Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 15

< 14 June	16 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Blazers Street Jam

Lacks third-party' reliable sources to indicate notability.

Prod tag removed by one of two main authors, both SPI style accounts. Initial author never replied to my personal note on their talk page.

Has been deleted before (under prod? need admin to check logs). Suggest article be salted. tedder (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep The article itself is bad. The event itself is probably notable enough, being sponsored by a NBA team for a major charity. Probably news sources could be found. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my news links disappeared (maybe it was on the last prod), but a google news search doesn't show much/any reliable and verifiable coverage. Just press releases. tedder (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As G11 promotional material. This is basically a copy of a press release, and zero reliable sources can be found on the subject. (I live in Portland, FWIW). Steven Walling (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is a word-for-word copy of a press release, I think that qualifies for CSD G12 copyvio. Do you have a link to the press release? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The article is entirely promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only find one independent reliable source referring to it, and that's a passing reference. Fences&Windows 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. This is the press release if not the copy of it. Therefore reason 11 WP:SPEEDY 'Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'Polargeo (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a reminder, in my nomination I asked for someone to look at the page creation history. How many times has it been created and speedy/prod deleted in the past? If it has (as I think it has), I'd recommend salting. tedder (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Countries are definitely notable. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harikela

Only wiki referenced Janc6 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nomination was done on the page but not listed, just listed it now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I've never seen a country up for AfD before. Just a 5 second book search showed, according to the Encyclopaedia of Bangladesh and The Indian historical quarterly, this was a kingdom in the southeastern Bengal region during the 700s-800s with a lineage of rulers. [1][2]. According to other sources (from what I can read of them) it also was an prominent Buddhist learning center.[3]. The nom's reasoning for deleting this article, "only wiki referenced" is reason to add more references, not deleting the article. Another violation of WP:BEFORE example. --Oakshade (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I've got to go this route because of the other nominations around the same time: Ladahachandra and Govindachandra. The nominator's only contributions have been to nominate AfDs within this series of articles on the Candra dynasty and edit the same articles. As far as notability goes, this was a country , so it pretty much has a right to exist on Wikipedia. Verifiable on GBooks. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this was already deleted in the last AFD. Non admin closure. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clatworthy

Fails WP:BIO. Google search yields results for jazz musician Benn Clatworthy.

References do not meet WP:V and WP:RS:

Story written by the subject; doesn't discuss notability.
Same as above.
List of articles written; does not discuss the subject.
Webs.com pages can be made by anyone,; hence, not a reliable source.
Discussion thread also not a reliable source. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clatworthy ==

Ben is the UK's youngest broadcaster and journalist. He has appeared on the BBC and in the media on several occasions. Just today he was the celebrity studio guest on a Bristol radio station. From [4] one can see how much Ben has done, despite being 16 and all have links to the real article or Television / Radio appearance. Phil.murpey (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the title format for the above post since it was interfering with the index of the day's log. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. This [5] makes it clear to an idiot that that this is creditable. Just click on the links off the page too see. How can that not be notability. Finally, not wishing to argue but I found out about Ben a while ago and this is just an utter joke! - Open your eyes and look at a website other thank wikipedia - you are so 1 diminutional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil.murpey (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC) — Phil.murpey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never registered before. Just made IP changes.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Goth subculture#Controversy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gibbs (assault victim)

I have some concerns of notability. Listing to see what other people think mostly. As far as deletion goes, I'm neutral, leaning for a week keep. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAn unfortunate victim of mayhem. Not notable per WP:BIO and the article fails WP:notnews. Edison (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Goth subculture, section Controversy? Indeed there is notability issue. --Rickproser (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SINGLEEVENT says that the article should be about the incident itself rather than the individual person. Even at that, I'm not sure this meets notability issues, but am abstaining for now. Matt Deres (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As reference to Hate crime? (is compactness in wp an issue?)--Rickproser (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into an article about the event per WP:BIO1E. Not individually notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Goth subculture#Controversy per Rickproser. Fences&Windows 22:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity of reality

In a nutshell: original research, non-mainstream, and draws way to heavy from one or two sources. Possibly a POV fork. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fringe junk. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fringe self-promotion. It is a summary of an article by Bin-Guang Ma published in a non-RS source. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a major contributor, I disagree about the deletion. But, if all the others agree, there seems no reason for it to be existent. Kylin.Ma (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is already covered in Simulated reality, this is synthesis giving undue weight to a few sources. Fences&Windows 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toss-Seems like advert for someone's fringe theories. Delete. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessolve

No assertion of notability. May be notable however. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good no of Gnews hits (a majority are trivial mentions, but there are over 10 primary mentions that I counted). However, on reading the news articles, I'm a bit confused about the company, so the article clearly needs to be more than the one line it is right now and/or be broader in scope to include the US company.. It looks like it's been set up by an Indian in CA as a subsidiary of the Silicon Valley comapny. Some RS links showing notability: Business Standard, Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, Financial Express, Forbes-trivial mention. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something's wrong(apart from the bad lingo). This link[6] says that it is a US based company, not the first Indian company. I would have voted keep if this claim was true. --Deepak D'Souza 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response On reading through a variety of the news links I found this out: The US company is a holding company, the Indian one is funded in part by the US company and also a smattering of other sources including Qualcomm, Applied Material etc. This article is in serious need of help, but given that it's the first company to actually do genuine FAB work in India, I believe it's notable (of course, in addition to the coverage); I just hope someone can integrate the news refs into at least one paragraph for an article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that it is a fab unit,r ather that it is a testing unit. A fabrication unit is expensive and can only be afforded by a large company like TI, Intel, AMD or a consortium. Tessolve simply doesn't seem to be in the same league. Nonetheless, Ill vote keep for now and give the creator a month or two to improve the article and prove its notability. --Deepak D'Souza 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

I agree, the article is ultra weak on context or anything, and just reading through the sources I listed above, I seem to have got a different picture. While notability exists, I don't think the article is anywhere near showing that. This isn't an article I can improve, so I'm leaving it to the creator. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepNotability not absolute. Voting keep as per my comments above. Let the creator improve the article and prove notablity in a month or two or else it can be nominated again. --Deepak D'Souza 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Menksoft

Promotional article about a non-notable company and their software product created and maintained by a single user BabelStone (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the first largely duplicates the Menksoft page, and the second is just a redirect to the Menksoft page:

Keep - If you don't have Windows Vista (and partly even then), the products of this company are the only decent way to write the Mongolian language in its traditional script on a computer. That should make them unique enough to be notable, even if they don't meet the usual size-based criteria. Of course, there's no need to have several articles, and I've already tried to convince the creator about merging them. He has no Wikipedia experience and will need help finding the right tone of writing for an encyclopedia, but I don't think his goal is to write an ad (the current content is much too technical for that anyway). --Latebird (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual notability criterion has nothing at all to do with size. Neither do the WP:CORP criteria. And your rationale provides no explanation as to how those criteria are actually satisfied. "It's the only way to do something." is not in any of our policies and guidelines for good reason. This is an encyclopaedia with goals of being verifiable, neutral, and free from original research; and to have articles here subjects must be documented, in depth, by multiple independent sources by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Please address that. You haven't done so at all. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2009(UTC)

In practise, size of a company is often a deciding factor (including, but not only by increasing the chance of third party coverage), but that's not really the topic here. In our case, most sources will be in Chinese or Mongolian language, which I'll have trouble digging up myself lacking the necessary skills (I can only decipher very simple Mongolian text in cyrillic). I see that the creator, who seems fluent in both languages and all relevant scripts, has not been notified of this nomination. I'll point him to the necessary steps. --Latebird (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT needs a third-party citation and I've already gave: the MSD China one and a German one, both're occidental. If you need Chinese citation, there're even more: here's a government one.

And I'm not an advertisor of Menksoft, but Menksoft is the most popular one. And before KB929763 everyone said Unicode is unstable. I've tried most popular Mongolian IMEs in China and Microsoft Unicode IME, so I know that.

I will probably write another company - Saiyin if the article Menksoft is complete, so that it would be more neutral - two giants has been wrote and other IMEs are often compatible with the Menksoft code and Saiyin code. Currently, I didn't see Unicode Mongolian pages in China.

As for the merging actions, talk here.

Is "secondary sources" enough? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not a deeply scientific (eg. historical) topic, secondary sources should be fine. The most likely candidates seem to be computer magazines and language related publications. Coverage in mainstream media would be even better, because they show that a topic is relevant for "normal people" and not just for specialists. The coverage should also be "non-trivial". In the sources, the company/products should be at the center of attention, and not only mentioned in passing. --Latebird (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I do not think the article is appropriate is that it contains unsourced and unverifiable claims, such as "In 2003, it was evaluate as "重点软件企业" of Inner Mongolia and 20 giant private enterprise in Hohhot. Now, it's supported by the government". "In 2003, it was evaluate as "重点软件企业" of Inner Mongolia and 20 giant private enterprise in Hohhot" should be changed to something like "In 2003 Menksoft was evaluated as a 'major software enterprise' in Inner Mongolia, and one of twenty large private enterprises in Hohhot" (if I understand it correctly) and a reference added. The unsupported statement "Now, it's supported by the government" should be removed entirely, unless a referenced explanation of how the Chinese governement supports Menksoft is provided. BabelStone (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To BabelStone:

Done (edits gov supports). It's really a good thing that you can read Chinese, so that origins can be verfied. In fact, at first, I didn't want to write the history of the Crop. but later I was noticed and I realized the article contains only products so I thought it was time to make it similar to other Wikipedia articles such as Adobe Systems. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Latebird: "the company/products should be at the center of attention" - both the 2 reference (except for the German one: in the German one, it's not trivial, but still not in the "center of attention") I mentioned in "keep" satisfy this. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To BabelStone: Still a problem: how to translate "扶植"? I translated it as "support" but I don't know whether that's proper. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seem to be a handful of sources, not sure if this one was spotted yet:[7]. The article needs heavy cleanup, but the company seems just notable enough. Fences&Windows 22:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defeated

Unsourced and apparently unsourceable. No reliable sources for release at all, much less a release date. People keep inserting references to unreliable charts such as Latvia and the Polish National Charts, both listed on WP:BADCHARTS, but, since neither chart is permitted, it doesn't count as a chart. References to the "Italian Airplay Chart" don't verify when checked. No source, no release, no chart, no cover versions: massive failure of WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, contested redirect, only charted on bad charts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally not notable. Polargeo (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep per consensus. Problems addressed are reasons to clean up, not to delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Allen

Up front, I'll admit that this is quite likely a borderline nomination, and maybe even against the letter of BLP policy, but I just feel this kind of article, essentially a public shaming of an otherwise barely notable living person (ex-member of a U.S. State House of Representatives (not the US House)), distills much of what is wrong in how Wikipedia handles BLP's. I'm recommending deletion, either as not notable, or (if that doesn't gain consensus), WP:IAR: deletion improves the encyclopedia (by making it more professional). IMHO, a policy that says this article should be here is a bad policy and needs to be changed. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not borderline, clearly notable per our guidelines and seems well-referenced as far as the material which might be considered objectionable. He is notable even without this incident so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Drawn Some (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that his successor, the current representative of his district, doesn't have an article. Does being an ex-state representative confer notability, or was it the solicitation? I suppose this has no bearing, per WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXISTYET, but it makes me wonder if there would be an article at all, without the solicitation charge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write one? We don't question why articles exist, only whether or not they should be allowed to exist. If all the articles with self-serving motivations for creation were eliminated from Wikipedia there would be about 3,000 articles left instead of 3,000,000. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this is an AfD nomination. He was a state rep, and therefore qualifies WP:Politician criteria 1, especially per the footnote: This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. If there is a unreferenced negative BLP vio, then that stuff needs to be taken off, but everything appears to be sourced. If neutrality is in dispute, it needs to be fixed or taken to WP:BLPN. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- I think membership (even past) in a major state's legislature makes you notable. I have deleted some unsourced attacks and edited the article to give it some balance as opposed to being dominated by a single event. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a bit of a BLP mess, but this is a fix-it job, not a delete-it job. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done some cleanup to the article, it's a little better now. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep What is said in the article can be discussed, but a member of a state legislature is notable. Given that he resigned after conviction for a minor crime, I cannot see how appropriate mention of the matter can possibly be a BLP violation. It would be totally different if he were a private citizen, not an elected official. DGG (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possibly pointy. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladahachandra

This article does not cite any references or sources Janc6 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gbooks has plenty of hits, so a valid article, especially in light of the sequence of articles that are interlinked via the Candra dynasty page. While not an ideal case, the author has mentioned in the edit summary that it is being expanded. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as demonstrated by SpacemanSpliff's research. Yes, it needs to be referenced and expanded but oh well. Drawn Some (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as shown above A new name 2008 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unus Framework

No Google News hits, no coverage, nothing in the article that even indicates that the product might be notable. I declined the speedy as A7 does not cover software (not even such that usually runs on web servers as it's neither web content nor web sites) but nevertheless this is probably not notable at all. Regards So Why 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found to verify notability. TheLeft orium 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources available, not notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Demonstrates a problem in new article patrolling: if I fart and write an article about the expanding mass of gas, it needs to be debated as to its notability. Because there is no speedy category for general stuff of no notability of whatsoever. Your typical case is words made up by kids; tons of those. And PHP scripts; lots of this unverifiable non-notable garbage is kept because it's just too much work to prod 'em, wait for the deprod, then bring them up for a multi-day discussion. Most crap like this just gets kept by default. Rule stickler admins with "non-notable bands can be deleted, but not software, and not farts" attitude are not particularly helpful. Common, but not helpful. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment by creator originally posted to this debate's talk page) -

I greatly appreciate the constructive criticism of the moderation for Wikipedia now.

Also just to educate you on the difference between what you are calling a "PHP Script" this is not written by your average 16 year-old protégé posting the newest twitter project. It evolves months of planning, development, testing, debugging etc with highly complex development design theories and logic algorithms that would run circles around a "PHP Script".

Wither this gets deleted or not this is the first and last article I will ever contribute to Wikipedia, Thanks for the great support!

