparing performance from various pro golf tours... this is the fact!

For someone to state "as a fact" that they cannot be compared, or are "impossible" to compare, is simply an opinion... and then to use that as a "reason for deletion" is incredibly unintelligent. I am the publisher of the World Golf Index, and therefore the "verifiable source", and I can be reached "anytime" via the World Golf Index email that is posted on the website. Popularity on Google is not a "reason for deletion" either... and as Google does not own the world... or the internet, and the World Golf Index includes "the world", the website gets traffic from all over the world. I posted this simple article on Wikipedia factually describing what it is in case a user might be interested in that information. This was done unbiased, which was the reason for a short and factual article, in the spirit of an "encyclopedia" sharing knowledge, and I had little concern for a conflict of interest simply because I didn't think there was one.

— Wgiwiki

-- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but none of it passes the actual notability guidelines, as found at WP:N. WP requires independent sources giving "significant coverage". Currently there are no independent sources and significant coverage is zero; the only sources fail to be "independent of the subject". By the guidelines then, this article is not sufficiently notable. As I've said, anyone is at liberty to publish a website which collates golf results and uses a formula to rank players, and the result wouldn't be worthy of a WP article. We could perhaps propose a Temporary Keep, and give Wgiwiki time to get his/her project recognised by a media source, and then we'd have to reconsider. Currently however, the article cannot be shown to be supporting anything more than a personal pet project. And however well researched, well thought-through, or professionally presented that project is - and I have no argument with the statistical quality of the ranking system - WP is not a place for non-notable pet projects. EJBH (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Your cynical comments are not appreciated, as we may not be the only ones reading this. Please clarify what is meant by "pet project", so that others may have a better understanding of your argument. WP is not a place for users who are willing to make comments without doing proper research. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki

It means that, from all available evidence, the "World Golf Index" looks like the statistical work of one, or possibly a group of several, golf enthusiasts; work whose primary function was personal satisfaction at the results of the work. If it were a widely recognised system throughout the golf world, it would no longer be a pet project, as it would be serving a further purpose in the public sphere. But it is not.

As has been explained repeatedly, WP:N requires that there be independent reliable media sources, for any article subject to be deemed notable. This article does not have them. The WP:N guidelines are not ideas which can be flouted whenever one wishes, as you seem to believe. They are called "guidelines" so that there is flexibility, and articles which are borderline notable can be given some leeway. Unfortunately this article fails on every measure, and so is presently not even close to borderline. That is the only interpretation of the guidelines given on this page - yourself and the other proponent of the article have been vocal in your defence of it, but you have yet to explain your views with actual reference to what the guidelines require. And also, I remind you that WP discussion pages are different to WP encyclopedia pages. On the encyclopedia pages research is proper research is required, but it isn't necessary on the discussion pages, although it may help to bolster an argument. EJBH (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only consideration is the present situation. There can be no allowance for possible future sources. When, and only when, there are such sources could the article be recreated. Until that time, this utterly fails WP:N and should be deleted. wjematherbigissue 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The "notability guidelines" are not rules or laws for you to enforce, they are "guidelines", and your interpretation of how they should be applied, is your opinion. Respectfully, there are other conflicting opinions posted here, and accordingly, this article should be kept.(Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.90.100 (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Your one and only supporting voice has been indefinitely blocked for serial sock-puppetry and disruptive editing. See user's talk page. wjematherbigissue 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Assuming that "your" is directed at me, you "blocking" someone is not retroactive, and therefore the comments and opinion still stand here because the user was not blocked when they were made. I question your tone, and some of the comments made here by you and the other user. While you purport to instruct others to be respectful, you behave like this a competition and that you are winning. Someone started Wikipedia with a vision and it has become a good thing for the internet and other people, because it provides facts and knowledge. That's the point, and that's who wins. Not you, not me, or the other person. And I appreciate the fact that you contribute here (WP) and obviously more than I do, and I appreciate the on going need to validate content here by a "consensus" of criteria, because of potential abusers, and which is the point of these "Articles". What I have done here is posted a few lines of fact in an encyclopedia in case someone else might want to know that, and I did so with honorable intention, and I stand by that. But what is not helpful is making demeaning comments about the topic when the focus should be on the consensus of criteria. And I suppose the demeaning tone may be mostly without intent, but in this case it just stings a bit because the topic also happens to be my property. So now something I propose for you to consider here: as "guidelines" are meant to be interpreted by a consensus, does leaving this "topic" (article) harm Wikipedia (it has been here for a long time), or would it have value, or more weight as a contribution? Lastly, it actually is funny that the user got blocked. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.90.100 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, may I suggest you calm down and stop taking things so personally. You will just have to accept whatever others think of your site, good or bad. Secondly I am not an admin, so do not have the ability to block anyone. I was merely pointing out that that individual may not be a particularly strong ally, with a demonstrable history of lack of understanding and disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thirdly, I have made no demeaning comments about your site. My opinion on the substance and value of your rankings are irrelevant here, which is why I have not stated it, but if you want it I'll be happy to leave a comment on your talk page.
Finally, if you say that you did not write the article for the sole purpose of publicising your site, then I accept that. However, I am afraid that by any measure, it fails the notability guidelines, which is why I nominated it for deletion. For more specific guidelines, please see WP:CORP and especially WP:WEB.wjematherbigissue 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You may suggest whatever you like, but that doesn't mean I should do anything, or accept anything. It seems beyond your scope to grasp my position and perspective. This is my property and because this forum is publicly accessible, even the comment "non-notable" may be construed as defamatory and libelous. This is my biggest concern with this process, and which seems to be a contingent of Wikipedia. In other words, if I would have known that at the time when initially posting information about my property on Wikipedia, that it would provide a public forum for people to post egotistical and immature comments about my property, well then I would have not posted it. Accordingly, I am permanently ending this discussion. Please refer to my final comment below. (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki

  • Delete - I can find no reliable sources to indicate that this index is notable. All I can find are press releases. The golfing world has apparently taken no notice of this whatsoever. As such it fails notability guidelines as no reliable sources have covered the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: "Without Prejudice" (This is NOT a threat of legal action) This message is for Wikipedia administration and the history of this article. I am the trademark and copyright owner of the World Golf Index, and effective immediately, in the interest of protecting my property, I "do not" want my property associated with Wikipedia, its discussions and forums, in any method or manner, any longer. There have been too many negative and "potentially libelous" comments made about my property, and until information about my property can exist on Wikipedia peacefully, and without "risk of damage", I want all pertinent information permanently removed, and not accessible to the public. I trust that the administration of this website will post a proper deletion page and remove all that I do not have access to. Contact can be made at our website: www.worldgolfindex.com (Publisher: World Golf Index) Wgiwiki

I fully expect this discussion will remain accessible when closed even if the result of the discussion is to delete the article. Wikipedia is not here to view everything in a positive light but to present a balanced (WP:NPOV) insight into each subject it covers, and you should have been aware of that when you created the article. While you claim not to be making any threats of legal action, you also make thinly veiled accusations of libel. That is not acceptable. As previously stated, you must accept other peoples opinion, whether they agree with you or not. wjematherbigissue 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Both per WP:N and because the creator of the article has asked for it Jamesofur (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that settles things then. Sorry to hear you feel that way Wgiwiki, it was certainly never my intention to belittle your work, nor anyone else's I'm sure. I hope you didn't take any of my comments as attacks on your website itself; believing that it is not currently suitable for Wikipedia does not mean I don't think highly of it. EJBH (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep. Editorial issues. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish[edit]

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

If the first sentence is not properly sourced, do you see how much of a problem it is to create an article? All the sources listed here is original research. Some of the references don't even work. Again, it is just blatant racism, and does not belong on Wikipedia. Hagadol (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snowball keep: Judging by the previous AFDs, personally I'm going to call it now. Blatant racism is the other white meat, and in any case WP:NOTCENSORED. Since when have you been able to have 5 AFDs anyway?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is the 5th nomination. See WP:CRYSTAL, if it does not have reference to the definition of Asian fetish, it needs to go. --Hagadol (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sticking to my vote. You're wasting your time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep per Wolfkeeper. Hagadol, this is not an issue for AfD, these are editorial issues. Discuss it on the talk page if you want to improve it. Jujutacular talkcontribs 22:46, 31 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} 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Jego Balibalos[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts student. His achievements are all in specific events in junior age groups, as appropriate for a 10 year old amateur competitor. News coverage in the four cited articles is not specifically about him but rather about the team. Previous nomination was closed as no consensus; the other three students from this school who had had articles created about them contemporaneously had their pages deleted, and the school's page was redirected. JJL (talk) 21:15, 31 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. Speedied. Nja247 09:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dayz[edit]

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

Delete, this musician isn't notable, considering as his first album isn't even out yet. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:14, 31 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 artist's page has being deleted - so the album is even less notable JForget 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Railstone[edit]

Off the Railstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Author keeps removing PROD, so now it goes to AfD. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please have a look at the AfD for Paige Railstone, the alleged recording artist for this record. These two articles may be the product of organized WP:NFT. The Google hits for "Off the Railstone" are very few and very recent. Favonian (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This album, while it is good, is not famous enough to be on Wikipedia. The album is still in pre-sale, for crying out loud! The girl just started to expose herself on the Internet. She simply can't be on this site yet.Cara6190 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn and no outstanding votes for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombhunters[edit]