Cheers

Nwhitingx (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject software package has just been released after development by single developer. No evidence of uptake. No other evidence of notability. Article appears to be written by sole developer of the software. Paleking (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kings are notable. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Govindachandra

references Janc6 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gbooks has plenty of hits, so a valid article, especially in light of the sequence of articles that are interlinked via the Candra dynasty page. While not an ideal case, the author has mentioned in the edit summary that it is being expanded. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as demonstrated by SpacemanSpliff's research. Yes, it needs to be referenced and expanded but oh well. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was also no consensus on whether all the articles should be considered in one debate or not. If anyone wants to renominate them then it is my personal opinion that there will be a greater chance of consensus if they are considered separately, particularly Egland Haxho and Arbër Abilaliaj. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egland Haxho

Contested PROD stating "...player is competing in the top-level in Albania", however it is unverifiable that the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional thus he fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of references. --Jimbo^[online] 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following, as they too fail the same criteria as Haxho;

--Jimbo^[online] 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; non-notable players. Giant Snowman 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Egland Haxho. I can't prove that the Albanian Superliga is 'fully professional', can anyone prove that the Premier League is. He is notable for playing at the highest level in Albania, which is a part of the most important continental FA club-competition wise. Should those other Albanians be grouped like this into 1 AfD rather than listed separately? Anyway, I had a look at Arbër Abilaliaj and see he has an even greater argument for keeping - 79 league appearances including 58 for the significant Partizani Tirane club. I think we need to be careful about pro-Western (Europe) bias. However, notwithstanding the above I will see what I can do about adding sources, though the timescale is unhelpful. Eldumpo (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Sorry but there is no evidence the Albanian top flight is fully professional. It is not a matter of pro-Western bias, since the same applies for countries like Malta, Luxembourg, Estonia and Finland. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the Albanian lge is definitely 'fully professional' but for which leagues can you definitely say that. What it means then is that people are free to dispute the Athlete criteria whatever league it is. I'm saying these athletes have general notability, but it seems particularly harsh on Albanians to kick out players competing in their top football league; will any Albanians be left on here? Eldumpo (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of fully professional leagues is available at WP:FPL. --Angelo (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo, thanks very much for this link, interesting. However I see most of the entries are unsourced. Of those with references I did have a look at, none actually met the incredibly stringent definition of 'a sports league where all first team players, in all teams composing the league, are known to be contracted in a full-time basis.' !! Eldumpo (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. – Pee Jay 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom — if we allow Albanian Premier League players despite their WP:ATHLETE failure, what next, Faroe Islands? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this one of those cases where general WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE? I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on, but it's something to consider. IMHO, playing 50 times for Partizan Tirana makes one more notable than, say, winning a regional US college soccer award, and we kept Doug DeMartin for that very reason. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, I don't see any significant reliable, and detailed coverage about the subjects themselves we require. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument (I think DeMartin is non-notable as well, but it's merely my opinion). --Angelo (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to improve Arbër Abilaliaj and believe it may come close to passing WP:N or that his play in the Intertoto Cup could satisfy WP:ATHLETE. I don't read Albanian, so it's a bit difficult to find local sources about him. Jogurney (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding further info. I think the fact that he's played in the Intertoto (and scored!) makes him a definite keep. No one has yet answered my query about all these players being bundled up into 1 AfD. Eldumpo (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled the AfD as they are all footballers in a similar position with regards to notability. Would be a bit of a waste of time/space to create nine seperate AfDs. --Jimbo^[online] 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're all different, it's not like when you have (say) multiple TV series articles created. I think Arber and Artan should definitely be kept as the real stand-outs, they should not be lost to Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously they're all different, but all closely related as WP:BUNDLE states. They're up for deletion for exactly the same reason and they all play for clubs in the same league which it's "fully-professional" status is in question. --Jimbo^[online] 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even teams from Andorra and Faroe Islands used to play in the tournament, do you really think they are notable just by playing in a Intertoto Cup! Not really a good point, sorry. Intertoto Cup (which was recently dismissed, by the way) is no different than UEFA Cup preliminary rounds at my eyes, especially in its first round which used to involve a bunch of really minor teams. --Angelo (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and agree that many semi-pro or amateur clubs played in the Intertoto. However, I understand that Ethnikos Achnas is fully-pro, so the matches in question were at a higher level. The player also has a fair amount (although maybe not a "significant amount") of coverage in reliable sources. The article is pretty close to passing WP:N, although I doubt it actually does. Since I spent some time searching and this was the best I could find, it does support the idea that the other articles would fail WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA Cup/Europa League is a significant competition and I would say players/clubs participating in it are inherently notable. Eldumpo (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, a player of an amateur team from Andorra can suddenly become notable only because he played one minute of a Intertoto game against a team that happened to be professional? I would call it "coin tossing notability" rule, since a team is coupled to another team by a draw... --Angelo (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but a professional club in a league which is not fully pro may be able to. I believe that there is precedent for this on articles about footballers who played in the FA Cup. That said, I'm not convinced the Abilaliaj article actually passes WP:ATHLETE, or that it has sufficient references to pass WP:N. It's close, and that's a good sign that the other articles listed here (for less accomplished footballers) would not pass. Jogurney (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also tried to source Artan Sakaj and he probably comes even closer to passing WP:ATHLETE as he played in the 2nd round of the 2008 Intertoto against Grasshoppers. Again, there aren't many sources for someone like me who doesn't read Albanian, but it's pretty close to passing WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before we start wholesale removing all Albanian players, one should establish if the league is fully-professional, or close enough. And one should be careful of introducing systemic regional bias into the project. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability or real attempt to show that it might be the case. Suspiciously, no attempt has been made to create articles on Albanian wiki so probably just self-publicity--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Delete All--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is a good standard to use, but there appears to be a plan to create an article for Abilaliaj on the Albanian WP. Jogurney (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nominator expressed desire to withdraw on my talk page. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa (band)

Unsigned band. ~~Could only find one article on GNews that discusses them [8]~~ Only claim to fame is that they are an unsigned who made it onto a Pop list. Most likely non-notable, unsigned band. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You obviously haven't looked at the references in the article. Although they appear to be borderline on WP:BAND they definitely meet the requirements of WP:N. They have received full write-ups in lots of music press as well as mainstream press. They continually tour nationally and internationally. They aren't just some no-name pub band. I can't say I particularly like them, but they do have a place on Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure why this AfD is being brought. --Web Hamster 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The fact that they're unsigned actually is their claim to notability, as they were the first unsigned act to chart on the UK Singles Chart, which is a major singles chart in a significant country. Between that and the significant amount of reliable sources, they have no trouble passing WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TPH explains exactly why they're notable: they were the first unsigned act to get into the UK Top 40. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very easy one, this - clearly notable via multiple significant coverage in reliable sources and UK chart hits. I would dispute their claim to being the first unsigned band to have a top 40 hit, but that's another issue.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

As it stands, the article looks like a POV-fork of Taiwan Province, which focuses on the claims of the PRC over Taiwan. However, these claims are already fully documented, in a neutral way, in Taiwan, Republic of China and Taiwan Province so we don't need a fourth independent article for it. Even if there was some unique content in the article, we could easily merge it in Taiwan province#PRC's claims. Laurent (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to Taiwan province, we don't need separate articles covering the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. based on comments further down I now understand this isn't duplicating Taiwan Province. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 1) it does not cover the same thing. The PRC and ROC provincial administrations are not identicial, 2) it is not a POV fork, it is not dedicated to arguing in favor of the PRC position of Taiwan, but 3) deals with a real-life subject, namely the PRC provinical administration. The fact that Wikipedia has an article on a subject is not an endorsement. The provinicial administration of the PRC is notable on its own, and is a different subject than the politics of the Taiwan issue, Taiwan (the island), ROC (which is a state) and the ROC Taiwan province. The PRC province does exist, even though PRC has no control over the territory in question. It is an entity with representation within the PRC state machinery, and is a notable subject of its own. Compare with the existence of Judea and Samaria Area (an Israeli administrative unit without international recognition) and West Bank (geographic area). --Soman (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The provinicial administration of the PRC may be notable, but it still doesn't mean we should have an entire article about it. As mentioned above, there is nothing in this article that we cannot merge into the more neutral Taiwan Province. The latter already mentions the claims of the PRC in the introduction, and has an entire section about them, which is all we need. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a POV-fork because it isolates the PRC's POV from the rest of the articles, and prevents us from giving the full picture. Laurent (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province is about a province of the ROC which does not encompass the entire island. This article in question discusses the PRC "administration" for the entirety of the island, as well as nearby islands, which are not part of the ROC province. Fundamentally, they're different concepts. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This article contains information that is already covered in Taiwan, and without the Beijing-centric POV. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In revisiting this discussion, I am impressed with the arguments in favor of keeping the article. Therefore, count me in as a Keep person. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of what one thinks of the PRC's claim to Taiwan, the fact is that the PRC does claim to have a province called Taiwan Province, and the borders of that province according to the PRC are not the same as the borders of the Republic of China's Taiwan Province. My main concern with this article is that it could be used to justify a series of articles about Andong Province, Republic of China, Anhui Province, Republic of China, and numerous other provinces and municipalities located on the mainland and officially claimed by the ROC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there's no point creating a separate article for every single territory a country claims. We can easily do it in the main article. Likewise, if the borders are not the same, we can also document it in the main, neutral, article. Again, I just can't see any technical reason why there has to be two separate articles. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this article is not about the PRC claims, but on the PRC province. The relevant question is, did ROC maintain provincial administrations 'in exile' for the pre-1949 provinces. I think they did, but I can't find a reference right now. If there was a 'Anhui Province' administration in Taipei, we could have articles about that. The difference is that I think (guessing) institutions like parliament etc. in ROC is elected only on basis of the 'Free Area', not the claimed provinces of the mainland. In the PRC state aparatus, the 'Taiwan Province' has its own representation, and is there by a real existing political entity (in spite that PRC never controlled Taiwan). --Soman (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trying to merge PRC information to ROC information is JUST ASKING FOR TROUBLE. It just does not work. There is no reason to merge these things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What sort of trouble do you expect? Are you saying that we should just give up on being neutral in Taiwan articles? Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article describes the theoretical territory as designated by the PROC, as opposed to the territory of the province governed by the ROC. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the territory claimed by the PRC is not strictly the same as the one controlled by the ROC, we can document that in the main article, perhaps by adding a map of the Taiwan Province, as claimed by the PRC. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't have to agree that Taiwan is part of China for an article on Beijing's claims to exist. Taffy (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about agreeing with the PRC or not. I don't agree or disagree - it's just about being neutral. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See explanation above. Fundamentally different from the ROC province. This is the equilavent of any other province of China, which all have articles. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the fact that, as ridiculous as it may seem, an administrative organ that represents Taiwan does exist in the PRC government. Hong Qi Gong(Talk - Contribs) 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taiwan Province exists as such, just some sentences have to be changed Rirunmot (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Soman and others.--Danaman5 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a POV fork but an article describing a real-world parallel administration for a geographic area. It is equivalent to having articles on both Morocco's Southern Provinces and the SADR, or both the Palestinian Authority and the Judea and Samaria area. <eleland/talkedits> 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st of all, this is not a POV fork, which I think we all agree. Also, there IS a point to keep it because as for all Provinces of PRC, there is a funcation for this province - Such as the National People's Congress. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the People's Republic of China has not ruled Taiwan since its establishment, Taiwan Province is officially recongnized by the PRC and it is stated in the Constitution of People's Republic of China. Therefore, the article should be reserved. Ricky@36 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black is the new white

Merger proposal to The new black expired. Subject is not notable enough to justify standalone article. ninety:one 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The New black, nothing really worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic of the article clearly fails guidelines for notablity. Drawn Some (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This expression has been used in major media sources, which are used as sources for the article. I think there is more public interest in this than many topics with WP articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use is not description and documentation. And until something is documented (in depth, in multiple independent reliable sources) then it may not have an article, whatever the level of public interest may be. The world must have already documented things for them to be included here. Interest in the heretofore undocumented does not negate our Wikipedia:No original research rule. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete True, it has been used in reliable sources but is hasn't gotten "significant coverage" as required by WP:Notable. Maybe it will in the future, but until then better just redirect to the other article. Borock (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information is just made up.--NovaSkola (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Barack Obama. It's very short and hardly worthy of its own article, but it does have reliable sources and therefore should be merged. Clem (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Koenig

Only sources in the article mention her in passing, no non-trivial coverage found. Handful of mostly unsourced minor roles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general guidelines for notability as well as WP:CREATIVE. Also notability isn't inherited from her father. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fails WP:BIO and per NOTINHERITED. Eusebeus (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial independent coverage - Vartanza (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep They don't let you near Montreal during Just For Laughs if you're not good. The sources seem to show that she is more than just Chekov's daughter. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ÷seresin 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Fellas

Non-notable local event: a single comedy show. Prod contested by article creator in 2008. Jfire (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My conclusions concur with nom's findings. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 2 June 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 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that Tiernan (sp?) and Moran have toured together subsequently (like last night in Boston) under this name. SGGH ^ping! 14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been substantially updated (more than doubled in size) since being nominated, and there are three sources for coverage of the show. While one of the sources is not accessible any longer unless you want to pay for it, the other two offer sufficient coverage to barely scrape through the notability requirements. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @844 · 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources added aren't enough to get it past notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though the article is verifiable, the subject is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComboFix

Last AFD was relisted twice without anything resembling a consensus: one WP:USEFUL and one suggestion to merge somewhere. Seriously, let's go or get off the pot with this article. It's written like an ad, is very listy, and lacks secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet.

Delete, per my past nomination (see the link to the side). ^blurred _peace ☮ 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thundercats Ho!! Ah, anyway, that is an advertorial of some sort, no good for here even under the weak pretense of WP:USEFUL. treelo _radda 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by users blocked for sockpuppetry.

Speedy Keep think it's unlikely this needs to be deleted outright. Maybe merged to an article on antispyware techniques in general, but let the people who would actually write such an article decide. PSPbothmanlol (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Agreeing with PSP because this saved my PC and it can save your soul from the pits of hell. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Save. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will stay here until this article wins its freedomz. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is written like an advertisment, and I am uncertain about the reliability of the sources, particularly the third one, which appears to be the results of an online malware scan. There are 600-odd hits in Google News for "ComboFix", but most of these are passing mentions as part of a general solution to a posted or hypothetical computer problem written about in tech support columns (or "help me" posts on tech websites, which Google News Australia appears to index for some reason). As an aside, repeated vandalism of the deletion discussion is not helping the article's case. -- saberwyn 22:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Comment Why wont you keeep it????? SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)~~ User blocked for sockpuppetry. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are questionable at best, relatively few and unremarkable Google hits, doesn't seem notable. Some of it sounds like an ad as well. See also: Seems listy.. --Intelligentsium 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI could find no substantive reviews and there is nothing in the article to raise it to encyclopedic levels. I can't even find anything on-line that could be used to improve the article. // BL \\ (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement and no reliable sources to establish notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good sources to pass WP:N, no independient third-party sources to write a balanced article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing acceptable about it, pure advetorial. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no worthwhile sources. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This virus-remover program probably has value to somebody who already knows how to use it, perhaps through personal experience or having it explained to them by a malware expert. (The Google hits suggest that some people have success with it). Unfortunately we can't write a real article without proper sources, and there are none that I could find. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sketchy ad with sketchy references for a sketchy piece of software. Not notable, not a single WP:RS included...Paleking (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed bin Jasim bin Hamad

I nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but it was removed and the reason given was "No need of deletion since the sources have been quoted". Yes there is a quote, but I could not find a reference there to the subject of the article, and it still does not satisfy A7 "An article about a real person .... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" Click23 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that the OP is using Wiki as there personal family tree maker. Click23 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. I saw a similar page with the same name. Its too confusing. I think this article should be deleted, you have a green signal from my side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs)
Delete article clearly fails WP:N and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established; indeed, there is no assertion of notability in the article itself, and no apparent mention of the gentleman on the single linked site. Maralia (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not asserted or established through sources. (Should we also look at possibly AFD listing some of the other similar articles, like Saud bin Muhammed, Fahad bin Muhammad, Abdurahman bin Muhammad, etc.?) Dawn Bard (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the pages the user has created, most should be deleted under WP:N and WP:BIO by WP:PROD. Click23 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Bumpass

No reliable sources found, only directory listings and trivial mentions. Doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guidelines. Only major VA role is that of Squidward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reports of his death, while exaggerated, did excite the world at large. [9]. According to Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart‎ He also created "Fartman", appearing on a 1980 National Lampoon LP called The White Album. This isn't a terrible article, and keeping it improves Wikipedia by informing readers and educating people. Deleting it harms our readers, our scope, our goal and our purpose. Hiding T 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one news story. Do you have any more reliable sources in hiding? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as he's already in an encyclopedia: Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture. There's room for him in Wikipedia as well. Article has now been expanded and sourced. Its a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, that's a keeper even before I seen the article, he did do a lot before gaining the role of Squidward and given the extra cites introduced recently it's way more than a decent keep. A reasonable keep. treelo _radda 09:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He has long been a high-profile voice actor and is considerably more well known than many, many actors and other people with Wikipedia entries. His role as Squidward, a major character on a major series (SpongeBob SquarePants) alone warrants his inclusion. Zomno (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but there are a few outstanding delete !votes. However, a clear consensus to keep has been established. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love

The subject lacks true academic references. What is used relies on the subject of Pederasty, which is not the same subject and Pederasty in ancient Greece which again is not the same subject. I do not recommend merging as the article is filled with OR and POV. Research showed little to no information available through either Literature or online. Little to no chance of accuracy through general references. Term is relatively contemporary and does not meet notabilty. Many citations were removed as inappropriate. Some, seemingly odd to use as an ecyclopedic reference and others outright unreliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 15 June 2009

Nomination withdrawn I Amadscientist hereby withdraw this nomination from Articles for Deletion. Disputes and concerns are being addressed. Article may not have been notable in the narrow way it was presented, and as much work as it is going to take to do it.....I have started fixes and will continue untill article is broad in scop and referenced properly.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 2 of the AfD process was not completed correctly. It has been fixed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the objections raised by the nominator. I count 25 citations of which eight are to books published by university presses and a ninth is an academic journal. There appear to be more academic referencs than for most articles. The article contains an entire section on the notability of the term itself, and the other issues raised can be fixed by editing. Will Beback talk 19:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of those references are about Byron, who wrote poety and not non-fiction and his use of the term, along with Shelly. Perhaps this should be merged to the Byron page.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fear that the nomination is a case of WP:IDON'TLIKE. The nominator put a whole load of tags on the article the day before nominating it for deletion. These include "unencyclopedic" and "hoax" which I find incredible when the article cites three different books, all listed on Amazon UK, with the term in their title. As the first of these was published in 1964, the description of the term in the nomination as "relatively modern" might mislead readers into thinking this is a much more recent coinage. That said, the editors should be careful that this article does not spend too much time on material that belongs in Pederasty in ancient Greece but that it instead focuses on the (presumably two-way) relationship between how Byron and others saw this topic and how they saw themselves and their own feelings. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not a hoax, but it's remarkably inaccurate (for example, Shelley's translation of the Symposium simply omits several paragraphs on Socrates and Alcibiades). What Peter Cohen recommends would be a good article (if there were enough untendentious material to support one), but this is not it; while I am tempted by deletion as a POV fork (of, say, Romanticism), I will consider merge proposals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator seems to be agenda driven, claiming that "The term 'Greek love' refers to the male bonding of two equals" and claiming that the article misrepresents the "true meaning of this term" but failing to provide evidence for either position when repeatedly and patiently requested to do so. He also asserts that "this article has become almost exclusively about the subject of pedophilia" when 1. nothing of the sort is the case and 2. what if it was, is pedophilia (or bibliophilia, or any other philia) a forbidden topic on Wikipedia? The whole situation could benefit from toning down the level of the discussion, and letting the main editor resolve issues as they come up. Realistic ones, preferably. Haiduc (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether using the term pederasty or pedaphilia, the question is not a moral one, but of accuracy. I believe you are aware of that sir, since you called for help on the Platonic love article and I defended the use of the term "man and boy" on that article as appropriate. The lede in the article states "Greek love is a relatively modern coinage (generally placed within quotation marks) intended as a reference to male bonding and intimate relations between males as practised in ancient Greece,. I didn't write that, but I do agree with it basicaly. It's "as well as to its application and expression in more recent times, particularly in a 19th-century European context" that I dispute, because it also never discusses the 19th century use to mean bonding. The article never discusses the bonding part at all. It goes into extreme detail about the relationship between men and youths. But no disussion of the first definition. The body of the work seemed more than tilted. If the article remains I can contribute to it in good faith and am not pushing a political, personal or social agenda.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 'Greek Love' is clearly a euphemism for sexual relations. We live in the age of gay rights when such euphemisms for homosexuality are completely unnecessary and therefore the article is unnecessary if indeed it is about Greek homosexuality. However, Greek Love can also be regarded as a euphemism for pederasty, a criminal activity hardly to be distinguished in modern law from paedophilia. 'Greek Love' is in fact a term that blurs the distinction between homosexuality and pederasty and it has tendentious qualities. It provides pederasts with an opportunity to treat pederasty as if it were just another form of homosexuality. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for that kind of agenda-based editing and the article should be deleted. There are already other articles on pederasty. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No: 'Greek Love' is not merely a "euphemism for sexual relations". At one time it may have been so, but the usage which is clearly outlined in the article refers specifically to homosexual relations in the context of ancient Greek society, and the nature of the relationships which were expected in that society. Nor is it merely "a euphemism for pederasty": it is, again, a term relating specifically to a particular attitude to sexuality in a specific social context. As for "agenda-based editing", isn't that exactly what this user is advocating? He/she wants to have the article deleted because he/she morally disapproves of it. However, we should bear in mind WP:NOTCENSORED. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Morally disaprove? Are we discussing the same nomination I made...or are we making assumptions without checking the actual article yourself out discomfort for the subject?

Please. "Man/boy" are weasal words used over and over. It's the inaccuracy of its use as well as the way the article overflows with boosterism.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a vague term that floats around in meaning and isn't notable by itself. Just because the words "greek" and "love" appear together doesn't mean there is something unique or special about it. Of the billions of things published in the world, just because you can find a handful that use those two words together doesn't make it motable. Reading this article, how is this term any different than paederastry?--TheDecanome (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer TheDecanome's question, it is different in relating the concept specifically to the context in which it appeared in ancient Greece. Since love between males had a special role in that society, one which it does not have in any modern society, it is a concept with a social meaning quite different from the meaning which "paederastry" has in our society. As for "there is something unique or special about it", I should think there are many thousands of articles about things which have nothing unique or special about them: if we were to remove them all we would have a much smaller encyclopedia. For example, there are articles about many authors of books, and probably only a tiny proportion of them are unique or special. There is nothing in the Wikipedia notability guideline saying that uniqueness or specialness is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- BOLD COMMENT In the article Platonic love I was looking specificaly for the debated use of the word sublimated in the article and didn't notice that the citations do not support the use of the words man-boy untill I was showing the references to TheDecanome It apears Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest may be correct about "agenda-based editing".--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term - article is referenced and additional references are easy to find on GScholar [10] and Gbooks. [11] Edward321 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you possibly mean to say is that it's easy to point to a Google search that simply finds two words occurring in succession. It's rather harder, however, to make a proper argument for keeping, because that involves reading what the searches find (to see whether they are even relevant) and citing the specific works (a Google search result is not a citation). I note that you search result turns up things wholly disconnected from one another, including Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in Nineteenth-Century England, Greek History for Young Readers, and Ancient Greek Love Magic, the latter two of which have zero connection to the subject at hand. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course there are false hits, and I never claimed that a Google search was a citation. You appear to be assuming I did not read what the sources find, which is incorrect and not assuming good faith. The false hits do not change my points that the article is already sourced and that Google Books and Google Scholar both show that there are several of addition sources. Obvious ones on just the first page of the latter include Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in Nineteenth-Century England, Roman attitudes to Greek love, and Sexual life in ancient Greece. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am voting even though I nominated the article for deletion. I don't know if it's OK or not, so should it be wrong just don't count it, but I have discovered what appears to be an asserted effort by pro pedophilia supporters to edit a social agenda on wiki and I am making use of every possible tool at my disposal here at Wiki.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very honest of Amadscientist to admit to basing his/her comment on a POV position, but, however much he/she or you or I or any number of us may or may not disagree with "pro pedophilia supporters", Wikipedia is not censored, and "I morally disapprove of the motive behind this editor's editing" is not a valid reason for deletion: the decision must be based on the content of the article, not on speculation (nor even on established fact) about the viewpoint of the authors of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Comment Wow, attributing a quote to someone who never made it is beyond in-civil. Misunderstanding someones intention is one thing, but to just make stuff up is serious. This attempt to label me as "Intolerant towards the pederastic community on Wikipedia", is inaccurate and at the same time.....true. While i do not support any pederastic subculture editing within the site. it is only when it becomes an asserted group effort to trash all other incoming information. While the Major contributer is civil in this discussion....his message on your talk page is clear. He supports the locking of technical articles to keep out unwanted opinion. He is the one stating that the "direction" he was aiming at was highjacked.

A detailed history section that I am about to reference was called frivilous.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment if the article stays I believe it should be renamed as "Byron and Greek Love", or "19TH Century Greek love philosophy" or "Pederasty in 19TH century England".--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So many hits on Google, it made me dizzy. Obviously relevant and appropriately named. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, the topic is of historical note. It is scholarly and well cited. One could perhaps argue about the title of the article, but not its content. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important historical concept, has sources, probably does deserve its own article. Born Gay (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actualy as the nominating editor I can say I have a great interest in this area as part of my interests in many Ancient Greek and Roman subjects. This isn't the subject being written about. The article discusses a 19th century neo classical version and even then only a small part of that movement is discussed. Articles makes claims that are not supported by references and in some cases the article boost the idea of pederasty as the only definition and subject against mountains of literature, archeaology and known history.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the (current) principal editor, I am encouraged by the support, but disturbed that much of the article has already been deleted without discussion. The essential argument devolves upon the title which had been validated in discussion on the talk pages two years ago, and remained unchallenged until two days ago. I have made my rationale clear on the talk pages. The new material - deleted without warning - was intended to focus on recent publications e.g. "Greek Love Reconsidered" (ed. Hubbard) which title neatly sums up the direction that the article is to follow. --Dominique (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)--Dominique (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have also been disturbed by the way the article has been treated, and have already indicated that the proper way to proceed is to restore it to its original state of a couple of days ago, and to reference it in a reasonable way as may be necessary. I am sure I am not the only one who sees it as the product of a mature and responsible intellect. Like any other article here it will benefit from the attention of other responsible editors, but its current sorry state is not the way to move forward. Haiduc (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dominique, here is what you wrote about the term 'Greek Love' on the Talk page, 12 Oct 2006 (italics mine): Even as a popular term, it may still provide a gateway to 'enlightenment' for those for whom the word 'pederast' is vague or meaningless, though I suppose this could be provided by a search 'redirection'. Your original intention was a reappraisal of pederasty and that is what is objectionable about the article. We already have articles on pederasty and we don't need an article that tries to promote a sympathetic view of it. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It has been my experience, in my long career of working on pederastic topics for Wikipedia, that one is quite as likely to dig up a distasteful example of pederasty as an exemplary one. Thus it is to be expected that the process of enlightening the reader (benighted or otherwise) would include the worst as well as the best of pederasty. I am sure you are not suggesting we should promote an antagonistic view in these articles. I do not read Dominique's words as seeking a reappraisal as much as seeking to inform the reader. It may well be that as a result of that information the reader may reappraise his position, either for the better or the worse, but that is not our concern. Haiduc (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Dominique needs to provide an alternative title so that we all know exactly what this article is about. If it is an attempt to enlighten readers about the true nature of pederasty, it should be merged with articles on pederasty. The present title invites confusion and people are editing it with various ideas about its significance. Indeed, most people who vote to keep the article really have no idea what it's about - two have cited Google hits as a reason for keeping it. This is crazy. I have nothing more to say. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Pederasty is a vast subject. It makes no sense to merge separate articles simply they come under the same category. Haiduc (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOT doesn't apply considering the following: this is a noteworthy subject which merits an article as there's clearly the interest and sources to clean up whatever problems there may be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTCLEANUP states "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read on, you'll see what the authors of that essay mean by "harmful"; they refer specifically to BLP and COPYVIO situations, that is, those situations where there is a genuine concern that the article does harm to individual(s) and thereby exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to legal action. This isn't one of those situations. Another, though, which I've supported in the past, is if the article unequivocally violates WP:NOT, there exists no version in the article history which would satisfy it and there's difficulty finding reliable sources relevant to the subject (kind of like CSD G11). This isn't one of those cases either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominated mass deleted things the past few days [12] and then nominates the entire article which remains for deletion. The term shows up in plenty places. The article has plenty of references. It has enough content to be its own article, not combined with something else. It is uniquely different than other articles of similar topics. Therefore, it has both a reason and a right to exist. Dream Focus 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a complicated tradition here, that is being somewhat fractured throughout the articles on this subject. The Ancient traditions of Greek philosophy, Eros (as a deity with dual traditions and as an idea) and Cupid (the Roman equivalent , Kalos (which doesn't have a proper page but redirects to Kalos inscription, which does at least relate to the archaeological evidence), and the graffiti of the ancients left on walls of stadiums, columns and rocks. These are the actual expressions of love left by real people in love with real people. The inscriptions of pottery and the pottery itself. Then there are the original surviving poetry and oral traditions of the original Hellenistic age and the writings of the many who wrote about or used these subjects as plot device as used in Jason and the Argonauts. Then, there is what the Romans thought. There is no definition in the eyes of the author being discussed as to what "boy" is defined as. No discussion of age at all, or that there exists other, perhaps even more common, uses of the term attributed to adults of age or "Equals". The sporting and Olympiad connection is also not brought up.