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

Failed proposed deletion, but the film looks non-notable and the page looks like an advertisement. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not certain why, by my attempts to mark this page have failed every time. I seem to be unable to tag the page. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:49, 31 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, nomination withdrawn with no arguments for deletion (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Tenenbaum[edit]

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

This person has some notability for the incident, but there should be an article about the incident rather than this person. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, feel free to move it to RIAA v. Tenenbaum or something (it's currently a redirect the other direction), but this seems like more of an argument for a move than for a deletion. Certainly we would want Joel Tenenbaum to at least redirect to the page for the event in any case. /blahedo (t) 19:03, 31 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 Cheers, I'mperator 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink slip (auto)[edit]

Pink slip (auto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable neologism, it should be deleted or transwikied to Wictionary. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is already at Wiktionary: [3]. (I would also not characterize this as a neologism, as "racing for pink slips" has a long storied history with street racing (see Street_racing#Motivations and Pinks.) I don't think this article could ever be more than a dicdef though, without overlapping with the other articles on street racing. Maybe Racing for pink slips could some day be forked out of Street racing and this would then be a plausible redirect, but until then... ArakunemTalk 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep used not only in the sense of gambling on racing, which is notable, but also as a common term for this specific type of title. A page of some sort on auto titles is appropriate. Article clearly needs work. AfD was not listed at the article's page; fixed. JJL (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've got that too: Vehicle title. Maybe redirect this to that article? I'm hardly clamoring for deletion, but as mentioned above, I can't see how this can stand alone as an article beyond a dicdef, without duplicating existing articles like that one... ArakunemTalk 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ah, thanks! I searched for that page under various names but didn't turn it up. I suppose I was using 'auto' not 'vehicle' most of the time. But now I think it's best to delete this stub and just change the dab page at Pink slip to go to Vehicle title. JJL (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vehicle title per Arakunem. This term has been around for decades and is far from a neologism, but the topic is better covered at the other article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Definitely not a neologism (neo being new), but there is not enough for a full article here now. Vehicle title is much better. LH (talk) 22:35, 1 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Bhatti[edit]

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

A person who knew a famous person, and is only known for one event, that is, recent, unfounded speculation that he is Michael Jackson's son, despite the fact that this speculation is rejected as a pure fabrication/nonsense by both himself and his family('Michael Jackson was not my father,' says man at centre of lovechild rumours), and that everybody can see he's not the son of a black person. Relevant policy: WP:ONEEVENT plus large invasion of privacy (both of his parents are alive and there is no question over his parentage - the claim is based on completely unfounded speculation that Jackson had a one-night stand with his mother three years after he was born (sic!)[4].). I haven't found any articles about him not related to his relationship with Jackson/the recent gossip, that could establish independent notability. Note that not even Jackson's acknowledged "kids" have their own articles (they were previously deleted). Being an aspiring rapper (not known as a rapper) doesn't make him notable either. Nashassum (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject not notable on his own. If any proof of Jackson's claims surface, add it to his page. Forteblast (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per nom and wp:note --emerson7 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but without prejudice to re-creation if he becomes involved in a paternity suit against Jackson's estate or anything like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject is definitely notable and requires coverage on Wikipedia somewhere, probably just on Michael Jackson's own article, but Mr Bhatti does not meet notability beyond this for his own article. U-Mos (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Omer Bhatti has been a public person In Norway for many years. See this Norwegian news search. His relationship to Michal Jackson has been the most reported, like the involvement in the dedication of Micheal Jacksons album Invincible to Benjamin Hermansen,[5] but he has also been covered as an individua dance artist.[6] All this should be incorporated to the article though, but it should not be deleted. Rettetast (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's only mentioned in connection with his relationship with Michael Jackson (mostly in connection with the rumours he is Jackson's son) in the articles you are referring to. He's not a public person in Norway, give me a break! I haven't seen a single article about him which is not about his relationship with Jackson, he is a person who happened to know a famous person, but he isn't notable independently. Nashassum (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read the articles? Rettetast (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I have. Nashassum (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not the most public person, I agree, but he is so known that Norwegian nwspapers uses his name in headlines expecting that readers know who he is. Independent sources also finds his drug arrest so interesting that they report it. Sure his relationships to Jackson always gets mentioned, but that is not a drawback on his notability. There is in my opinion enough coverage in independent reliable sources to have an entry on wikipedia WP:GNG. Rettetast (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's no different from newspapers in other countries. The mere fact that there has recently been many reports about him (both in Norway and elsewhere) doesn't change the fact that he is only known for one event, his relationship with Jackson (i.e., he knew a famous person). Any relevant coverage should be included in the article about Jackson (I'm not sure the "lovechild" rubbish is relevant at all, because it's only hearsay, it's totally unfounded and unlikely, it's denied by the involved party (himself and his family) and it's a huge privacy invasion to state that his mother had one-night-stands and that his father isn't his father). Nashassum (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
              • If you look at the sesam link i provided you'll see that most of the mentions of Omer Bhatti in Norwegian media is before 2009. This article from 2006 for instance is about a dance performance in Stavanger. Another article about a music video project with The National Bank in 2008. I respect your opinion, but it is too easy to say that every article about him is solely about his relationship to Micheal Jackson. Rettetast (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • And here is a pretty in depth interview with Bhatti from May this year, and it is sure not just about Micheal Jackson. Rettetast (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's true that this article[7] is about a dance performance, but his relationship with Jackson is mentioned in almost every second sentence, and without Jackson, there probably wouldn't be an article either. The same is true for almost all other press coverage about him, I found less than half a dozen articles (some in the local paper) that weren't about Bhatti and Jackson. Nashassum (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not convinced that Bhatti is notable but his relationship with Jackson isn't an "event" that is covered by ONEEVENT. It is in my opinion more similar to how Michael Gomez wouldn't be notable if he hadn't been a professional boxer. Everything that makes Gomez notable springs out of his being a professional boxer, similar to how everything that makes Bhatti notable springs out of his relationship with Jackson. --Aqwis (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would just like to point out that the site sesam.no has disappeared forever, starting today. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: From what there is right now, this article fails notability. Most of it is about Bhatti's relations with Jackson, so this article should be redirected to the death of Michael Jackson article because the allegations of Bhatti being the "fourth child" came up only after Jackson died. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BLP1E and WP:COMMONSENSE. UnitAnode 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say wait and see. WookMuff (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask, "wait and see" for what? I've never seen this offered as a "keep" rationale before, so if you could help me out with what you mean, and what policy it's based upon, I would appreciate it. UnitAnode 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E, for one. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." So, in other words, at the moment in the US media he is mostly famous for the "event" which is the possibility of him being the son of Michael Jackson. If that continues to be the case, and nothing changes such as a positive paternity test or a hit single, then I will happily change to Delete. But reliable sources do cover the person, and not only in the context of a particular event even if they mention it a lot. WookMuff (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We cannot allow any mention of the unfounded speculation that his legal father isn't his father in the article, per the principles applied to Michael Jackson's donor children (see Talk:Michael Jackson). It is legally established that Humayun Bhatti is his father, and that is the end of the story for us so far. Nashassum (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Not at all. It's not unfounded. Joe Jackson has stated that Bhatti was Jackson's son. Not unfounded. We can't ignore sources because they go against a legal document. I still say delete, but that is not right. U-Mos (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested[edit]

Are you interested (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just advertising—reads like a promotional brochure targeting investors. (Good luck with that.) References fail to demonstrate notability, with only passing mention in some and no mention in others. Speedy declined (twice). At the time of this nomination, article creator has not yet replied to COI inquiry. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: article creator now self-identifies as an accountant for SNAP, the parent company for the website that is this article's subject.[8] / edg ☺ ☭ 13:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This looks like some Investor Relations 2.0/Social Network Stock Promotion PR fluff to me. After looking at its IHub message board it doesn't appear to be a pump and dump yet but that's probably in the cards. Regardless of intentions its not notable enough to warrant an article. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3rd party coverage is weak. Parent company might be notable, but not this brand. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cadbury Dairy Milk. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury Dairy Milk Double Choc[edit]

Cadbury Dairy Milk Double Choc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Referring to Cadbury Dairy Milk. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate for this title. Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've removed my request for speedy delete, but the article probably needs to go. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this and the other stubs for Dairy Milk variants. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, does not appear there's much here beyond the parent article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect would be the best, I guess. Barras || talk 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure a redirect would be any use. Who is going to look that up? If the title was "Cadbury Double Milk Chocolate" then I could see a redirect working, but in this title the word Chocolate isn't even finished. Unless of course the author means something else entirely by "Choc".--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, Delete, as an improbable typo redirect. WuhWuzDat 21:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neither of you two have noted that this is the actual name of the product as printed on its packaging, then. The answer to the question "Who is going to look this up?" is "Readers who have seen the product.", and the so-called "improbable typo" is the manufacturer's own. Even the most basic of Google searches would have revealed this information. (For best results, try a Google Image search.) Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect: A non-notable product. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • … for which an appropriate redirect target exists. Please explain why you think that pressing the delete button is an appropriate action here. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As observed above, and as can be observed from this parade of images, there are a whole load of "Cadbury Dairy Milk XYZ" variants, and this, and all of the others, are clearly suitable at the least for redirecting to Cadbury Dairy Milk. Choosing between an article and a redirect is a matter for the article talk pages, not AFD, and enacting the choice is a matter of using the ordinary editing tool. Deletion is not required. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safeberg[edit]