Renaming (move) to "Neo Hellenistic Greek Love" or "Neo classical Greek love" could be appropriate. Article can keep the emphasis on the 19th century movement with an overview explaining the ideology of the original Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians etc. Then begin as the article does and go on to other forms of influence and authors like Evelyn Waugh and Oscar Wild, all the way up to it's influences on LGBT studies as well as film and televison.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator seems to bring confusion to this AfD. If he just wants to rename the article he should have discussed the matter on the talk page. If just wants to create a drama and draw a lot of people in, then he should find another forum. This AfD should never have happened, and is wasting time. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A waste indeed. There appears to be some sense of 'conversion' in the comments, though I am not shy of reasoned critique. I have been examining the topic over about three years - the development of my own thinking is recorded on the talk pages - and became convinced that a definition of 'Greek love' was bigger or more pervasive than that for Pederasty, tout court. Recent major literature on the subject should convince some doubters that the title has validity, even if a precise charaterization is elusive. The project under way re the article involves changes and re-writings (of the 14 June 09 more complete version of work to that date): the direction and suggested categories have already been mooted. I hope that this work can continue with the benefit of open discussion, support and challenge, but no calculated disruption. In my view, the title should stand as representing an established concept of current scholarly debate. A more comprehensive understanding is the goal.--Dominique (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have discussed the matter on the talk page. AFD was suggested as the proper route even after suggestion of renaming or merging were being made. A good debate in a civil manner whether lively or not is not a waste of time. I would have no choice but to agree if everyone was flattly against everything I bring up, but that isn't the case. This is not a WP:SNOW. The consesus of keeping looks good, so why wouldn't I want to gauge what is wanted by those envolved enough to add to it what the next step should be. If this is drama, I'm not the one painting it with such broad strokes.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and different from other articles mentioned, perhaps beginning with something like "Ancient Greek conceptions of love were in a hierarchy, with thoughtful male-to-male love, now commonly called 'Greek love', held in highest regard." -MBHiii (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you. See further comment about the search for a 'definition' on the article's talk pages. --Dominique (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been some good rationals for and some good rationals against and plenty of rationals covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but overall the debate brought out clear consensus with problems agreed upon by even those proposing Keep. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the material may be best presented in other articles, but there's enough cited evidence to show that the term is more than a neologism and deserves its own subject apart from other Pedarasty topics. Them From Space 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom seems to argue for a rename -- AfD isn't the right venue for that. The Victorian hellenic ideal certainly is notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuks Ukaegbu Ibeawuchi

No evidence of notability found either for this individual (3 Ghits all related to this article) or the company. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to be a distinct lack of coverage establishing notability for the subject of this article. Nuttah (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. //roux 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tasmanian state election, 1996. Merging may be done if gathered consensus supports it. ÷seresin 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Greedy 40% Extra Party

Delete no indication that this political party is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even try to assert notability; WP:PUTEFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the speedy as I felt it was unfair to speedy it in its current condition of having been severely stubbified. I have restored much of the original material trying to leave out most of the "party political propaganda". I have also added a reference, such as it is. I am not !voting, it may well be that this is still not notable enough for an article, but the discussion should at least be on the article the editor actually wrote. At the very least, there is evidence that the party really did stand in elections. SpinningSpark 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The party was more of a curiosity than a serious party - it certainly cracked the headlines in the particular election it ran in and most likely, by having its name on the ballot paper, got a single issue into the heads of voters while voting. The article in its present form is acceptable, provided better sources can be located. Not voting, as I cannot honestly decide whether what I have said qualifies it for notability or not. Orderinchaos 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (allowing merge if someone feels they can do one) to the only election I can see they stood in - Tasmanian state election, 1996 and where we already cover them quite a bit. Unless more coverage in reliable sources can be found an individual article does not seem to meet notability guideline but a redirect does seem appropriate given the coverage in the election article and allows recreation if more coverage is found and article rewritten based on that coverage. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insuranceleads.com

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable website/company. No reliable sources provided, none found. TN X Man 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could be a borderline Speedy Delete A7 candidate, as the vague sentence about a Google award is barely an assertion of notability. The only ghits are things like blog posts and press releases, along with a few pages about this site being a scam. --L. Pistachio (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little more than spam. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ÷seresin 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bennett (footballer)

Contested PROD by IP user without explanation. Later edits indicated that the user believed he played against Doncaster towards the end of the 2008–09 season, although sources state otherwise. He fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Wikipedia:ATH#Athletes almost all professional football players that play for a even major clubs are - at least de facto - included here. While I personally think that this policy should be reviewed and additional requirements of notability shuld be added to said policy, as it stands he does pass this bench mark, as he is signed by the proessional team of the Wolverhampton_Wanderers_F.C.. Passportguy (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he is signed to the club, but fails the bench mark by not having made an appearance for them as the criteria states. --Jimbo^[online] 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are technically correct. However that will likely change very soon (unless you have an indication to the contrary ?). So deleting the article now even though the person in 99 % likely to pass the criterion in the very near future seems a bit nitpicky. Passportguy (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems like crystal balling. --Jimbo^[online] 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry; being signed by a professional club is not, by itself, sufficient. Many pro football clubs sign many youth players who never make the grade. Once he sets foot in anger on the pitch for a competitive match he gets his page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree that purely being signed is not sufficient notability. However I suspect that all people that are signed (and thus cost the club money) are very likely to play eventually. Otherwise the club wouldn't be paying them - what would be the point ? The way I understand the article - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that this person is a professional football player signed to play for the A team of this club, having recently been "promoted" from the junior team. And again, while that technically doesn't qualify him, he will once he does play and I have no indication that he is unlikely to do so under normal circumstances.Passportguy (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - no; many players at pro clubs don't make the grade. Clubs sign them on potential, as am investment in the future, but we can't crystalball. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I would be amazed if he plays for Wolves this season with them now playing at top flight level; he's never even been a substitute in the Championship before and is very physically slight. He could be loaned out potentially but at just 17, the club may well keep him under wraps for a little longer so I wouldn't necessarily expect a breakthrough for the short term future. Wolvesweb (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:Athlete. If we start including players who haven't played at an appropriate level then we are effectively without any objective notability standard. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and recreate if he plays first-team football. As stated above it isn't at all unusual for youngsters to be signed by professional clubs and then released without ever playing first-team football - I can think of about a dozen young players this has happened to at the club I support, Gillingham, in the last decade, and it's even more likely to occur at bigger clubs where the young 'uns have to jostle for places with far more players and there are bigger prizes at stake making managers even less likely to put untried kids in the team. Reasons why youngsters get signed and then leave without ever playing first-team football are many and varied - a new manager might replace the one who gave a young lad a contract and not see the same potential his predecessor did, he might suffer a serious injury in training, or he might just "go off the boil" as he gets older, either way it's not that unusual, and we certainly shouldn't create articles based solely on the assumption that just because a teenager's been given a contract that it will automatically lead to a place in the first team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player Uksam88 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 being notable for one event. Should something change substantially in media coverage, the article may be re-created without a DRV. ÷seresin 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Wanless

Contested prod. This is article is a case of being notable for one event only and the only sources I can find are the same AP wire story, repeated ad nauseum. TN X Man 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge if an appropriate location can be found. I think the fact that he bought the ticket in Winner is delightfully interesting, but this is the essence of WP:ONEVENT. I don't see a List of Powerball winners or similar anywhere, but I think a merge there would be appropriate if someone knows of such an article. Cool3 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a list of lottery winners; a link from the Neal Wanless page goes there. Very few people have won the equivalent of $200 miilion (lottery or otherwise). He was the lone ticket holder; most wins of this magnitude have several or more people claiming together.207.210.134.83 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This indeed is a ONEEVENT. If this person actually does something with his $232 million he may well become notable in the future, but as of yet he isn't. 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passportguy (talk • contribs)
Merge into the Powerball article.Historicist (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I do still think that this is clearly a case of WP:ONEVENT, I've managed to find a fairly large amount of coverage subsequent to the original story on the win. If someone would like to try improving the article, I'd be happy to provide him/her with some of these sources. Cool3 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'be heard this arguement quite a number of times on here lately. I think it misses the point a bit. The reasoning behinde ONEVEVENT is that there are often people that rise to quick fame just to be forgotten again a couple of weeks or months later. In retrospect, fleeting fame is not very substantial and articles on these people should therefore be avoided. To quote the policy :"if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." So the issue isn't the fact whether or not a person is being covered, it is whether that coverage is and is likely to remain subtantive in the long run. In short : Will anyone remember this person a year from know ? If not, the person probably shouldn't be included. Passportguy (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly I agree, and thus my !vote to delete/merge above. I was merely pointing out that if someone believes that this is more than just fleeting coverage, I can provide him/her with some sources. Cool3 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With this amount of money, there will be continuing coverage. I am very reluctant to keep articles where the person hasn't actually done something notable, but there is a point at which exceptions should be made. DGG (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Underwood

Does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO - hasn't received any notable award; hasn't "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field". Also the article, having been written by at least one paid editor, reads like an advertisment. Laurent (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entrepreneur, successful corporation, lots of news coverage including profiles in real newspapers. Founding and running a successful corporation is notable.Historicist (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "lots of news coverage" is a bit excessive. Looking closely at the sources, there's only one article in a local newspaper about him [13]. The rest is about his company [14][15]. The USATODAY source is not about him, and he is only brieftly mentioned. I think his company may be notable but he doesn't appear to be. As mentioned above, he didn't receive any awards, and hasn't actually received much news coverage. According to WP:ANYBIO, the person should "[have] been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles", which is not the case here. Laurent (talk)

I (Ryan) have to disagree with the above by Laurent. You are using the article itself as evidence for the amount of new coverage on this person. If you go to Google News and search for Underwood, you find dozens of articles covering him, his companies, his political activities, and charitable activities. The article go back at least 6 years and come from a variety of local and national newspapers, USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, LA Times, FL Times-Tribune etc. There are also mulitple T.V. interviews of him. In the category of people from Florida he is certainly notable and at times highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannagy (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some results for "Ken Underwood" on Google News but I don't think that's him. For instance:

LA Times - "Ken Underwood, the hospital's chief operating officer" (not him)

New York Times - "Sabrina Underwood, a daughter of Cheong and Ken Underwood of Alexandria" (probably not him)

Usa Today - "National Safety Commission president Ken Underwood" (could be him but there's only one sentence and the article, overall, is not about him)

One can assume that the paid editor has already tried hard to find the best sources, and even these are not really satisfying. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom do not feel he meets WP:N and WP:BIO clearly and further this article was paid for to be written here.[16].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of enough reliable, third-party sources that directly discussed the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguably there could be separate articles on his companies, National Safety Commission and StereoFame, because that's primarily what the (limited) sources for this bio actually cover. But for him as a person - no, the sources provided don't prove notability, I doubt very much there is anything else, assuming that the (paid) article creator did his/her best to obtain every scrap of information and marginal source that he/she could. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- John - The fact that you "doubt very much" isn't a coherent argument. Are we simply going on your assumptions or would it be useful to look at the evidence? If a newspaper is a reliable, verifiable, source, I can quickly find a 30 references from five or six different regional and national newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannagy (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, given that you commissioned and paid for the article I'm inclined to regard you as having a WP:COI and, as a result, I personally put less weight on your opinion on this subject. However, if you can provide the evidence for his notability (e.g the 30 references - also, have a good read of WP:Notability and the more specific WP:ANYBIO and see if you can provide evidence of the criteria listed there), then that can be assessed on it's own merits. On a side note, a) I'm curious (a genuine curiosity, I'm not trying to make a point) as to whether your commissioning of the article was at the request of Ken Underwood and if it was for promotional purposes and b) I recommend having a read of and inputting some remarks at WP:Requests for comment/Paid editing because one side of the story that hasn't really been heard from there is the side of the people commissioning these articles. Ha! (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, minimal coverage in reliable sources, reads like an ad. Rebecca (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:N Wikireader41 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam by a single purpose pov pusher YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamvertisement. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable as individual. Companies maybe notable, but that's not the issue here. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently unclear whether subject meets notability guidelines, more evidence of significant coverage is needed. One of the companies, National Safety Commission, looks like it could be notable, and maybe there is some content in this article that could be useful there. snigbrook (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. Doesn't help that it was bought and paid for either. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ken Underwood is mentioned on User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with John Broughton that it might be possible to write articles about one or both of the companies. Problem with paid editing: you have a tendency to do what the client asks, not use your own judgment about what would actually work. DGG (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi all - Thanks for your various comments and thanks for the respectful tone of the conversation. I would like the page to stay up, but as many of you have noted, I am certainly not impartial to the topic or conversation. But neither am I going to do the work to dig up the rest of the references and articles that I can find. Lesson learned Ryannagy (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Trager

Non-notable; no sources Fleetflame 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extensive plot summary/in-universe-ness, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important recurring character in an important series. Possibly a merge, but certainly not a straight delete. DGG (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kyle XY characters. Merge whatever can be verified against reliable sources. Just looking at them, most of the character pages for Kyle XY should also be treated similarly. Of course, presentation of reliable, independent sources attesting to the notability of this character would change my mind, but I see very little that seems convincing on Google, Google News, or LexisNexis. Cool3 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be series credited cast (contra DGG) in a multi-season show. Cleanup, but keep. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list-of-characters article; there are no sources to demonstrate sufficient notability for this individual character. Powers ^T 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of the article is not notable due to a lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Verifiable but not notable. A redirect woudl be appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kyle XY characters where it has its notability and context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Capricorns

I'm bring this to AfD because I feel this doesn't meet the standards set at WP:BAND. This is a contested prod with the following statement, which sums it up better than I could: "Never appeared on any national record chart; only local releases, nothing nationally (U.S. or anywhere else); no coverage in any reliable sources independent of the act or either local record company that released the group's records; commercial listings in an online store do not demonstrate anything close to meeting the WP:BAND bar". Tavix | Talk 04:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Rick Doodle (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic bio here and a substantial review here, four albums, at least one of which is on a significant label (Banazan). More coverage from Athens Exchange, Kotori magazine.--Michig (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Releasing an album doesn't make you notable, selling a lot of them does. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BAND, selling lots of records is only one of the accepted criteria for notability. People writing about you is not only a criterion of WP:BAND, it is also enough to pass WP:GNG.--Michig (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to add the reviews from here and here to the sources above, showing that WP:MUSIC#1 is met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:57, 8 June 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 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's and Sparklism's sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ample evidence to show notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan-It-X Records