Safeberg (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) 17:57, 31 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 by Euryalus, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JLS (Album)[edit]

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

No release date, no cover, no tracklist, no sources. WP:CRYSTAL violation and fandalism magnet. —Kww(talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: shouldn't this be speedied as a recreation of deleted material? Or is it substantially different to the previous article? (Not an admin, so I have no idea what the previous article looked like). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per A9. (X! · talk)  · @797  ·  18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me By The Tree Pits[edit]

Meet Me By The Tree Pits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish its notability for inclusion Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:27, 31 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 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I See Stars[edit]

I See Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Author Keep Yay! an AfD within two minutes of creation. I cited two reliable sources and noted the band reached the Billboard 200. Meets WP:MUSIC on its face. Chubbles (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per author. Meets WP:MUSIC. Jujutacular talkcontribs 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Billboard charted album certainly meets WP:MUSIC. No members of the band may be notable on their own at the moment, but that would be a reason to delete individual specific articles, but the band itself satisfies the notability guidelines for bands. ArakunemTalk 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it meets WP:MUSIC: the album has charted. Not all members of a band need to be notable to warrant an article for their band. talkingbirds 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Five minutes after the creation of an article is not the approriate waiting time to take it to AfD. Highly unlikely that nominator went through the recommended steps before bringing here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep, per Sabre. For an example, see List of WiiWare games. Cheers, I'mperator 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam titles[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and probably some other parts of WP:NOT. Barely maintainable, many games are added/removed all the time including ones that aren't notable. It is the equivalent of List of DVDs available through Netflix/List of TV shows available through the iTunes store. Or List of x available through y, replace x with a type of product, and y with a service name. Basically for the same reason the category was deleted in 2008. And yes I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I provided other examples of articles where to show where my reasoning would still apply.Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @749  ·  16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @750  ·  17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, at best convert it to a category. But deletion is probably better. --SF007 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Requiring occasional updating as time goes on doesn't mean its "barely maintainable". Some of the titles might not be notable, but most are - either way that factor is irrelevant. The analogy to a "list of DVDs available through Netflix" misses the mark considerably; its more comparable to the likes of List of Games for Windows titles, List of WiiWare games, List of Xbox Live Arcade games and other similar gaming lists, especially as the service has moved beyond mere distribution. A deficit in sources for release dates and the like is the list's only major drawback, though they are readily available online. -- Sabre (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are digital distribution services which come with the gaming consoles. Steam doesn't come with PCs. And List of Games for Windows titles is a class of retail published games and is also definitive, unlike this.--Otterathome (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Sabre (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Perhaps I'm failing to understand what makes this different from, say, other online distribution services (in which WiiWare comes to mind). MuZemike 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As per sabre. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sabre, MuZemike. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an informative, useful list, as it contains more information than just being a mere list. Being difficult to maintain should also not be a reason for deletion, instead the article can be flagged as requiring an update, thus informing the reader it may be out of date, and allowing other wikipedians to attempt to improve it. --Taelus (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Boardman Conibear[edit]

Hiram Boardman Conibear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This gentleman does not warrant an article on Wikiepida just because he was the rowing coach of a college team 100 years ago. This is an encyclopedia, not an antiquarian society. Note to author: not everyone mentioned in the New York Times three generations ago gets to have a Wiki-article! Torkmann (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL, I mean keep - yes if one checks the external link section a stunning bit should pop which leads to -- "He developed a distinctive style known as the American stroke (also called the Washington stroke and the Conibear stroke) that revolutionized college rowing and had an effect on the sport that lasted for 30 years.". So um, yea, notable and source-able. -- Banjeboi 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and improve. A few seconds searching on Google would have revealed that this man undoubtedly surpasses WP:N. He has significant coverage in nontrivial sources both online and in print, and is credited with an important development that revolutionised his chosen discipline. The article is a poor stub at the moment, but potential sources are numerous and easily accessible. No rationale at all for deletion. Karenjc 16:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW KEEP. Torkmann is making disruptive nominations. For pities sake, this guy is in Encyclopedia Britannica. Fences&Windows 22:19, 31 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 Naxalbari. ~ mazca talk 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naxalbari National Heritage Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
" Naxalbari National Heritage Academy" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, seems to be a mission statement/promotional pamphlet. SGGH ping! 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @751  ·  17:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I searched on Google News Archive, but didn't find anything on this organization. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as Eastmain says, all the hits on Google are wiki hits, and there are no hits on Google News. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have moved the link to their website to External links, corrected the unref tag, and moved the article to the same name without the quotation marks. This is not an indication that I think it should be kept (see my vote above), but just to tidy up what is there. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a school in Darjeeling district in West Bengal, India, which appears to include the high school grades, based on the subjects that it appears to teach (see list at http://www.destinyweddings.co.uk/abhik/html/about.htm ). -- Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has been shown to include a high school. Indian schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence and, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree with you school articles, but the website says that this is a primary school, not even a middle school. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--- Guess what? The English Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia of North America. We can't say keep an American high school and then discard this school is called "bias" and called it crap. Why we waste time in this type of discussion?, what ever happened to the "sum of all human knowledge". GO my wikipedia friend and create an article about a high school in China, Thailand, Tibet and lets stop this boring time consuming discussions. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a high school, not yet, per this, only upto Grade 4. Given that it's a primary school, and doesn't meet WP:GNG, it's a delete. An alternative is to add a primary schools section to List of educational institutions in West Bengal and redirect there, but I'm not too keen on that. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Naxalbari. I stand corrected. The roadmap for the school's development is here. Consequently, established practice is to merge the page to its locality from where it can be broken out again if/when it reaches high school status. However, I stand by my comment that we need to avoid systemic bias as also emphasised by J.Mundo. If this was an anglosphere school it would be routinely merged and I see no reason to differ from this for Asian schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nom. (NAC). →javért stargaze 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clariel: The Lost Abhorsen[edit]

Clariel: The Lost Abhorsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. Article about a planned future book. Only source is blog entry from author on Amazon.com, which is not reliable sourcing. Without better sourcing, I believe this falls under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Vicenarian (Said · Done) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Garth Nix. An author's blog is a generally acceptable source about the author's own activities, but works-in-progress typically fail the GNG if that's the only source regarding them. Author article already contains the essential information. Once it's scheduled for publication and receives independent coverage, an independent article can be reconsidered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I agree. I will go ahead and boldly redirect. Nomination withdrawn. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:02, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cole (artist)[edit]

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

Big pile of issues, not sure how he is notable, WP:AUTO Falcon8765 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a resume. Artw (talk)

Delete no evidence of notability Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic soldier[edit]

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

does not meet notability guidelines Beach drifter (talk) 15:57, 31 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. One two three... 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical statistical laws[edit]

Empirical statistical laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have nominated this article for deletion becuase it lacks any verifiable sources referencing the term "empirical statistical laws". Without sources, on the surface the term is self-contradicting; regression to the mean and so forth follow formally, they are not empirical laws. There is nothing to indicate the term is sufficiently prominent to warrant an entry. However, if there is a source that establishes prominence and justification for the term, it should be checked before deletion. Holon (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom, but also because all its interesting or useful content is already there in Category:Statistical laws. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. First because none of its interesting or useful content is already there in Category:Statistical laws. Secondly, a citation has now been added. Thirdly, because none of the usual tags requesting adding of citations has ever been added until just after this nom. This is a brief article making some important points about articles in Category:Statistical laws, and putting them into a common grouping, but doesn't really deserve anything longer. I note that a search on Google on "statistical laws" produces 89.2 million hits, so that there is a need for the extra tag of "empirical" to distinguish the subset here from statutory laws related to collecting statistics and from probability distributions. Melcombe (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, that should have been 30,000 for "statistical laws": my misinterpretation. Melcombe (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Empirical statistical law" returns 242 hits in Google, many of which stem from this article and none being prominent sources on statistics. A couple of sources using the term to refer to the concept of a statistical law does not justify an entry under that name. Holon (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical law and Law of statistics both redirect to Empirical statistical laws, so further changes might be appropriate. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize -- I was just very surprised at the entry on an obscure term (that is to me an oxymoron). I really have no objection to "statistical laws" being the main article with its content. I would then edit the current article to make it clear that 'empirical statistical laws' has been used but shouldn't be taken as being prominent and in widespread usage. Holon (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the bald term "statistical laws" means something much wider than intended here, and would essentially encompass the whole of statistics and much of science. Melcombe (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category "Statistical laws" but not article, and this article is in the category. This seems an odd situation to me. Personally, I agree with SamuelTheGhost's comment, though as I say, I can see the merit in having a general article in which you could add a section. Holon (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Statistical laws (empirical) ? Jheald (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a list. The article serves the useful purpose of classifying statistical "laws" according to their mathematical foundation and truth. We learn that The Law of Large Numbers is firmly established in mathematical statistics, whereas The Law of Averages is false. This highlights the caution needed when a statistical "law" is cited.
"Empirical statistical laws" suggests that there are "theoretical statistical laws". I favor "Statistical laws" as the title.--Palaeoviatalk 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms "empirical statistical law" and "statistical law" are not in common use among mathematicians and scientists. The need for this article is therefore open to question. On reflection, I propose transferring the bulk of the content to a "List of statistical phenomena" or a "List of statistical laws", grouped according to the truth and mathematical status of the "laws". --Palaeoviatalk 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject seems valid. Not sure if references were added after the AfD, but it seems adequately referenced. Would defer to statistics experts as to what the title should be. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of statistical laws. It's a valid summary article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As currently written, the article certainly has weaknesses. Some things have theoretical bases, but were originally discovered empirically. In fact, that was the status of the central limit theorem before the 1930s. Benford's law also fits neatly into that category. And maybe Zipf's law in the form in which it was first proposed by George Kingsley Zipf, concerning word frequencies, fits that pattern. And Pareto's law on the distributions of income and wealth. The phenomenon of empirically discovered statistical laws later acquiring theoretical justification certainly seems worth mentioning somewhere. I'm not sure what form such an article should take. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2009[edit]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beauty pageant - references consist of links to the promotional website (other references were links to wikipedia pages). Other years are merged to Miss Tourism Queen International so that might be a possible answer after community consensus has been obtained. (I did have a look if we had some general guideline on the notability of those sorts of things but the only project in this area is inactive). Cameron Scott (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I note that we have an article in Wikipedia about the U.S. delegate, Gloria Almonte, but it doesn't mention anything about her participating in any Miss Tourism Queen USA pageant to qualify for the international pageant, or anything like that. The paucity of independent sources about this pageant, its contestants, and its qualifying national pageants tends to indicate non-notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. The article is non-notable. The main article Miss Tourism Queen International is sufficient enough. The previous annual articles for Miss Tourism Queen International from 2004-2008 went to AfD and were successfully deleted based on consensus by Wikipedia editors/administrators.--Ped Admi (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Kazakhstan[edit]

List of newspapers in Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without any improvement to the article. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a linkfarm. Only one of the items in this list has its own article so the list as a whole appears very spammy. There is virtually no encyclopedic analysis of any of these newspapers here on Wikipedia, and the bulk of this article consists inappropriate usage of external links. If I were to clean up this article in accordance to WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL there wouldn't be anything left in the article. ThemFromSpace 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I picked a random newspaper off the list and it was quite simple to create a new stub about it referencing multiple non-trivial, reliable sources: Kazakhskaya Pravda. I don't see much support for the presumption that the others are any less notable. A list article does not require encyclopedic analysis, and AFD is not for cleanup. cab (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the functions of lists is to call attention to encyclopedia subjects that we don't have articles on yet, and the major newspapers of Kazakhstan would appear to qualify. I don't see a problem with the links; since they seem to link to multiple, competing papers, there doesn't seem to be a major spam problem here. In the fullness of time, we may have articles here about each of these papers; until then, the links send people to where they can learn more. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:LIST. Joe Chill (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If one country's newspapers aren't notable enough to have a list of them, then none of them are. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:List and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Sri Lanka[edit]

List of newspapers in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without any improvement to the article. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a linkfarm. Only one of the items in this list has its own article so the list as a whole appears very spammy. There is virtually no encyclopedic analysis of any of these newspapers here on Wikipedia, and the bulk of this article consists inappropriate usage of external links. If I were to clean up this article in accordance to WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL there wouldn't be anything left in the article. ThemFromSpace 09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid list in need of editing where the external links have to be converted to red links. Lists of newspapers by country are required navigational tools and also a point of verification for references for articles etc. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the functions of lists is to call attention to encyclopedia subjects that we don't have articles on yet, and the major newspapers of Sri Lnaka would appear to qualify. I don't see a problem with the links; since they seem to link to multiple, competing papers, there doesn't seem to be a major spam problem here. In the fullness of time, we may have articles here about each of these papers; until then, the links send people to where they can learn more. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If one country's newspapers aren't notable enough to have a list of them, then none of them are. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Day (footballer)[edit]

Matt Day (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE since Oxford United have been in non-league since 05-06 and he hasn't had enough coverage to pass WP:N Spiderone (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that with a little effort one could find more references for this individual than for Scott Doe. Both played for England C, both played for Conference teams. 8lgm (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unsigned footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has played a significant number of games for a notable, professional Conference club. Not sure what the above reference to 'unsigned' means. Eldumpo (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. He is unattached at the time of writing and has yet to play in a professional league is what he means. Spiderone (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but just because a player is currently unsigned it does not mean he is automatically non-notable. Eldumpo (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True -- if he had previously played in the first team of a prof club. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and he has as Oxford have remained fully professional since their relegration from League Two. 8lgm (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To meet the current guidelines of WP:ATHLETE, you need to play in a league that is 100% professional; Day hasn't yet, and therefore fails that guideline. GiantSnowman 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razhel Gee Mengullo[edit]

Razhel Gee Mengullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted article (Razel Mengullo) recreated by author. Subject is non-notable. User234 (talk) 08:07, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie B. Bond[edit]

Annie B. Bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:GNG cant find any secondary sources to back up this WP:BLP BigDunc 11:23, 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) 00:01, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Falcon8765 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, she is mentioned in most of the above sources, but most are just brief mentions of or very short reviews of her books (in fact, all but one fall into that category, as far as I can see). The only longer mention is in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in which she is interviewed as teh author of books on green cleaning - not all that substantial. I don't see how she meets WP:BIO, or WP:CREATIVE based on these references. So I say delete, though it's not as clear-cut as some I've seen. --Transity (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puja Thomson[edit]

Puja Thomson (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, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanity spam. Sources are all bogus, particularly the awards: At indieexcellence.com you actually buy your book price, at usabooknews.com she never won anything in 2006, and chronogram.com is a forum. The other sources are (also) promotional and self-published. Actually a speedy candidate, but let's complete this AfD so that potential recreations can be speedied. --Pgallert (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pgallert.--  Dspradau → talk  16:06, 31 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 keep. I doubt that the sources for this are in my library, either. But the article seems to be more than adequately sourced, especially for an article on a tenth century cleric; the subject seems obviously notable, no case for deletion is made in the nomination, and no one other than the nominator has asked for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oveco (Bishop of Oviedo)[edit]

Oveco (Bishop of Oviedo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • sources are scattered from a book which I could not find in my local library.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep This is not a valid reason for deletion. In my local library, I cannot find this book, either. --Pgallert (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep I could not find this book under my bed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - I couldn't find it either. Course I don't read Spanish, or for that matter spell very well, so I really can't tell if it might be there or not. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say keep; It is someone from the Dark Ages, so the sources are bound to be thin, but the article makes clear what is known of him; OTOH he was, apparently, a notable figure of his time and place. And the original editor has established a contribution history for this period. Swanny18 (talk) 15:03, 31 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 for The Regime (group) and no consensus for the albums for which I recommend separate nominations. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Regime (group)[edit]

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

Article about gangsta rap group that fails notability guideline for music: No reviews, external coverage, charts, or awards. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) For this reason I also nominate pages about their albums:[reply]

The "albums" were deleted a while back due to the fact they're actually "mixtapes," so I don't really argue against that. However in regards to the group themselves, note that criteria #6 of WP:Music states "or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." I believe Yukmouth's (the founder) notability has been established through the fact he went platinum as a part of the Luniz and has had his debut album certified gold, nominated for an award through that collaboration, etc. Tech N9ne is another who's notability has stood ground over the years for charting numerous times on the Billboard 200 and charting highly on the Independent chart. Dru Down is a third member who has had an article for some time, so I assume his notability still stands. Jamal Phillips is a fourth member who looks to stand the notability test. There are several notable members in this collective, which appears to slide this article in under #6. *Shrugs* Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 23:55, 16 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) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article could definitely stand some work, but I still think it falls under #6 of WP:Music, which has me thinking it should stay. If there is enough support against it having an article of it's own however, I would then suggest the idea of merging it into Yukmouth's page (since he's the founder of the group) or the Smoke-A-Lot Records page (since that's Yuk's label and the label's site has the group on their roster page). Of those two, Yuk's page would probably make more sense. Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 00:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article because it meets C6, as pointed out above. As for the albums, if they're not notable enough for a stand alone articles, they should be merged into the band article. Maybe I'm missing something, but "The Regime" is written on the cover of the album, so I don't know why we're uncertain whether the albums do belong or don't belong to the band arrticle.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:04, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 31 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 Nominator Withdraws leading to a keep. Non-admin closure.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Model Housing Estate[edit]

Model Housing Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Do we have articles on all public housing buildings on Wikipedia? What makes this one notable? Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong. Nearly all public housing estates are in Wikipedia. Please confirm the information clearly before suggesting deletions! Ricky@36 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please make comments on this article after reading the content. I think someone who sugguested deletions should read the article once. Ricky@36 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public Housing Estates are a major part of Hong Kong history and society. I strongly believe that each Hong Kong Public Housing Estate should have its individual entry. Note also that they have roughly an average of 10,000 people living there, which make them way more notable/ important than most settlements that have their own article on Wikipedia. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im withdrawing this AFD. It is only my ignorance of Chinese history that led to this. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:21, 31 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 under WP:SNOW; probable hoax that fails WP:V in any event. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rybia[edit]