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Plan-It-X Records (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Plan It X Records

Article has been through AfD a few years ago (and apparently VfD before that), but has no RS documentation to meet WP:V nor any particular assertion that it meets WP:N. Google News search shows only non-RS and trivial RS mentions--unable to find enough to meet inclusion criteria Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has sufficient notability to keep, as has been determined numerous times already in previous debates. Artists like Against Me, Kimya Dawson, and Fifteen are extremely influential and readily verifiable by spending 5 seconds on Google. jer the linear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Please see WP:NOTAGAIN. Your response also doesn't address the verifiability concerns. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTAGAIN does discuss not frivolously renominating articles over issues that have been discussed. You have not brought up any arguments that were not addressed adequately previously. There are many reliable third parties that discuss the label, such as the Philadelphia City Paper. Some one appears to have added some sources while we've been discussing this as well. What claims are in dispute, anyway? jer the linear (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is pretty clear: "has no RS documentation to meet WP:V nor any particular assertion that it meets WP:N." What part of meeting V or N is optional? What part of V was met in the last AfD, when at the time of this nomination, there were zero independent reliable sources documenting what the article asserts? If these had been met when I nominated the article, I quite agree that this would have been a frivolous nom. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we've been through this before, and it's hardly become less notable since the last AfD. Clearly satisfies notability, as has been detailed in the past AfD/on the talk page for various Plan-It-X bands SetaLyas (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please indicate which notability guideline you believe this meets and what documentation you believe exists in the article to support this. Again, adding reliable sourcing to the article would help your case greatly. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ee can either use WP:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles or WP:Notability_(music)#Others to determine it's notability. It only needs to meet one of the guidelines listed. For the guidelines listed under musicians and ensembles, #5 discusses major independent labels as one "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." Since Kimya Dawson (she did the soundtrack for Juno (movie)), Against Me! (now on Sire Records), Fifteen (band) are all especially notable (again, just to name a few), and the labels been around for 15 years, it satisfies this criteria (as well as #6 on the list). If we're looking at criteria for "Other," it qualifies under #6 "# Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture," as it is often discussed on Maximumrocknroll and Punknews. Though I agree that citation would help, I fail to see how that is grounds for deletion as opposed to grounds for cleanup. jer the linear (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that if those are established through independent reliable sources, that the notability criteria are clearly met. Problem is, the article as was when nominated didn't clearly assert any of that, save perhaps the age, and what was asserted was entirely unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup Based on the above discussion, the article is notable and verifyable. Sure, it could use more sources, but those sources definitely exist. Beccaisrockin (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plan-It-X Records is certainly a notable and verifiable record label. As previously mentioned, Kimya Dawson has worked with Plan-It-X Records. She along with two other Plan-It-X artists Matty Pop Chart (Matt Tobey) and Paul Baribeau performed at the Independent Spirit Awards live on channels AMC and IFC [[17]]. Also, Plan-It-X was mentioned in a funny bit of odd news revolving one of its bands This Bike Is a Pipe Bomb [[18]]. While the article may need some clean up, it should definitely not be up again for deletion. Daviddrummer12 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what was previously mentioned, Plan-it-x is home to Madeline Adams, who released her first record on Plan-it-X. Madeline is often featured in Flagpole Magazine who have documented her increase in popularity over time and subsequent jump to Orange Twin Records, a label home to other notable bands in independent circles such as Neutral Milk Hotel. Although Flagpole mainly serves the Athens, GA community, it is not sanctioned or funded by the University of Georgia, and subscriptions can be purchased nationwide. This article documents the release of her second album and subsequent tours with other Plan-it-X bands The Door-Keys and Defiance, Ohio. As mentioned earlier, Kimya Dawson appeared both solo and in the Plan-it-X group Antsy Pants on the Grammy Award-winning soudtrack to the major motion picture Juno. Likewise, since signing to Sire Records, Against Me! have had videos circulated on MTV, appeared and performed on shows such as The Late Show with David Letterman and went on tour with multi-platinum band The Foo Fighters. In less than flattering news, Plan-it-X mainstay This Bike is a Pipe Bomb continues to find itself in the news due to their stickers, which some bicycle owners place on their bikes, leading to fear of bomb threats and sometimes panic, but nonetheless making its way to the national [news, multiple times. RankResistance (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This Bike is a Pipe Bomb has their own article, which rightly contains much of this sort of coverage. I've looked at a few such articles, but I find nothing but passing mentions of the label, proving, perhaps that they exist, but not providing any sort of in-depth coverage of the label itself. Is there any RS coverage of the label as a label? I've not found any. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plan-It-X Records is the former home of Against Me!, a band that has garnered national attention and radio play. They now have a record deal with Sire Records. This fact alone should make this article worthwhile. Paintedwall (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two paragraphs alone show how notable the page is.Whotookthatguy (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(already commented "keep" above). This article from Flagpole Magazine touches upon the DIY ethics and community involvement of PIX when discussing it's Plan-it-X Fest bus tour of 2005. As mentioned prior, it is from a national magazine and does explain not only its existence, but also its releases and activities. I think this satisfies its requirements. This review of a Matt and Kim album from the same publication discusses the "Plan-it-X" sound, which, in my opinion, alludes to the fact that there is a distinct influence from the label on larger, more successful artists, which I believe satisfies another one of the requirements.RankResistance (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already commented "keep" above, so i struck your second keep here so as not to confuse. 86.44.30.176 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An independent label that has released artists such as Kimya Dawson and Against Me! ought to be notable. 86.44.30.176 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guidelines for nominating an article for deletion, seen here at WP:AfD, outlines the following pretty clearly: "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a 'cleanup' template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." The nominator, based on PIX's edit history and discussion page, has not done this; the AfD tag has been added unfairly hastily. Contributors above have already made great strides in improving this article (especially considering that PIX's ethic works actively against the mainstream sources that Wikipedia is fond of), which a cleanup tag would have handled just as effectively. Nowah Balloon 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the same token, I should have deleted all the unsourced statements in the article before nominating it for deletion. I thought it less disruptive to nominate it as-is. Rather than pointing fingers at the nominator, it would be far more productive to simply fix the article. If someone would care to lift a finger and include a few more of the sources here into the article itself, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It feels to me that a citation needed tag would be more appropriate than deleting statements. jer the linear (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a whale of a roster of important musicians. Albums released by this label are reviewed regularly by major press outlets. The label is of clear cultural significance and is thereby of encyclopedic worth. Chubbles (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ÷seresin 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 to 5 (video game)

Delete nothing to indicate that this planned but cancelled video game is notable - barely any context to tell us what it would have been about. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of Atari 2600 games along with 32 in 1. Both are "substubs" with little apparent potential for expansion. Dancter (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in redirection if we can't even verify that it exists. Canceled games are almost never notable unless there's more we can say about them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "exists." It was certainly announced and showcased by 20th Century Fox Video Games. Dancter (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nine to Five. While not enough to sustain its own article, the information can be verified and even expanded a little using citations from Creative Computing,[19], AtariAge.[20], or The Miami Herald. Also a separate, similarly-named computer typing game (9 to 5 Typing) was actually released based on the movie. Dancter (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Figure Death Theatre

No third party sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a brief mention) to Stick figure, if no good sources can be found. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why even mention there if there're no sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because [21] and [22] and [23] and [24] and [25] are sources, they're just not great sources. It rates a mention. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a request for feedback at Talk:Stick figure. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And dark the Sun and Moon, and the Almanach de Gotha / And the Stock Exchange Gazette, the Directory of Directors... Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. Such is the way of things. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 31 May 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 00:08, 8 June 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 17:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not a notable enough website at this time. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Eacott

While there is an assertion of notability, there is no sourcing. That plus the article format suggest that this gentleman may either fail WP:BLP or be a hoax, though more research would be needed to tell which one this would be inclined to fall under. Tyrenon (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search will tell you it's not a hoax. There are brief mentions on the following [26], [27], [28], lots of references to him in jazz books [29], and his own website has a pretty impressive resume [30]. Actually, looking at that last one he even lists the sources of the quotes so it shouldn't be too difficult to get more sources. Quantpole (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first three links seems to be trivial mentions. There's a lot of false hits and trivial mentions on the Gbooks search as well. Edward321 (talk) 12:09, 2 June 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, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. No assertion of notability (I disagree with the above statement that there is such an assertion; what is it?). The above links seem to have only mentions that are too brief. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Member of multiple notable bands. Composer of score for internationally touring production (Gormenghast). Composer for various televsion and film productions. Principal lecturer in music. These are all claims to notability. His 'algorithmic composition' could be regarded as a significant new concept or technique (no 2 in wp:artist). His membership of different groups shows he meets no6 of WP:MUSIC. Meets nos 1 and 2 of WP:COMPOSER. If you disagree that these are notable then fair enough make your case, but notability is definately asserted. Quantpole (talk) 11:09, 9 June 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 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I ran news google archive search on his name and the keyword music and got a reasonable list of articles.Historicist (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs to be re-structured a bit but that's no reason to delete. Would seem to meet GNG as well as music notability thresholds. -- Banjeboi 07:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be just about enough coverage to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Roca Puyol

I fail to see how a physical fitness coach meets notability standards. My speedy delete tag was removed by an anon with no other edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Professor and was FC Barcelona' s fitness coach who made them the world’s most successful team in this year. He is considered the best physical fitness coach of Europe.Sultaniman (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considered the best by whom? Has he won an award or had significant in-depth coverage in independent sources? The article needs to reflect those references, I can't find them. Not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant to mention that the article is the barest outline of a resumé. Drawn Some (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person. Giant Snowman 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Has he won an award or had significant in-depth coverage in independent sources?"

Yes. Can' t you see the cups he won? Take a look at the bottom of this articles. Section: Titles

   * UEFA Champions League. Season 2005-06
   * League 1st Division. Seasons 2004-05 and 2005-06
   * Supercopa de España. Seasons 2005-06 and 2006-07

He is part of the team. He also won medals for these cups.

Sultaniman (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fitness coaches are hardly notable, and this is no exception. --Angelo (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is not part of the team and fitness coaches don't win league and cup titles. They may work behind the scenes for clubs that do, but then so do groundsmen, receptionists and tea boys. I see nothing to suggest this guy is notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also say the same thing for the managers then???This is a team sport, not individual one. Sultaniman (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's obviously no comparison between the significance of the manager to a team and that of a fitness coach. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this content, per the consensus below that the content should be removed. The issue then becomes the target for the redirect, as there is some support below for a redirect. At this time, I will create a protected soft redirect to Wiktionary, per the larger number of people supporting that target. The talk page of the article may be used to discuss whether this is the correct target or not (especially given that it seems the wiktionary entry may be deleted in the near future). ÷seresin 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger

AfDs for this article:

The few sources generally use the term 'greenfinger' in quotes (or not even this exactly e.g. 'green finger'), suggesting that this is not an accepted term. They generally only use it only once. This term would fail to make a dictionary by a long long way. And wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources are all from 2008 onward. Wikipedia is not the news. No temporal coverage, a detailled look at the sources suggests this term is part of a fleeting news story involving a couple of people and the action of putting iron filings into the ocean. To make an article on this term, which has got so little coverage is nonsensical. Ultimately notability criteria is based on what wikipedians think is notable and the fact that this article has been nominated for deletion for the third time (first time successfully and second time a mixed reaction) suggests that wikipedians do not think this article should remain. Polargeo (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef, no hope of expansion, trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought: Find an article on eco-{terrorism, activism, extermism, etc} and put in a sentence and a source of two. Debate it there. Somtimes a passing mention of a word that is clever or useful for a given topic may be helpful.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure what you are getting at Nerdseeksblonde. You seem to be going through Articles for deletion making several ambiguous and slightly spaced comments. Polargeo (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What xe is getting at is, in fact, what was already done. I found Geoengineering and addressed this subject, in proper context, by expanding Geoengineering#Lack of global control. Andrewjlockley then duplicated that content here (without proper attribution), during the last AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before: kill properly this time, with stake through heart, and bury at a crossroads. Etc William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper "killing" was done with this edit. And, to be frank, there's really only one editor, the one who then repeatedly reverted that redirect, who thinks differently, and xe didn't make a case that convinced anyone else at the last AFD discussion (not least because xe took content that I (and others) wrote, placed in another article in its proper context, and copied it here to prop up this article). Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per above. Verbal chat 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and shake some salt on it A repeatedly deleted page that obviously hinders the wiki. Cheers. I'^mperator 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delette per WP:WINAD. Recommend protection. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice is a protected soft redirect to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary as per previous discussions. Content concerning regulation of geoengineering should be at geoengineering, not here. Rest of content is dictionary definition material only, and I see no other content that would logically appear here. JulesH (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary, exactly as I !voted the last time this came up for discussion. The reason deletion is inappropriate is because "greenfinger" is quite a likely search term, and so should not be a redlink.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wiktionary article should probably be deleted. The broad interpretation of the term is not backed up by the limited sources at all. One thing at a time though. Polargeo (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The detailed contents of the Wiktionary article aren't a matter for Wikipedia. And while I'm disagreeing with you, Polargeo, I submit that the idea that the fact that this article has been nominated for deletion for the third time... suggests that wikipedians do not think this article should remain is massively flawed. I might as well reply, "the fact that this article has been created several times suggests that there's a consensus it should be kept."—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Soft redirects have not worked before, it keeps coming back. Try googling greenfinger. It seems to mean everything else other than what the article states. If the article remains it will mean spending a lot of time turning it into a disambiguation page for what should be no more than a dictionary term, if even that. This is making wikipedia look silly. Polargeo (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then post on RFPP. There are good reasons why we don't use article deletion as a sanction against disruptive editors, Polargeo.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? Why would we want to protect either an article that shouldn't be here or a redirect to the wrong/poor definition of the word in wictionary. Surely we can protect if needed after deletion, but this may not be necessary. Polargeo (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. What you're missing is that there should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary here. If there's a problem with the Wiktionary article, I'd refer you to {{sofixit}}.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, simply a journalistic attention grabber term. Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (a nice new !vote kind). Not much to say that hasn't been said already. WP is not a dictionary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is much expanded from a dicdef. Although it's quite new, it will get used more as geoeng grows as a discipline. But what does it matter what anyone thinks? This will evidently get renominated every month or so until the destructive, pro-deletion crowd gets its way. Let's just celebrate that they've picked on a relatively minor article - it could have been so much worse... Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt "it will get used more as geoeng grows as a discipline" is evidence itself for the lack of current notability. When it is notable, it will deserve an article, saying it "will be" notable is evidence that it is not, currently, notable and per WP:CRYSTAL should not have an article. This is simply a buzz word that fails WP:NEO in that while there are mentions of this word being used, there is no in-depth treatment of the term itself, so a clear delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I gave as nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger (2nd nomination). Previous AfD was closed as transwiki. Article was then speedy deleted as WP:A5, and author complained to deleting admin, who restored it. The article, after cleaning up, contains a definition and a couple of uses in the press. This is a dictionary definition of a neologism, and is not encyclopedic in nature. The references provided are not about the use of the word, they use the word. Author has had plenty of time to improve the article, and has not been able to do so. As the article has already been transwikied, I request this now be deleted. -Atmoz (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to reconsider in the previous AFD discussion. I've been asked to visit this AFD discussion to reconsider. My opinion remains the same. Andrewjlockley's copying and pasting some of the content from Geoengineering#Lack of global control into this article didn't change my mind then, and hasn't changed my mind now. As I said, it has only served to make it clearer that this is a duplicate article that should be a redirect to that very section, where a nonce name is discussed in the proper context of the actual subject that surrounds that nonce name. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect per reasons given above. Ohms law (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact that this isn't even the most common use of the word (try googling). The other uses of the word are also too minor/ambiguous to put in a dictionary, or have an encyclopedic article, but they are all not as minor as this use. Uses include company names, products, a book (novel), an enviornmental campaign, media use of the word with the meaning 'someone who is an environmental campaigner/champion'). Therefore a soft redirect at present will still be misleading, giving this very minor use of the word unrealistic precedence over other uses that also don't merit an article.Polargeo (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The easy, and (to me) obvious, answer to that problem is to create a disambiguation page (if the problem occurs). Why worry about theoretical problems in the middle of an AfD discussion, though? Ω (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why this shouldn't be deleted — from first principles.
1. ) AfD is not for making judgments about the current content of the article. It's for evaluating the article's potential. See WP:BEFORE.
2. ) Therefore, the current content of the article is irrelevant if it can be fixed.
3. ) It follows that you should !vote delete if, and only if, you consider this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia.
4. ) Most of the above !votes are about problems with the current content (e.g. it focuses on a minor use of the word). The current state of the article is a complete red herring. Said !votes are therefore defective and should be disregarded.
5. ) The argument that it's a likely search term remains unrefuted.
6. ) The argument that a soft redirect to Wiktionary is entirely appropriate remains unrefuted.
Therefore by weight of the current arguments, this article should not be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The votes above for delete by many experienced editors conclude that the article cannot be fixed to wikipedia standard. It appears to be you alone who thinks it is a likely search term. I have already refuted that a soft redirect is appropriate (see above). A transwiki from the first Afd has left the wikipedia editor Andrewjlockley's own definition of the word (not supported by refs, which are inadequate to even define this word properly) in wictionary. This should never have happened and is the result of an attempt to please and be inclusionist to the detriment of wikipedia, and wiktionary for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only Andrewjlockley's saying to keep it as an article. As far as I'm concerned, the question is whether it should be a redlink or a redirect. (Uncle G makes a strong argument for an internal redirect, and other very experienced editors have argued for a soft redirect to Wiktionary.)
    The above reply remains focused on concerns about the current state of the Wiktionary article, and I have already shown this is an error. We should focus on the potential state of the Wiktionary article.
    "Greenfinger" is a likely search term, not because of the very minor use upon which Andrewjlockley and Uncle G's remarks are erroneously focused, but because of its presence in a very well-known and highly notable figure of speech.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Even though I think that at present a delete is the best option (and I still believe this) as this term does not merit either wikipedia or wiktionary inclusion in any form. I feel obliged to say that my second preference would be a disambig page (possibly protected if necessary). This is to avoid a redirect (either internal or soft wiktionary) that gives undue bias to a minor use of this minor/poorly defined term.Polargeo (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - By the way the presence of 'greenfinger' in the well known figure of speech you suggest is not true. It is 'green fingers' and this already exists in most dictionaries as the UK version of the US 'green thumb'. 'Greenfinger' is an as yet undefinable corruption of this phrase used in company names, campaigns, quotations (such as in this case) that do not merit inclusion on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely. "Greenfinger" is a plausible misspelling or misinterpretation of the English phrase "green fingers". (I didn't know they had a dialect version in American, actually.) This misspelling or misinterpretation is a much more likely search term than any reference to eccentric ecologically-minded billionaires.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See, now that's a fairly convincing argument right there (for deletion, or at least change to a redirect of some sort). It's structured more around WP:NEOLOGISM, or something very close to it, is all. Ω (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think a likely misspelling is a very convincing reason for having a redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A redirect to what? 'green fingers'? Nobody has even missed the lack of the article Green fingers, let alone the need for a redirect for a supposed common misspelling of this phrase. Do we need to create articles for soft redirects to every wiktionary phrase and then make redirects for what we imagine might be common misspellings of these phrases? This is not a common misspelling, it is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Polargeo (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, greenfingers and/or green fingers on average get less than 10 views/searches per day (with the exception of when its AfD'd), so it is rather implausible as a common search term. We are not Google, but an encyclopedia. So my !vote is still delete and salt. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Polargeo makes the same point that I was about to make. The idiom is "green fingers". Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly. That's admitted. My point is, I feel strongly that a misspelling/misinterpretation of "green fingers" is the more likely thrust of a search, and an enquiry about wealthy ecological altruists is the less likely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Geoengineering#Lack of global control where the topic is discussed in it's proper context. Looking at the sources I don't think anything could be written that is more than a basic dictionary definition without linking material together in a way that would amount to synthesis. In the - maybe near - future sources may properly cover the topic, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and at the moment sufficient coverage does not appear to be available to write anything that would expand upon what is now already in the main Geoengineering article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that the quote is covered in Geoengineering#Lack of global control in its proper context but that is all it is, a couple of quotes from a media story last fall attempting to make a new word (we have pretty much covered this already in this AfD). To make a redirect based on a protologism is nonsense. The chances of anyone searching for 'Greenfinger' in this context are non existant when you realise that the couple of recorded uses of the word have to describe what it means. The very few people who might mistakenly (or otherwise) put 'greenfinger' into wikipedia would be extremely puzzeled to find themselves at Geoengineering#Lack of global control. Polargeo (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh, redirects are cheap. If someone accidentally types anything in when they don't know what it is surely they will by default be surprised to find where it takes them? Someone mistakenly typing in Green Thumbs would no doubt be surprised to find themselves at List of Beavis and Butt-head episodes. Just the fact that this is the third nomination of the page means it might be good to have something pointing at the content. Guest9999 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the third AfD due to editorial battles with an editor who has obviously been difficult to reason with. The redirect to section you suggest would itself be a candidate for deletion per reason 7 in Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A soft redirect to Greenfinger in wiktionary could also contravene a couple of points in The Redirect for discussion guiding principles and be deleted. Ultimately neither of these redirects add any benefit to users of Wikipedia and are only likely to create confusion. Lets be bold and deal with this now rather than keeping this mess. Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't see the particular advantage of having a potential redlink rather than a redirect when you agree that the information that would be covered under the title is present in its correct context elsewhere. It would reduce the chance of someone reading one of the articles linked and creating a duplicate, a reason to avoid deleting. Guest9999 (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nonsense. Read this AfD discussion first, then I urge anyone to read the link given by Guest9999, please read all 5 reasons not to delete carefully and consider. There is no reason to not delete this article (or potential redirect). What is this drive with editors to avoid redlinks like they are demons? I am completely and utterly baffled as to why editors wish to hold on to every word or inconceivable misspelling or synonym or protologism that Wikipedia can get its hands on like it is somehow sacred, even if it messes up wikipedia and makes a mockery of it. Polargeo (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's clear to me that I do not feel anywhere nearly as strongly about this as you and maybe that is because my reasoning is weaker. I just think that it is possible that somebody will at some point want information on the topic and if we have it I don't see why they shouldn't be directed to it. Even if it is only a handful of people looking for information why inconvenience them? I don't really see how a redirect messes up Wikipedia but given the strength of opinion in this discussion and as I don't see it being a particularly big deal either way then delete. Guest9999 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is entirely possible that the term catches on and, if it does, we should then have an article for it. For now, the tentativeness of use and the fact that these 'greenfingers' are posited for the future, suggests that the word is a protologism that may or may not exist in the future. Neither the article nor a redirect should exist. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per additional reliable sources found during discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flu Bird Horror

Unnotable made-for-television Sci-Fi film. Fails WP:N and WP:NF. No significant coverage nor reviews in RELIABLE sources. Failed PROD after creation 2008 (prod removed by creator claiming he was still working on article - article has not changed since then). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not widely distributed, no reviews by major film critics, no significant coverage by reliable soures, nothing to say this is a notable movie. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationally aired on Sci-Fi Channel and now available on DVD. Has received genre-specific reviews by genre-specific experts. Meets WP:NF as per WP:RS when "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context". Wikipedia does not mandate that Wall Street Journal or New York Times review genre-specific films nor that Bloody Disgusting or Fangoria write articles about Barrack Obama. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you only added a single reliable source, the New York Times, which is just its standard movie directory listing, so it confers no notability. The rest were not reliable and have been removed. Specifically, dreadcentral.com, does not meet appear to meet WP:RS, and hometheaterinfo.com is a personal self-published site. While you mention Bloody Disgusting (which is RS), you added no review from it to the article. In checking, they did not review the film, and considering they usually review most of Sci Fi pictures stuff, that is rather telling. The only reliable horror site to review the film has been Monsters and Critics [31], and that one review is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Airing on Sci-Fi does not meet WP:NF nor WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The review sites that review horror films mentioned it. This type of film doesn't usually get mainstream attention. Dream Focus 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof please. Blog sites are not reliable sources. It has not been reviewed by reliable horror sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not (yet) having a Wikipedia article about itself does not mean a genre-specific source is unreliable... it only means the article has not yet been written. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion that Dread Central is a blog is not supported. It is itself accepted as an genre-specific expert by other reliable sources. Did some homework. Dread Central was founded in 2005 [32] and part of the Crave Online network. They have genre-specific editorial oversite with staff including experts Steve Barton and Scott A. Johnson [33]. As a genre-specific expert, Dread Central is itself quoted by sources such as St. Petersburg Times [34], Joblo.com [35], and Fangoria [36]. I have returned the information and cites you in good faith removed for lack of this information. And as for Crave Online... well, they were founded in 2003 [37][38]. Crave Online has a large editorial staff and has expanded through a number of subsidiaries and acquisitions to reach huge demographic, with entertainment network including Comingsoon.net, Dread Central, DVD File, Film School Rejects, Movietimes, Shock Till You Drop, Satanspace, The Bad & Ugly, The Cinema Source, The Movie Insider, and Wild About Movies [39]. As of August 2008 (10 months ago), their combined network of over 70 entertainment-related domains list at bottom) was receiving 36 million unique visitors every month... thats 432 million a year [40]. That they do not themselves already have a Wikipedia article is a bit surprising. However, it is on my list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just added review by E Splatter. Founded in 1999 [41], E Splatter was acquired by Gorilla Nation in 2007 as part of their network [42][43]. Their reviews are quoted as genre-specific experts by such sources as New York Times [44], Buffalo News [45], Sunday Telegraph [46], and National Review [47]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just added review by DVD Talk. They were founded in 1999[48] by Geoffrey Kleinman as a resource for information about DVDs of all genre. In 2004 DVD Talk launched the online radio/podcast called DVD Talk Radio. In 2007 DVD Talk was sold to Internet Brands [49]. Led by senior editor John Sinnott, they have a large staff of writers and editors [50], and are quoted by such sources as ABC News, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. The site receives 5.6 million visitors monthly, 4.8 million of them from the United States [51]]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you continue pointing to primarily non-reliable sources and they have been removed. If you disagree on Dead central, bring it up at WP:RSN to reach a consensus that it is reliable (currently, it is not vetted). DVD Talk was not in the first batch of reviews you added, and yes, it is reliable, but that is still only two (the DVD Talk and the one I pointed out above that you declined to include). The rest you continue trying to add have not been accepted as reliable. - Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is deemed acceptable by consensus. Two people agree its fine, one person is against it. Since you agree he has found two reliable sources mentioning this movie, do you agree it is notable? Dream Focus 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? It hasn't been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard nor anywhere else. You agreeing with him that its reliable doesn't make it a consensus that it is. And no, I don't agree its notable. Two sources is not significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any rule that says you have to discuss it there. You use common sense. Do you disagree with his findings that Dread Central meets all requirements? Or are you just wikilawyering? Dream Focus 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to decide what is and is not reliable, and you certainly are not neutral. You think anything and everything is reliable, so your view is rather unhelpful. Sources which are questioned should be discussed at the RSN where experienced editors can agree whether or not they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for what is and is not reliable, not Dream Focus' idea of what should be considered reliable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't think for yourself, you have to let others do it for you. Alright then. Back to that nonsense once again. Common sense would indicate that Dread Central clearly meets all requirements. If no one doubts that, then there is no need to delete simply because it hasn't been discussed and added to an incomplete list yet. Dream Focus 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, it seems that Michael Q Schmidt has made a good case that those sources are reliable, particularly Dread Central (though I don't think the Steve Barton who has a Wikipedia article could be the one who works for the site, as the Wikipedia article says he died in 2001). If you think the sites aren't reliable, then you should make some arguments refuting his claims that they have editorial oversight by experts in the field and/or are cited by other reliable sources. Sources don't need to be vetted at WP:RSN or any other location specifically about discussing sources - this is just as good a place as any other to discuss whether the sources are reliable. Calathan (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSN was suggested as a neutral place, and when sources are questioned it is often asked "has it been discussed there" because it is a place where those experienced in source evaluation can generally be found, as opposed to here where until now there were only three participants, at least one of whom has repeatedly made it clear that he disregards all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~C, Please do not use AfD as a forum to denigrate other editors. Not yet having an article on Wikipedia does not mean a source is unreliable.... it only means it has not yet been written. And PS,~~ I will add the M&C you pointed to. Thanks for that. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rescue by MichaelQSchmidt. Granite thump (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added review Monsters & Critics per Collectonian above as well as review by Blog Critics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne Trudeau