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

This looks like a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTE, considering WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed deletion was contested, so I've brought it over here to AfD. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:46, 31 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 userfy to User:ISKapoor/Bhapa. There is a consensus to delete, but ISKapoor has expressed interest in working on it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhappe[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable caste/social insult. PROD removed by the article creator. A previous version Bhappe Sikh (if I recall correctly) was speedy-deleted. - sinneed (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per concerns: The article is about a non-notable slang word. It cites no sources, and while searches show some usage, they do not reveal any wp:notability. Should the word itself become notable in the future, the article would require a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedea standards, as it is entirely wp:OR with a strong wp:POV and poorly written.- sinneed (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BrianY (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Your only reason is that its some social insult? Whatever it is - it exists (period) Its not enough to say Nigger, Paki, Skanger, Wog should be deleted because they are racist terms, Bhappe is not a racist term, its a term used by Jatt Sikhs to describe no Jatts, other castes are on Wikipedia like..
    Chamar but its still on wikipedia ? Could you explain why that is ? Analtap (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - "non-notable" is a key part of the 1st sentence fragment. If the term itself is wp:notable, perhaps it should be included. If so, those wp:reliable sources should be included in the article, with rewritten content supported by them. I see the term used, thus, it should be in a slang dictionary, but I don't see notability in wp:RS.- sinneed (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But your only reason is that its still racist bascially, thats what you said earlier ? Correct?
    Is Paki notable ?
    Why is bhappe not notable ? Analtap (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I asked for delete is that a quick search on the internet turns out nothing about this word. For example, when looking up Paki, there were several sources (including some news ones) that made the word relevant. BrianY (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Even with 2 sources, Paki (as a pejorative) rates only an entry in List of ethnic slurs#P. It doesn't have its own article.- sinneed (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    and Skanger (after one level of indirection) disappears into Wiktionary. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a multi-lingual urban dictionary; more so given that this is a non-notable slang and not even a common use slang term. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With no solid sourcing and no visible definition at all, I would very lightly oppose that. I am not a great source-finder, but could not find enough to feel confident of including it, like Paki in the list of slurs.- sinneed (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary has different requirements. No dictionary has sources for every (or even any) words. If it can be shown that it's used, it should be there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outstanding. Learning bits like this is one of the redeeming virtues of delete discussions. Thanks.- sinneed (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable slang term. Crafty (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a racist term and also a non-notable slang term. Also could not find any reliable source to define it. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, and the entry itself has a taint of racism to it. Hairhorn (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stupid B.S. article. This is a racist article created by a non-Khatri (Kshatriya) out of envy and jealousy. DELETE IT NOW PLEASE!!! - --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable racist word. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO. -Falcon8765 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A recist word. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is derogative term. It is not notable. It is used only by some members of one Sikh community for another. --ISKapoor (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that some might find this term to be offensive is not a reason for deletion. This discussion should focus whether or not the article meets our inclusion criteria. Crafty (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not a bad point, I think. I will restate in different wording.- sinneed (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree However it is not notable. It is a term used by a small group to describe another even smaller group, in a corner of India most people have not heard of. It is ridiculous. So a Strong Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 07:06, August 1, 2009
  • I understand how the term is used and if you check you'll see I !voted to delete on the grounds of insufficient notability. Crafty (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above duplicate !vote struck. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Spiff, I wondered what to do about that, if anything.- sinneed (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not wiktionary (and also this isnt an English word). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crafty is, of course, absolutely right in his comment, but this article has nothing in it which is of value in an encyclopedia. It's just an unsourced list of what some people allegedly call other people. Compare it to the article on "The N-word", which Analtap does above, and the difference is clear. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Favonian, it is not alleged, Crafty is right it is a term that is used by various communities to describe a certain, working class community. Some people may not like the reference because of the hierarchical nature of the Indian caste system to which they may not like being associated with such as dalits but chamar is not a notable word either with thousands of other words yet it is also in the Wikipedia such as Udasi, Tarkan, Ravidasia, Jat, Aroras, Baniya etc. To suggest wp:pov AND wp:notability should not be used an excuse for wp:JDLI or should be should be avoided.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.109.125 (talk • contribs)

  • OK Just a god-damned minute here. I support the deletion of this non-notable dross and frankly I'm tired of being verballed by every POV-pusher who trips across this page. My objection is to the prissy objections by a certain group of editors whining about this term being racist. It might be racist, I really couldn't give a shit and neither could the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. Let's keep the focus on notability not the thin skins of Indian editors and their sundry allies. Crafty (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't know enough about Wiktionary's inclusion criteria, but if it belongs there then Transwiki it. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." (bolding is from the original). Priyanath talk 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I'm not disagreeing with you but there is quite a lot of slang etc in wikipedia, such as the word bollox have you suggested a campaign to remove them all? Its becoming more apparent there are a lot of sundry allies (as was suggested above) to delete this article, but surely that's beginning to suggest its very notability in fact. A huge talk page perhaps warrants some notability?...Yet most of the objections are based on the fact they 'think' its racist or slang which is another argument.Heliosphere (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Are you saying "People care about Wikipedia and noticed this, so it must be notable."? wp:Notability has nothing to do with us, the humans sitting here typing on pages in Wikipedia. Article deletion pages are in no way notable... but we spend a lot of time on them...- sinneed (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Thanks to Heliosphere (which by the way is the new name for the user formerly known as Analtap) for providing yet another article to which his own may be unfavorably compared. If the Bhappe piece were anywhere near as well-written as Bollocks or Nigger, I would gladly vote for keeping it in Wikipedia, but it isn't so I won't. Favonian (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Sinneed, have you voted on any other item (prior to this) to be deleted that wasn't religious (Sikh) related? Your initial complaint was that it was racist, but you seemed to have shifted away? Anyway....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliosphere (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 August 2009
  • comment As always, please focus on the content, not the editors.- sinneed (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'd suggest you focus too on the content (I think its a fair question - above) Heliosphere (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian, if an item needs to be well written, wikipedia has its core mechnanism for improving articles, so over a period of time and article wont necessarily resemble its original text due to a multiplicity of contributions, plus your comparing this article to others that have had the chance to be written and re-written by many contributors over very long periods of time.Anyway its been vandalised so many times..... Heliosphere (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Change in view: I have investigated the history of the term, it has a long history (It is derived from Vappa/Bappa as in Bappa Rawal, historically used for a senior person, father or older brother). There are quite a few references where the related topic (relationship among Sikh communities) is discussed. The article is currently biased and derogatory, in addition to being poorly written, but I can re-write it, if it survives the delete.--ISKapoor (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you can add wp:reliable sources to the article or the talk page of the article, I would love to see them. The complete lack of wp:notability remains my objection... the nature of the word was, as pointed out later, just distracting.- sinneed (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I was wondering if it is possble to request a few days while I work on the article, before a final judgement is arrived at, since I note that it has quite a few delete recommendations (not inappropriately looking at the article as it currenlty looks)? --ISKapoor (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sounds like a good idea to me. Judging from an admittedly brief glance at your articles, it looks like you have the credentials. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't know any reason this needs to be killed immediately. If there is a need to close the AfD, I would support that as well... I have the article watched and if it doesn't improve I can renominate it... this time without the distracting mention of the word's meaning.- sinneed (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with that, but a better option is to userfy and do it at your own time and bring back to mainspace (obviously, that should be part of the closing statement). -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The article does have some ridiculous claims about an imaginary global 'Khatri network' that a Guru depended on, I'm glad Sinneed has decided its notable after all, although some POV is to be expected and its looking more like term of endearment when in fact its not Heliosphere (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Just in case Satanoid/Morbid Fairy/Heliosphere/and-whichever-other-accounts-that-editor-has, the creator of this article and its speedy-deleted-predecessor, has confused anyone, my "!vote" remains unchanged at this point.- sinneed (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Sinneed, kindly refrain: wp:Agf and please focus on content not on editors Heliosphere (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)— Heliosphere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latimer (PAT station)[edit]

Latimer (PAT station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This single station probably isn't needful of it's own article, unless there happens to be something unusual about it. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- there are dozens of other articles on other stations in the PAT network. Those made it through, and with some tweaks, this should too. Airplaneman talk 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those other stations should be considered for deletion as well then. Wikipedia shouldn't be a directory of stations. Unless there's something notable about the station, why should it get an encyclopaedia article? Irbisgreif (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.: Every station on the Washington D.C. Metro and New York Subway have a page. Transit stations are remarkable in that they represent a large capital expense to the metropolitan government, and represent the arteries of most major cities. Many districts in major cities are named after the transit stations that serve that area. These stations are as central to the cities that contain them as their notable buildings. Perhaps this could be another wiki project of public transportation. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 04:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 74.237.158.41. Consensus is that individual stations on urban rail transport routes are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:TWP established consensus that railway stations are notable. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all except nom. Consensus has long established that rail stations are notable.--Oakshade (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles on stations. Content worthy of an online encyclopedia. Fg2 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles on stations, although some of these are just a street stop. Scillystuff (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See I Love Money (season 3) Plastikspork (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money (Season 3)[edit]

I Love Money (Season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page was blanked with a comment that implied a WP:CRYSTAL rationale for deletion. I am officially neutral on this. Gigs (talk) 01:56, 31 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 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splat TV India[edit]