No assertion of notability TB (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidlines under deletion/nobability/people/this article in a nutshell:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

The article lists secondary sources that are independent of the subject. How much coverage is required for it to be "significant" is debatable, but I see no advantage to anyone in not including Étienne Trudeau. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources listed are all but one genealogies (the remaining one being a photo of probably-non-notable building this person built). The only claim to notability made is that this person is a distant ancestor of two modern-day notable people. To my mind, this falls vaguley under the 'being the parent/spouse/child of someone notable doesn't make you encyclopaedic' dictum. - TB (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and WP:NOTINHERITED PK T(alk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really have a strong conviction one way or the other on this one, but was this the "first Trudeau" in the new world? I might lean towards keeping if this person demonstrates the large length of time Pierre Trudeau's ancestors have been in Canada. That said, such a factoid could probably be incorporated into his article quite reasonably. TastyCakes (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His very distant descendants being famous is not notability. Fences&Windows 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Infosphere

Non-notable website, fails the GNG. ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nearly nominated this the other day, getting as far as checking it's not among the most popular half-million websites on the 'net. Possibly just redirect to Futurama as it's the name of some sort of thing from that show, apparently - TB (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fascinating saga of a futurama wiki that doesn't appear to be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I am the top maintainer of The Infosphere, I still nominate for this article's deletion, perhaps sometime in the future where it gains the audience it deserves. But that time is not now. --Svip ^pong 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning the most notable futurama wikis in the futurama article? I don't know. Just an idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned. Even the Portal:Futurama acknowledges it. --Svip ^pong 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but delete as a non-notable fan site. I'm sure they do an excellent job of documenting Futurama, but we can't just make articles for every fan wiki around. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an article is created that lists such events, the history may be undeleted for merging and this page redirected. ÷seresin 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Rock (event)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event)

This is an account of an Apple PR event. It has no real notability, and all the information is already included in the articles about the products. This is simply an advert, or at best fan trivia. Fences&Windows 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Advertising. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. It may have been an Apple PR event, but it clearly passes the GNG by having been extensively covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. See Sixteen articles in the New York Times alone. Tell me what your favorite major media outlet is, and I'll find a story from it as well (within reason). Given that Apple has an event every Fall to showcase the iPod line, I would have no problem with a merger into a broader article on the general event, though. Cool3 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a giant press conference. Do we have any other articles about press conferences? Fences&Windows 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Six editors had argued for deletion on the talk page before I nominated it. Fences&Windows 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 01:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 01:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note that Your opinion would be appreciated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event) has been left on the talk pages of those who commented on the talk page and of all major contributors to the article. Fences&Windows 01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — It's obviously not advertising, but Apple's had dozens if not hundreds of these small events over the years. This one just happens to have a definite name. Eugeniu B msg 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply having been covered in outside sources does not make it notable or encyclopedia-worthy. Remember that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a grand unification theory of pop culture. If we must reference it at all, let's zip all Apple's PR stunts into one tidy entry and call it a day. As for Cool3's point that it was covered in many media outlets, I'd say that points more to the notability of the iPod than any individual advertising effort. Each of the press conferences is just a flash in the pan - the real topic is the iPod. Contrast this to Apple's 1984 ad where the ad was the important thing - the actual product was just along for the ride. Izuko (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- How about one entry for all of Apple's PR events? This event in and of itself isn't notable (just being covered extensively doesn't make it notable), and neither are the rest of Apple's individual PR events. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Butterfly0fdoom, there should be one article for all of the Apple Inc. keynotes. Yes, this was a big keynote that received major coverage, but what seperates it from past keynotes? TreoBoy680 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Deleting the article because other major Apple events aren't currently covered doesn't make sense; let's expand this into a more general history of Apple conferences. They are notable, and well covered in non-tech media, because Apple have a history of creating mystique around their launches. Pretzels^Talk! 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not particularly notable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mamata Charitable Trust

This was originally a PROD, whose tag was removed by the creator with neither an explanation nor any real improvement to the article. Not only is the article written too much like an advertisement, Google only comes up with six hits about this organization: two short Yellow Pages listings, and four sites that just mention the name in passing. In addition, this article was created with a {{pp-semi-protection}} tag even though no such protection has been added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am significantly concerned about the promotional nature of the article, as well as a possible conflict of interest on the part of the contributor. Article additionally fails initial tests of notability and verifiability. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication this is a notable charitable trust. no coverage in reliable secondary sources. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any Reliable Sources to show notability. I found one news piece for a similarly named but different organization, so any new news articles have to be looked at carefully to see which one it refers to. Also, the website on the article is wrong and I couldn't find the correct one. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only verified content is its existence, see here, so there is nothing that is appropriate to merge. ÷seresin 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Winnie the Pooh Project

Not enough info to warrant a page for this film AT THIS TIME. The film doesn't even have a name yet; premature page creation/crystal ball-ism. Proposed MERGE to main Winnie the Pooh franchise article, then deletion of this page. SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnie the Pooh for the time being; there isn't enough information in that one source to warrant its own article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please be aware of the naming difference between Winnie the Pooh and Winnie-the-Pooh. The former is is the Disney Franchise, the latter is the Milne version of the character. The proposed merge is to merge into the Disney Franchise page, as the movie announcement was made by Disney Consumer Products as a franchise extension of the existing brand. SpikeJones (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article contains zero content. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge worth a mention in the Pooh article based on the sourced content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough content. WP:HAMMER for a film? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Pooh article; there's nowhere near enough info for a separate article yet. --mhking (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChildofMidnight. --can dle •wicke 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller

This is just unecyclopedic trivial listcruft at best. A different way to play Wii games is somewhat important, but a whole list on it isn't helpful. I think this would also fall under, some kind of how-to play guide: as generally video game articles do NOT list every way you can play them. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be of interest to others to read the discussion about this article at WikiProject Video Games. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on much discussion that has taken place on the above link, specifically the comment by Stepheng3. The list does not fail WP:N from what I can see, nor does it fail to meet other requirements to be constructive to Wikipedia. This list would be of use to those interested in the use of backwards compatability on the Wii, and is well suited for those people as it is well referenced. Something trivial to one person maybe be valuable to another, and personally I think there would be enough people who would not see this list as trivial to merit its inclusion on Wikipedia. --Taelus (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Some of them need sources and it looks a little messy, but Taelus has some good points. TJ Spyke 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why does the list exclude WiiWare games? —Ost (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because much of the header was copied from List of Wii games and that statement was not removed. Feel free to remove that clause from the intro and add WiiWare games. As other users have mentioned, this article is still a work in progress and needs some cleanup Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't really see how the subject fails WP:N, especially with its current sourcing. Definitely needs cleanup, particularly in terms of expansion on the intro, but these "trivial" claims seem to be little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to violate the guidance against indiscriminate information; just because something is true and useful doesn't mean we need to include it. Powers ^T 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, if all control devices were listed for all games, they would be endless. I don't see how this one is notable or encyclopedic.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't think this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as it is not a list of statistics. In addition, this is about backwards compatability as much as it is about control devices. --Taelus (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many more ways in which the article could fail that guideline. Powers ^T 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Please show more ways. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but this is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works", "Lyrics database", or a "News report"; those are the other ways to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and this articles does not qualify as any of them

“

Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

”

- - - This commentary about statistics is not meant to be associated with list articles. Having a list in a list article does not reduce neatness, but having a huge list in a non-list article can reduce neatness. Also these aren't really statistics, and reiterating Taelus's point it is as much about controller backwards compatibility (there is well documented desire of wii owners wanting to know which games will allow them to use their old GCN controllers, do a simple google search and see how many yahoo answers, wikianswers, and forum posts there are about this question) as it is about using different control devices. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The list at WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not exhaustive. Powers ^T 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where is that mentioned? Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why does it have to be mentioned? You aren't seriously claiming that those four examples are the only types of information that are unsuitable for Wikipedia, are you? Powers ^T 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Under Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information this is clearly discriminate information. Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information supplements WP:INDISCRIMINATE in defining indiscriminate information. If you put this page through the "indiscriminate test" (see the cquote below) you will see that this is discriminate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - That essay does indeed make clear the difference between an indiscriminate list and a discriminate list. However, where the essay errs is in suggesting that the difference is relevant to WP:IINFO. The guideline says that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, not simply that individual articles must not be indiscriminate. It's the encyclopedia as a whole that must discriminate and carefully select its information. (Note that none of the four examples listed in IINFO are indiscriminate in and of themselves; it is their inclusion in Wikipedia that would be indiscriminate.) What IINFO means is that we don't include information just because it's information. It has to be encyclopedic and further the goals of the encyclopedia. What information falls under that rubric and what information doesn't is a judgment call, on which reasonable people can disagree. Powers ^T 13:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essay explains that the list is discriminate. WP:IINFO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are two names for the same policy, switching the name you use does not change the meaning. Discriminate and indiscriminate are antonyms. Something can't be both, it is one or the other; this article is discriminate, meaning it cannot be indiscriminate and hence WP:IINFO (aka WP:INDISCRIMINATE) is not applicable.

"What IINFO means is that we don't include information just because it's information. It has to be encyclopedic and further the goals of the encyclopedia." You are guilty of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. No WP:IINFO doesn't; it says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:'" (then the list of four things). It qualifies its statement to say that it should be from the list of four things and you have yet to provide any evidence that the list is not exhaustive. You arguments are not inline with any of the written policy of WP:IINFO. It appears you continue to incorrectly invoke WP:IINFO (it's not just me saying this, most of the other keep votes say the same thing) so that unlike RobJ you can avoid being called out for [WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] (aka WP:ITSCRUFT) and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; you really need a new argument Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - That would be why there are -other- WP rules. You are most welcome to quote all of them if you can show them to be relevant. Those are indeed the four only types of information that are unsuitable for Wikipedia under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as far as anyone knows until evidence to the contrary is found. Evidence which I asked you to provide. Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering this article in no way resembles any of the things listed on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if the list is not exhaustive (as you claim) you really can't use WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you are going to argue that an unwritten policy exists in order to delete a page, you are at least going to need the page to resemble at least one for the four things listed on said policy page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information

These arguments lead to the following conclusions:

There is a difference between a "discriminate" collection and a "indiscriminate" collection
An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner.
A discriminate collection of information is one gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner.
A collection of information gathered in such a way--with care and/or distinctions, in a thoughtful manner--does not violate the policy as stated at WP:IINFO.
This does not mean that the collection of information would not violate any other policy.

So, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy. Enthusiastic editors are encouraged to put thought and care into collecting information for meaningful articles.

”

This is discriminate (no indiscriminate) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - It violates: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook_or_scientific_journal in my opinion. This article is basically how to play Wii games differently, and which games they are. Knowing alternate control methods isn't important information in general. If someone wants to know this information that badly, they can look at the back of the Wii box in the store or go to a video game website where the information should be... not here. A prose on the main Wii page (and some related pages) stating GameCube controllers are an option for certain games is all that is needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ummm... this isn't a "how to" This article in no way describes how to play a Wii game with a GameCube controller, it merely lists which ones can. Also to imply that one should go to a video game store and look at the back of the boxes of game to get information is absurd (let alone that GCN controller information isn't always there (as I mentioned below), much of the time many/most Wii games are locked in glass cabinets preventing such action) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, compatibility for a specific controller should be noted in the game's article - more specifically, the infobox on a game article, which includes an entry for control schemes. Having a whole page dedicated to this, especially when only a small minority of the Wii's sizable library actually supports it, seems excessive. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nothing more than a big case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. THE CfD (also started by RobJ) for the category that this article evolved from called on the creation of this article. RobJ did not like that and put this article up on the WPVG talk page. Within less than 24h of discussion he used the fledgling discussion as an excuse to blank the page and turn it into a redirect (Here is the evidence [52], look at the time (05:23, 13 June 2009) and look at when the discussion had started (18:58, 12 June 2009)). Keep in mind, he did not even inform anyone who edits the page of his opening a discussion prior to his blanking the page and redirecting. Most of the "delete" points made above are actually false

“

This article is basically how to play Wii games differently, and which games they are. Knowing alternate control methods isn't important information in general.

”

In some cases this is not a case of "alternate play methods". In several cases the cited reviews of the games say that playing the game with a GCN is preferable than using the Wiimote or Wiimote+Nunchuck. This is extremely true for Super Smash Bros. Brawl which was designed for use with the GCN controller (here is the SSBB source [53])

“

If someone wants to know this information that badly, they can look at the back of the Wii box in the store or go to a video game website where the information should be... not here.

At best, compatibility for a specific controller should be noted in the game's article - more specifically, the infobox on a game article, which includes an entry for control schemes. Having a whole page dedicated to this, especially when only a small minority of the Wii's sizable library actually supports it, seems excessive.