Splat TV India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like TEENick India, this network seems to be a creation of an editor with wishful thinking who would love to see Disney and Nick programs on the same network, when that will never happen, even in India, for multiple reasons, especially since Disney Channel India and Nickelodeon India already exist. Unsourced (46 G-hits), and very few inline links to the article at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:32, 31 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 under G3. ... discospinster talk 02:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet Bill[edit]

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

Hoax. No relevant Google hits gadfium 01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhat amusing, but clearly a hoax. AP1787 (talk) 01:47, 31 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 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TEENick India[edit]

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

An article about a channel which has absolutely no sources in sources outside here and mirrors (Google says it all; no results can be found), and has unlikely items such as new episodes of the long-cancelled All That, competing sitcoms Life with Derek and Drake and Josh on the same schedule (yes, and dogs and cats have just made a peace treaty with each other), and being a sister network to Disney Channel India, which will never happen for multiple reasons. On top of that Nickelodeon usually launches networks in the American market first (as here with TeenNick) before they bring the concept to the international market. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @098  ·  01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @099  ·  01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While it is not always true that networks start in America and then branch out (see Jetix (UK & Ireland), a UK only network, started in UK first), I think this is a notable network. The page should, though, be referenced to death if they can be found. If references can't be found, it should be sent back to userspace to be worked on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are no sources at all however, I checked left and right. TeenNick is not coming to the air in the US until September, and most of the Disney programs listed here already air on Disney Channel India. The creating editor's talk page has suggested they've had trouble before with hoax articles. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was able to find this. It does list TEENick India, but I, like you, found no other sources just Wiki mirrors (and man are there alot of those). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After taking a look myself, I can find no references or a website for the network. Plus with the user's talk page suggesting the creation of other hoax article, I have to change my !vote to Delete. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:HOAX. Joe Chill (talk)
  • Delete. No sources. Priyanath talk 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Honorverse characters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Simonds[edit]

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

Created in 2005, this article on a profoundly non-notable minor fictional character unfairly occupies a title that happens to be the name of a number of real people who have more of a chance of being notable than this character ever will. Abductive (talk) 01:04, 31 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} 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Snake[edit]

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

No evidence of subject meeting WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. Gasta220 (talk) 00:57, 31 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) Erik9 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rajiva[edit]

Lila Rajiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This AFD was started by an anonymous user, who added the following comment at Talk:Lila Rajiva:

AFD: Vanity article and Wikipedia:Notability

This AFD page itself was started by Persianq with the "I do not understand..." paragraph; because it was not created properly, I'm formatting it.

Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs

Discussion[edit]

  • "Keep" It seems odd that Lila Rajiva could have become less worthy of a Wikipedia entry the since the last unsuccessful attempts to nominate this entry for deletion in early 2006. On the contrary, since 2006 she has published a second book (which was awarded a getabstract award in 2008) and scores of articles appearing both in print and online. Her texts have since been used as college texts at Amherst College, Vassar College, St. Andrews University (just to name a few of which I am certain). If this entry should not have been deleted in 2006, it should certainly not be deleted now. --KingMontmorency (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This series of deletion nominations is nothing other than an attempt at character assasination. This matter has been brought up twice before. To argue the Lila Rajiva is not accomplished enough as a writer is simply an attack upon what she says. I have been reading her work for several years. To give in to such snide attacks as is currently launched upon Rajiva would be a great mistake. That is an informed opinion. Sincerely, John Tinker (Tinker v. Des Moines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntinker (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand why wiki would delete page to Lila Rajiva. She is an active journalist, blogger and author of good repute. I can only describe such an action as politically motivated censorship. I ask you to reconsider this action. --Persianq (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) — Persianq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The consideration to delete Lila Rajiva from Wikipedia seems completely misplaced as her written works provide unique insights into geopolitical affairs. As Lila's work can be undesirable exposure to some it is certainly very possible this action is politically motivated. I too hope this is reconsidered. —Preceding persianq comment added by DrPederson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC) — DrPederson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Lila Rajiva is an accomplished and a prolific author, blogger, and political theorist. I cannot think of a good reason to remove this informative entry from Wikipedia. Instead, the entry should be protected from whoever inappropriately recommended its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMontmorency (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) — KingMontmorency (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy keep. Procedural keep: no reason given for deletion. I missed the (brief) deletion rationale on the article's talk page. However this AfD is still incomplete. Finally! Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no reason to delete this entry from Wikipedia. Lila Rajiva is supremely talented author, blogger, and free-thinker. This appears to be the work of an "anonymous" detractor with some type of agenda. I sincerely hope that you take her entire body of work into consideration and allow this Wikipedia entry to remain intact.--Efowlk1 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the person that tagged this for deletion. A proper reason for deletion was given on the articles discussion page, which is what wikipedia instructed me to do. This author is not notable and this is a vanity page, evidenced by the recent edits removing unproven assertions that Lila was 'first' to write about various subjects. I'm sure Lila appreciates all of her blogging friends circling the wagons to vote keep as they seemingly have every time this article is nominated for deletion, but this author clearly is not notable enough to merit having a wikipedia page with only two published works in her career. I would like to take this time to remind everyone that participates in this discussion that there is a wikipedia guideline about biased canvasing, and your similarly worded assertions that this person is a prolific author, blogger, etc do not make it so. Thanks for reading.74.237.158.41 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She only has two books, but one of them is from a major publisher. Other issues you bring up can be resolved through editing rather than deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Wiley Publishing is a major publisher, it was done through an outfit named Agora Publishing. This seems to be a vanity press for Bill_Bonner, co-author of the book published by Wiley. Other issues can be resolved through editing, but previous self-promotional edits can be used as clues as to why this article exists in the first place, and why it continues to exist. For instance, this article was originally created by a politically motivated individual promoting his conspiratorial viewpoint on the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of this persons articles were deleted, but this one remained. I looked at the previous AfD and could only determine that it was kept because of biased canvasing through blogs and indymedia type outlets. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement in your original comment, " I'm sure Lila appreciates all of her blogging friends circling the wagons to vote keep as they seemingly have every time this article is nominated for deletion..." reveals you as having a personal agenda, most likely related to recent posts on her blog regarding Agora and Bonner. Perhaps you have no recourse through the courts and are using wiki to continue a vendetta that has nothing to do with Rajiva's accomplishments as a writer.--Persianq (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what article you are referring to. The only reason I made an accusation of circling the wagons was that this AfD was responded to by 5 or 6 different contributors before I had figured out how to add it to the AfD log. These comments were within a few hour period after she added a notice on her blog. Thanks for understanding. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lila mentioned to me about the notice of deletion and I made a post in defense, she then asked how I did this and I explained (even though it was improperly formatted; I blame my n00bity). Her blog post...a natural response it seems to me...was subsequent, just to clear things up.--Persianq (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of Rajiva's books has received an award which Wikipedia treats as notable; the book is definitely not published by a vanity press, but by a publisher that Publisher's Weekly treats as legitimate [10] (which should end that discussion). All the interpersonal differences which dominate this discussion should be ignored. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are no interpersonal differences other than that this author has admitted to canvassing and continues to canvas on her blog which violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Wiley is not Agora Publishing. Agora Publishing is a self-publishing firm owned and operated by Bill Bonner, one of the authors of the 2nd book Lila has written. Bill Bonner bears all cost of publishing the books through Agora Publishing. Anyways, the outlet of a piece of literature doesn't make it notable. Notability makes it notable. Additionally, if you click on the award you mentioned GetAbstract_International_Book_Award you will see that 50% of the authors there do not have wikipedia articles. Why does a coauthor of a book that won this award need one? Obviously winning this award does not make one notable. Being notable makes one notable. I hope you understand. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. So Publisher's Weekly treats the publisher as legitimate, and you don't. I know whose evaluation I trust more; more important, I know which of the two sources qualifies under WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The article you have referenced does not mention Agora Publishing anywhere in its text. Anyways, the argument is that the outlet of a work somehow makes it notable. This argument was brought up because this author has written only two non notable books. I disagree that the outlet or quantity of books written really matters. What does matter is that this person is not notable from a historical perspective, and nobody here has proven that they are. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Since you're claiming that a Publishers Weekly article including the phrase "Wiley signed a deal with the financial newsletter publisher Agora Publishing" does not mention Agora Publishing, I think you've made your lack of good faith even clearer than all your wikilawyering did. Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by disruptive anon editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Okay I've made a mistake. It does mention it once. It still doesn't make the author notable.74.237.158.41 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Mobs, messiahs.." is from a major publisher, Wiley, with good reviews from multiple reliable and independent sources such as "The Independent," "Money Week," and "National Post" (Canada.) Rajiva has had significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. WP:N and thus WP:BIO are satisfied. She has been interviewed or quoted as an expert by Pacific Free Pres, ABC News, Cape Cod Times,and The Hindu. She is a widely published columnist in several alternative, peace justice type outlets, but also in such sources as the Baltimore Chronicle and the Washington Post. Bloomberg.com documents the "Mobs, messiahs" book winning the "Get-Abstract Business Book of the Year" at the Frankfurt Bookfair. Edison (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rock on Edison. Joe Chill (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to show the self referential nature of these articles and promotions, please consider that MoneyWeek is owned by Agora Publishing, the same company that published the book. Even then, a handful of articles about a person do not make them notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Actually they do satisfy WP:N, since "a handful" is "multiple." And I do not buy the silly claim that Money Week seeks to bolster the income of Wiley, or another major publisher. They may be insufficient to make you like the subject of the article though. The threshold for keeping an article in AFD does not go up or down based on how much you like it. This waould be plenty for the average AFD. Edison (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: From MoneyWeek "It is owned by MoneyWeek Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S.-based Agora Inc headed by Bill Bonner." Bill Bonner is a coauthor of the book "Mobs, messiahs, and markets." Just because a book was reviewed does not make it notable. The spirit of WP:N is lucid: "For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent." Is this author notable in a historic context because of this book? Is this what you are claiming? If not, then what is this author notable for, specifically? 74.237.158.41 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please use your analytical skills to determine if Bonner is associated with ABC News and The Hindu as well. It seems unlikely. Multiple is stil multiple, even if you are suspicious of one review. Edison (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So now your argument is that getting a statement in the newspaper makes one historically notable. I understand, but disagree. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment:Rajiva responds to the issues and allegations raised on this AfD: http://mindbodypolitic.com/--Persianq (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. You're not helping. Almost nothing there relates in any significant way to the discussion we're supposed to be having here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Text stricken. Blog has suspicious multiple post headings and may be hacked.--Persianq (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Any reviews would be for the book and not about the author. The book may be notable but that does not confer notability on the author. Bonner may be notable on his own but again that would not confer notability to Lila Rajiva which is what this AfD is about. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The post by Rajiva yesterday on her blog directly contradicted some of the assertions made by the originator of this AfD, that's why I posted the link. I thought it was relevant. I think the issues raised here concern both censorship as well as threasholds for notability within the alternative press communities.Persianq (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think the getAbstract award confers notability. For instance, the book that won the award wasn't notable enough to have an article written about it when it came out in 2007. Half of the authors that won this award do not have wikipedia pages, and all of the references to this award in the press are in the German language. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond. Another ridiculously false claim from this axe-grinding anon IP editor. I don't think the Boston Globe is "German-language" [11]. The award gets a lot of German press because it's announced at the Frankfurt Book Fair, which hardly makes it trivial. More the opposite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond. 74.237.158.41, a writing award, whether it be a Pulitzer, Nobel Prize in Literature, or GetAbstract, is granted to the author(s) because of something they wrote. Both the author and their work are recognized and there's no conferring of recognition/notability from one to the other. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: But there is notability transfered from the award to the author, and some awards are more notable than others. If you look into it, winning the 8 year old getAbstract International Book Award is like winning the Sparknotes.com Book of the Year award, and sparknotes.com was based in Switzerland. I'm unsure if this award is notable enough to be on wikipedia, but if it is it definately isn't notable enough to make an author notable. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Notability is not temporary and so it does not matter that she won the award eight years ago. We can't take the notable award away from her other than by putting getAbstract up for AfD, it is deleted, and at that point it's a non-notable award per WP. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This author has already passed two AfD's and those were before the book that received the GetAbstract award. This AfD is unwarranted as it is based on purely subjective definitions of vanity and notability as stated on the article's talk page.Persianq (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lila Rajiva is a respected author of note, and a reliable source of information. User Redspruce Redspruce (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Redspruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Edison has showed there are multiple independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abarat. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iniquisit[edit]

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

Fictional location without any secondary sources that analyse or even mention it in any way. Article consists of pure plot regurgitation. Abductive (talk) 00:55, 31 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) 08:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Untitled Greatest Hits[edit]

2nd Untitled Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled album with no information other than it may someday come to be. Anyone have a crystal hammer? Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCurves[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nearly impossible to decipher in a web search any reliable sources because the entity is involved on media and internet marketing, and so sources are skewed. See the review of the sources below:

Serious reference issues[edit]

  1. http://webfloss.com/hcd-research/ – Fluff.
  2. http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1190661/mediacurves_web_site_posts_top_five_media_studies_of_2007/index.html — PR web posting. Not neutral.
  3. http://www.linkedin.com/companies/hcd-research — A company's self-created profile on another website is not a reliable source, nor is it independent.
  4. http://www.lead411.com/Company_HCDResearchInc_Kessler_371771.html — Another company profile; no in-depth coverage.
  5. http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=33802692&cs=QECA8nE7k&IndustryBin=MARKETING&Product=advertising+research&page=1&companyDesc=advertising+research — See above.
  6. http://www.businessyellowpages.info/company/20734 — Again...
  7. http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/node/128861/pdf — PR web posting again. Not neutral.
  8. http://www.politicsonline.com/globalcontent/elections/elections2004/ — No mention of the subject.
  9. http://politicalresources.com/Webnotes/issue4_6bot.htm — No mention of the subject.
  10. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330661,00.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  11. http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/04/bitter_remark_does_not_seem_to_1.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  12. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/money/doritos_ad2131312 — See above.
  13. http://www.pratttribune.com/news/business/x512385650/Biz-Bits-Confused-about-the-TV-switch-Some-answers-to-your-questions — Again...
  14. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27217062 — And again...
  15. http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080320/20mar20081825.html — Another PR web posting. Not neutral.
  16. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002935.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  17. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0713parkerjul13,0,3310359.column — See above.
  18. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/11/american-idol-4.html — Again...
  19. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95567799 — And again...
  20. http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-20-2009/0005062952&EDATE= — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. PR web posting. Not neutral.
  21. http://www.newfluwiki2.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3570 — A wiki regurgitation of a PR posting by the company.
  22. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/sports/dpgo_Study_A_Rod_Scandal_Erodes_Public_Trust2146033 — Again, this does not indicate why the subject is notable.
  23. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/HCD-Research-and-Muhlenberg-College-Will-Use-an-Index-to-Monitor-Physicians-and-Consumers-Perceptions-of-Health-Care-Reform-39474-1/ — Regurgitation of a PR web posting by the company.
  24. http://www.cnbc.com/id/32013911 — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
  25. http://www.viewpoints.com/HCDSurveys-com-review-f2ea3 — Non-notable reviewer on a user-generated content website. Doesn't establish notability.
  26. http://www.fox43tv.com/dpp/sports/nfl/nfl_schedule/superbowl_dpg_Pick_top_Super_Bowl_commercials_fc_200901272177206 — Still doesn't establish notability.
  27. http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1717923/majority_of_americans_say_congressman_kings_comments_about_michael_jackson/index.html — See above.
  28. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/HCD-Research-and-Muhlenberg-College-Will-Use-an-Index-to-Monitor-Physicians-and-Consumers-Perceptions-of-Health-Care-Reform-39474-1/ — Regurgitation of a PR web posting by the company. Repeated reference.

None of these sources actually discuss the company or its impact. Using its appearance in the sources above to infer notability is original research, and we don't do that here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom and it is clear that this was created by someone associated with the company (Ben the Intern) for purposes of promotion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is a recurrent problem with such companies--newspapers refer to them in the context of their surveys. But looking more carefully, not only do they do major surveys that are widely quoted, they seem to be the leading or representative web survey company. . It's hard to sort out material about the company in a gsearch: but I think I can do a little better at it than that intern:
  1. http://newsblaze.com/story/2008090314530200003.pnw/topstory.html "Mediacurves Offers Real-Time View of Americans' Reactions to McCain's Acceptance Speech" discusses the actual survey, not the results
  2. http://digitalpivot.com/tag/media-curves/ "Making pundits obsolete" Uses the company as its one example of such web-survey companies.
  3. http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1190661/mediacurves_web_site_posts_top_five_media_studies_of_2007/index.html "MediaCurves Web Site Posts Top Five Media Studies of 2007" Discusses the actual company (but it's from PR-newswire)
  4. http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/28/a_square_yard_of_fabric_makes_a_boring,_foreign_sahm* "A Square Yard of Fabric Makes a Boring, Foreign SAHM" Academic who compares her prize-winning thesis with their data.
  5. http://www.viewpoints.com/HCDSurveys-com-review-f2ea3 What seems like an independent review, though not from an authority
  6. http://www.slate.com/id/2163519/ by Andy Bowers of Slate -- refers to them as "our partners"

and especially

I think that last one settles it. DGG (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keepper DGG. Moreover, media companies rarely cover media research companies so we should give them a little more leeway.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:07, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm a little doubtful about this article, and I've vacillated several times in formulating my reply; but on balance, I think at AfD, the benefit of the doubt belongs on the "keep" side.

    My feeling is that this article is light onreliable sources, but I also feel that MediaCurves are a reliable source in their own right, which implies to me that they should have an article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:44, 31 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. One two three... 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Ghia[edit]

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

Minor character; not notable. Remurmur (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge to Roger De Bris (which is itself of questionable independent notability); nn on its own and no need for a breakout but a plausible search term. JJL (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a logical redirect to the easily misspelled car name Karmann Ghia. Mandsford (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a disambiguation page, pointing the character name to the musical, and the car to its correct spelling. LadyofShalott 04:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roger De Bris and put a hatnote for the misspelling there ala - "Carmen Ghia redirects here, for the car see Karmann Ghia". Both subjects are notable but they were a gay couple and both articles are short enough that a merge of some sort would be fine. Quite likely given all the actors and people involved there is more content available so I could also see leaving it as is with the content and sources that have been added. -- Banjeboi 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roger De Bris, character is not notable to stand on their own. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable character that has appeared in two major films and on Broadway; article could use work but has reasonable sources. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, literally hundreds of Google News hits. 96.10.153.234 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Jack Merridew on this. A notable character appearing in different media. Dream Focus 10:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNi[edit]

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

Lacks notability Dandv (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 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) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no notability  Chzz  ►  01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean-up (adding sources) per precedent: the article is a fork of WakkaWiki. Other forks have been kept. Delete all, or keep this. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify: This article does need more sources, but there are at least 2 out there. Sister-articles have been kept without sources, so fixing all or deleting all is our option. I think that it's worth fixing all of them, because there appear to be good sources. They just aren't cited. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Gosox. If sufficient sources are findable to support an article then it's better to wait for these to be added (and re-evaluate the article then) rather than deleting now . Cynical (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "[T]here appear to be good sources. They just aren't cited." is not a valid argument. The article's only reference([13]) is completely inadequate. — Rankiri (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the original contributor of the entry. I don't have strong views one way or the other about its retention. I do agree that it makes sense to treat the various forks consistently. Perhaps a longer description of each fork on the WakkaWiki article.Campingcar (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not about fairness and consistency. It is about systematizing and presenting the corpus of human knowledge as it actually is, and human knowledge is lumpy, spotty, unfair, and uneven. This article must stand and fall on the merits of its own subject, and if that subject is not a part of the corpus of human knowledge then it doesn't belong here, even if other similar subjects are part of the corpus of human knowledge. And vice versa, of course. So where are these "good sources" that you claim to exist? Cite them! Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 7 August 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 00:17, 31 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. Tone 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igneanous Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. Limited GHits and no GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:05, 24 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) 00:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn; no obvious rd candidate. JJL (talk) 03:08, 31 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. Tone 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadlock (band)[edit]

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

Promotional.Written by SPA. Miami33139 (talk) 07:06, 24 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) 00:10, 31 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 socks failed to make any real argument. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Hadlock[edit]

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

This article is borderline meeting any criteria in music notability guides for personal biographies. Miami33139 (talk) 15:07, 24 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) 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Puff piece made up of what looks like mostly OR. Shows no independent notability for him beyond a local puff piece and a small amount of local attention for his band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kris is not just a local musician. He has toured all over America and Europe with the well-known band Chesterfield Kings. His Los Angeles producer is Grammy award winning Bob Kulick. His biographer and promoter is the legendary Lonn Friend. All of these people are world-renowned. He has more than 20,000 fans on his Myspace from all over the world. And he has produced 6 CD's. This guy has earned his Wikipedia article hands down.WikiContributor1170 (talk) 00:15, 01 August 2009 (UTC) — WikiContributor1170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notability is not inherited. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 6 cd's is enough to keep a record on wikipedia; its not the rocker hall of fame its a free/public research tool - the guys legit; let it stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.166.50 (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 24.73.166.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - He has done more than most musicians can say they have. I have read his biography written by Lonn Friend, who has mentioned Kris Hadlock in other articles that have been written about Lonn. How much more legit can you get? He is original, dedicated, and passionate about his music... Not a cover playing glory hound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.29.253 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 70.101.29.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep- I Have seen this guy on tv in 4 countries and all over radio and the internet. He is the real deal and deserves a page!!! — Anrguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - The dude is cool. He not only can rock it out on the stage he is an awesome teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleen1227 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — Saleen1227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Kris has started playing drums with The Chesterfield Kings at age 18 and continued with Hate. He is an accomplished drummer and musician, This is a free public site, dedicated to inform the public, let's keep it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels0609 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — Mdaniels0609 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - This guy IS the real deal with a passion like no other to follow his dream and bring back the style of music we all grew up on. He is an accomplished musician, excellent teacher and a real person with a dream. He has definately earned a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.250 (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing to show that WP:MUSIC or WP:N are met. Sorry Kris, sure you rock and all that, but your page does not belong here. sparkl!sm hey!
    Lonn Friend has a Wiki article. The first external link is an interview with Neil Diamond. In that interview under the section "For whatever reason is there anything you didn’t include in the book? " He makes reference of working with Kris Hadlock. Is that not enough???? 20:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — FeistyMarty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP Six CD's. Plays 3 instruments and sings. Toured the world. Worked with big time people. KEEP HIM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallydavid (talk • contribs) 23:02, August 2, 2009 — Wallydavid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep Accomplished singer & musician; plays 3 instruments, sings & writes songs; has toured the world; worked with numerous artists of note, recorded 6 CD's. And looks good doing to all. Definitely deserves a place in wikipedia — Bostonangel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • KEEP Not sure why anyone would call to delete this article...STUPID! Kris is a very talented musician and deserves to have his story told!! — Krazykty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hiatus[edit]

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

Article was originally to be prodded, an IP user declined. Thus, the band member's article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 10:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass WP:MUSIC. Is "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Has a #1 album (see this, which isn't a reliable source, if you can't read Japanese; or this if you read Japanese, which shows it was the #3 album for the month of June). Also, pretty much every band that participates in Summer Sonic is notable--only one redlinked band in the last five years. Dekimasuよ! 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - charted album = passes WP:MUSIC C2; #1 album = passes by a long shot. Some research appears to have not been done before nominating this. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1 album on Oricon albums chart. Oricon Ranking ref Prior to July 29 2009, the article's validity was based on the "ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." criterion of WP:MUSIC. Further research yielded a #1 album on the Oricon chart. --[[User:Thompson781|Thompson781] 15:07, 02 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay (SafetySuit song)[edit]

Stay (SafetySuit song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Someone Like You (SafetySuit song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No charts, no covers, not enough information to bring beyond stub level. Fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect to artist have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Extreme change of heart by nominator: Something must have gone wrong with Billboard during their big site changeover, because I would swear I found nothing on these songs. Per allmusic.com, an extremely reliable source, both songs have achieved respectable chart positions. The articles are pretty bad, but they pass WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to SafetySuit, there isn't enough here to make a worthwhile stub. - 2 ... says you, says me 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both songs did chart.[14]. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reviewing the chart histories, my vote still stands. As per WP:MUSIC#Songs, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Both are effectively one sentence long, and neither is likely to grow beyond a stub, and the titles are an unlikely redirect term. A referenced mention in the album page is more appropriate, not a stand alone article.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As noted in the nominator's change of heart, both these songs did chart and thus do meet WP:NSONGS.[15] Billboard may be having a problem with its newly redesigned site right now. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both articles certainly could use improvement though, but that is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 28 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) 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both songs do meet WP:NSONGS as they charted, and a Google News search brings up some interesting articles on the songs. I'm going to go ahead and add some more content to these articles once they're off AfD. talkingbirds 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimmy Buffett. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf and western (music genre)[edit]

Gulf and western (music genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term is identified only with Jimmy Buffett, and even then only in two sources. A search for this term in association with musicians turned up nothing; without sources, the article's nothing but original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:06, 24 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) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Jimmy Buffett. That's certainly a lot of reliable sources, but neither they nor the article define this term beyond "What Jimmy Buffett's music sounds like." Whether that's enough to sustain a definition is shaky, but it's certainly not enough to sustain an article beyond a "'Gulf and western' has been a term used to describe Buffett's style" tagline in Buffett's article.  RGTraynor  06:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jimmy Buffet. Widely used in reference to the artist, but not notable as a separate genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AS IS - Introductory statement is incorrect. There are now seven sources, some that attribute G&W to other artists (4 listed). For more examples, suggest listening to Radio Margaritaville during hours they play non-Jimmy Buffet music. Knowledge of this new genre is growing slowly. not like 'surfing' the internet. But it will grow! Doubt many people know that this is a 'strand of grass on Oakmont Country Club's latest U.S. Open Course' issue. Passing on to some folks in the music business. DUden (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hits & Unreleased: The Ultimate Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. Mixtape failed to chart and did not receive substantial coverage from secondary reliable sources, thus not meeting the criteria for inclusion (WP:NALBUMS). Prod was contested. — Σxplicit 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absence of reliable sources to verify the article, resulting in the absence of notability. The only source cited is for a cite that does nothing but CD covers. While the text of the article now states it's an import rather than a mixtape, there's still no catalog number or anything to help verify it. Also, a search of a major music retailer - who does sell imports and used title - returned no record for the album. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 24 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) 00:05, 31 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} 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Control Framework[edit]

Distributed Control Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. While googling Distributed Control Framework provides plenty of links, it is because the name of the product is also the generic name for this type of system. No independent, third party sources cover the subject, no sources provided in the article except links to the developers' websites. – Toon 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nom. The article also contains an alarming number of redlinks. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 24 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) 00:04, 31 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. Tone 10:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Shoemaker[edit]

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

Wicked Choppers of South Carolina appears to be defunct. Can't find independent news, only press releases, about either Chris Shoemaker or Wicked Choppers (Not to be confused with Wicked Woman Choppers of Illinois). Dbratland (talk) 21:28, 24 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, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, no apparent notability, nor anything on Wicked Choppers. AP1787 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything after an honest effort. Awickert (talk) 03:01, 31 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_31&oldid=1142644629"