”

False arguments, in some cases there are not indication that there is Gamecube support simply by looking at the back of the box (e.g. Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2, this game uses the GCN controller but the back of the box makes no mention). To my knowledge, there is no comprehensive list (other than this) of all Wii games that use the GCN controller (I had searched for one for a long time before making the category and then again before making the article). A user searching for this information has no other reliable source (to my knowledge).
- Apparently there is one list [54], but it is highly incomplete Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wii game infoboxes may often have the GCN controller listed as one of the methods of play. They don't always and they don't offer a method for a user to find out exactly which games allow for use of the GCN controller. This article has its uses, especially for Wii owner who don't have the money to buy four Wiimotes (and Nunchucks) seeking (multiplayer) games that allow him/her to make use of his/her GCN controller(s)
Also, if this article is "trivial", I move for List of Wii games using Miis, List of Wii games using WiiConnect24, and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games to be deleted too. These articles are lists of "alternate play methods" and it can be argued that they are much more trivial than this one (second statement more directed at the former two than the latter) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - If there is indeed "no other reliable source" for this information, then my delete recommendation becomes a Strong Delete. If no other source has found it worth compiling this information by this metric, then neither should we. That's a basic tenet of Wikipedia. Powers ^T 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plenty of people on the internet have asked for such resource, the only thing is no one ever came forth an assembled such list. If you google "wii games using gamecube controller" (without quotes), you will find an abundance of forum posts, yahoo answers questions, and wikianswers questions asking the very question this article answers Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not to be flippant, but so what? Powers ^T 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Better luck next time, with the not being flippant thing. Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is only my opinion here, but if we are not accepting real-world information that is actually written on the boxes that these pieces of software are distributed in as verifiable, reliable and notable references, then there is something quite wrong with this project. Please correct me if I have judged this situation wrong, but you seem to find the article at fault because you feel there are not enough sources to compile this list? They are even marketed using this data to promote backwards compatability! --Taelus (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the issue is that this information is unencyclopedic and excessive. For a more specialized Wiki, perhaps, but as a generalist encyclopedia, we include information only if other sources have seen fit to research it. Powers ^T 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Any chance of a link to a WP guideline stating that? Sounds reasonable enough, but I have not encountered any such rule before. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Powers ^T 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that explains why I had not heard of such a rule before. You are claiming, in effect, that house painters cannot be paid for painting a building because builders are paid for creating one. Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have said, no specialized wiki (or at least no specialized wiki that can be found on google) has took on this kind of list. Once again, this is just a big case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also as I mentioned above: "*Apparently there is one list [55], but it is highly incomplete" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you should assume good faith than throwing IDONTLIKEIT around like it's out of fashion. MuZemike 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - AGF is not related to this. The points of the opposers are in line with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you're dismissing their arguments and attacking the persons and not their arguements. MuZemike 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I rebutted their arguments above, I did not just dismiss them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop attacking me, and assuming bad faith (as you also did at the Video Game Project talk page). In case people didn't see what he posted there, he not only attacked me but claimed I "deleted" this article by making it a redirect. A redirect is NOT deletion, period. Also I want to point out, he keeps trying to turn this into an "all or nothing" situation, when NONE of the other Wii game lists are up for deletion or even merging. Bad faith assumptions and attacks aren't helpful, so just stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - He's not attacking you. The discussion has been left with the ball in your court multiple times. If you refuse to volley, I think we should call those points in Thegrey's favor. Instead you accuse him of attacks. If anything, it is you who have just attacked him, although as your accusation is obviously groundless it is of no consequence. Perhaps if you spent more time reading and answering his assertions, and less time parroting MuZemike, this discussion might move forward. And in particular, what have you to say about your deletion of the page? Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Removing all text from a page is quite enough to be called a deletion, for all purposes other than evasion and obfuscation. For that, it would be expedient to pay close and devout attention to the technical term. Again, I say, what have you to say about your deletion of the page? Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realized the difference between deletion and redirect on that talk page AFTER I made said comments

“

It is not "Articles for discussion", it's "Articles for deletion". An AFD is not necessary to facilitate a redirect. I am not saying at this time that to redirect right now was a good idea, however. MuZemike 06:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW (just a general question) how is stripping a page of content and turning it into a redirect significantly different from deleting it? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content can still be retrieved or reverted (as you just did) without administrator help. MuZemike 06:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK good point, anyways, I have notified the two other editors who have edited the page (the bulk of the page was built by me and then rest was done by bots and IPs and two editors) and User:Stepheng3 (who proposed the creation of this page when the category was deleted) of this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

- After getting that clarification, I never again accused you of deleting the page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is just as encyclopedic as any other list. It is extensively referenced, and at least one editor (Thegreyanomaly) has been actively in maintaining it. It doesn't resemble any of the examples in WP:IINFO. I imagine it would be useful to Wii owners (though I am not one myself). While it's surely a low priority for the encyclopedia, the marginal cost of keeping it seems slight. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sourced well enough and I believe that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is being improperly invoked in the delete votes. Also, despite the attempted intimidation from prolific deletionists over Thegreyanomaly allegedly not assuming good faith with the nom and delete votes, RobJ1981's nomination rationale is actually a textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (aka WP:ITSCRUFT), WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and even WP:USELESS. Throughout the nom not a single useful argument is made. Others have complained about the article being excessive, which is a styl e issue and not a notability issue. Misguided deletion votes with an extremely weak nomination leave me no choice but to vote for keep on this one. Vodello (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. We're all not trying to destroy one's creations around here. Watch who you are calling a "deletionist". MuZemike 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have assumed good faith and simply linked to the proper places that mimic the nominator's rationale. I would appreciate it if you stopped threatening me. Vodello (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of Thegreyanamoly's assertions against deletion have been answered, let alone refuted, the nomination is dubious, although WP guidelines have been quoted, their content has not been shown to be relevant to this article. Other arguments have been stated with no good evidence of those arguments' adherence to any WP guidelines. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my noted disappointment over how this was handled Wikiquette-wise on both sides, I have to at least side towards keep. I'd like to see a discussion towards merging happen, but that would require some fundamental changes to the List of Wii games in order for that to happen, which I feel is outside the scope of this AFD. MuZemike 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge thoughts

Is it possible to discuss a merge to List of Wii games? I've started a talk page discussion over there which might give suggestions in which we could possibly include this information over there, given further improvements (and some size reduction which I have indicated there) to that list. MuZemike 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging could work, but I don't know how exactly it could work. My thoughts would be that one would have to put an extra column addressing these games, but then if we do this, then people would try to merge other Wii lists into List of Wii games and bloat it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Wii games. With lists, there is a golden ratio that needs to be sought for a good list, which is hit most of the time: if your requirements for inclusion are too slack (e.g. List of black people), it becomes indiscriminate; if your criteria for inclusion are too tight (e.g. List of black indie rock musicians from London), it serves little if no purpose. While these examples are exaggerated, I think that, nevertheless, this list would fall into the latter category, but only just (as in, within a standard deviation). This indicates to me that the list may have some potential, but not as a standalone list; rather, it should be a sub-list of a list of Wii games. Sincerely, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- you mean like adding an extra sortable column saying "Compatible with GameCube controller" with yes's and no's? right? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - That was what my recommendation sums up as, if you look at what could be done per my suggestion at Talk:List of Wii games. MuZemike 02:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like a good idea, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge My thoughts exactly. Go for it! --.:Alex :. 09:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should support the discussion on Talk:List of Wii games. This looks like the consensus on this AfD will be a keep once an admin closes it. After that, we can put a merge into template on List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller and work on merging the information. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (per WP:CSD#G4) and WP:SALT Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jenah Doucette

AfDs for this article:

Another non-notable contestant who didn't won the show. Having been deleted two times. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due to multiple re-creations. Non-notable, WP:ONEEVENT. Drawn Some (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previous material (and salt, too) Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per WP:CSD#G4 Tavix | Talk 15:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton

Procedural nomination, PROD disputed with rationale "is in the 1st team squad of a current Premier Lge team and can be expected to play senior football for a League team shortly" (which falls under WP:CRYSTAL as there is never any guarantee that he would). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his debut at a fully professional level - if this article was deleted and he then does make his debut, this article could easily be recreated by an administrator. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Keeping it on the basis that he might make an appearance in a fully-pro competition violates WP:CRYSTAL. Other than that, also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of verifiable references. --Jimbo^[online] 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – Pee Jay 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the basis that he hasn't yet made an appearance at a professional league. (If he does make an appearance, then the page can easily be recreated.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, player is generating a lot of interest on the net (e.g. when he was loaned to Bristol Rovers), perhaps not surprising as is he is in the first-team squad of a Premier League team, and thus has general notability. Eldumpo (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not fame nor importance. It is in depth coverage by multiple independent published works by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Your rationale fails to demonstrate that. The article itself fails to demonstrate it, too. Cite some sources to do so, if you want to make an argument that actually holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while not having appeared in a first team match, he has been named to the subs bench on numerous occasions, which would make him pass WP:ATHLETE since one is still paid when they are named to the subs bench. He also has over 3000 Google hits including a profile page on all of the major football sites which would appear to establish notability. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google hits don't confer notability. --Jimbo^[online] 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That page states "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number" and if one checks those hits, many of them are from major football sites and given this player's unique name, they are all surely about him and not someone else with the same name. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - all of his Google News hits appear to involve his 1-month loan signing with Bristol Rovers, or the 1-month extension of the loan. There is no indication of his achievments or notability outside of signing with a professional club. I don't think that's significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes one gets paid if on the bench, but one also gets paid if not on the bench if one is a contracted football player. But then again, one also gets paid to deliver parcels if working for a courier company, make sandwiches if working for a sandwich bar...Its not about getting paid, it is about notability. Filter you ghits for non-blog, facebook etc, drop out the match reports where he is named as a substitute and other passing mentions and you find he has not done a whole lot of note - as yet. for those arguing hi will be notable soon...what is the hurry? this is not his resumè page. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranje^T 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The above is a strawman considering that "fully professional" is frequently cited as a criterion of WP:ATHLETE, hence whether or not he is paid is relevant. There's no such professional criterion regarding sandwich makers. 70.4.243.55 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WP:ATHLETE states that he must have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" - paid or not, he hasn't competed at the required fully-pro level. --Jimbo^[online] 10:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Claims of "he'll play sooner or later" are blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL. --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues lists English League 1, where he has been listed on the sub bench, as a "fully professional league." The arrogant Wikipedia admin commenting above me has claimed the above list as gospel so why in the world would he claim a player who's been a sub in English League 1, a "fully professional league," would not be "fully professional???" 173.103.34.38 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've given the IP above a Final warning for this and a similar attack on another AfD. Only 2 edits from this address, both attacking Angelo in AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm just repeating what has already been said here, but I think I need to say it anyway. He may have made it onto the subs bench for a fully-pro team but he hasn't actually played for them yet - that's the key point we're trying to get across here. WP:ATHLETE applies to players who have actually competed at this level - merely sitting on the bench or being given a shirt number isn't competing, and therefore isn't enough to confer notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merely warming the bench is not "competing at a fully professional level" - what if he leaves the club tomorrow? Then we're left with an article on a guy whose greatest achievement was not playing in League One. And no, it isn't that unusual for players to warm the bench but then leave without ever crossing the whitewash - at the team I support, Gillingham, we had a player a few years back called Ben White who was on the bench a few times but never played - he got released and next surfaced playing for semi-professional Hastings United. So until this guy actually plays competitive first-team football, he doesn't get an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minnesota Twins minor league players. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hirschfeld

Low level minor leaguer. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low level future star. He's one of the most popular players on the Miracle who is a sure thing for the Twins in the next couple years.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. At present he does not meet WP:ATHLETE but if/when he does get to the big leagues, the article as it presently reads would be an excellent one. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. That is the proper location for minor league articles. Spanneraol (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE. Popularity in the local market isn't the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Has not been in a fully proffessional league and doesn't have significant independent coverage. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not playing for the Twins, so it makes no sense to merge there. Merge to Twin's article. He fails WP:ATHLETE and we don't hold articles in user space because we expect the subject to eventually become notable. If he does become notable at some point, the article history can then be retrieved or restored. لenna vecia 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is playing in the minors for the Twins, so it makes sense to merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players where the main prospects are supposed to have mini bios. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Ah, I misread. Adjusted. لenna vecia 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Minnesota Twins minor league players article seems a logical target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not just a minor leaguer, but a minor league all-star. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale fails to refute the earlier point that no in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists, and so won't outweigh it. Cite some sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk)
Delete. News coverage consists of trivial mentions in articles about the draft or individual games. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

<--Relisted-->

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Redhart

Apparently non-notable person. Writes ironic reviews on Amazon.co.uk, which are funny but not enough to warrant a WP bio. Article previously prodded. — sjorford ++ 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another fascinating saga of personal aspiration and passion. Does not appear sufficiently notable to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Won't See You Tonight (Part 1)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I Won't See You Tonight (Part 1)

Non notable single fails WP:NSONGS I redirected to album single was taken from but creator reverted. BigDunc^Talk 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BigDunc^Talk 13:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fascinating description of this single's significance without any sources or citations to suggest any verifiability or notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song, heavy in original research. — Σ xplicit 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freeligious

A non-notable religious preference which fails WP:Notability. There are no "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" available that can verify the article's notability (see Google search results here), and it therefore doesn't satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. TheLeft orium 11:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure neologism. TN X Man 11:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - madeup, neologism. Web searches for both "Freeligious" and "Freeligion" fall on stony ground. pablo_hablo. 12:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Also very advert-like in tone. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --NovaSkola (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Steubenville. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Catholic Church (Ironton, Ohio)

A Catholic church in a small Ohio city. Average churches aren't notable, and everything I can see makes me think this is thoroughly average. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I don't immediately see anything to indicate the church is particularly notable, but there is no reason the info can't be covered at the diocese page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Steubenville. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to diocesean page as per above. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Steubenville. There's not enough here for a standalone article, but there is enough to warrant a merge. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability due to the lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable local church. Noting here to merge anywhere else. Springnuts (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hun? There are two paragraphs of sourced information which can legitimately be merged into a more general article (in this case the diocese) by policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common to merge pages like this into the diocese page? It sounds like a better idea than deletion; if it is common, I'll suggest a merger next time instead of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say it is common per say, as church articles don't come up all that frequently. However, it certainly would be consistent with the way similar classes of content are treated (the most obvious example being elementary schools being merged into district pages) and would also be consistent with WP:PRESERVE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If ordinary Roman Catholic churches do not meet the criteria for notability, why is there a dedicated stub category encouraging the expansion of hundreds of individual churches with no more significance than this one? Ithizar (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because for notable buildings that is an appropriate category. Now does every article in there belong? I don't know the answer, but a quick look says that most are not about buildings and most are not likely notable. Anyone want to do a bunch of merges? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like a good idea, although we ought to be a careful to avoid deleting/merging articles on churches listed on the National Register of Historic Places — the process of listing on the Register includes the production of enough sources that all Register-listed sites are notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a parish or a building. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ironton, Ohio. This is usually the best solution for local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do this, why shouldn't we include information on every other church in the community? Either we'll give a little undue weight to this church, or we'll end up with a church directory. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as article has been significantly improved since nomination and now meets WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RantMedia

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

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

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

fails WP:corp - lots of trivial mentions, lots of links to *associated* projects (such as a rock band that one of the founders is in) but nothing substantial that suggests or supports notability. I am also fairly surely this has been deleted at least twice before - or at least the elements that were stuck together to form this composite article. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article for RantMedia has improved tremendously since this AfD nom. (specifically inline citing: RantMedia#References) ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added a PROD tag to this (sorry, this was the wrong tag I now know) and after its removal I was going to let this wait for a couple of weeks to see if the article improved. Seeing as someone else has AfD'd it I might as well vote. There are no sources in this article that supports its notability and I can't find any either. Talk page makes reference to WP:CHANCE but this suggests giving an article a week to get itself on its feet. This has had six weeks and counting. As per nom, fails WP:CORP. ɪntə svɛnsk 11:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of this article has been previously deleted under various titles through speedy deletion and through the discussions linked below:
- Rant Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note space)
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rant Media (outcome: delete)
- Sean Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note this is now a disambig page)
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (outcome: no consensus)
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (2nd nomination) (outcome: delete)
- Sean Kennedy (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Author) (outcome: delete)
  - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 26 (outcome: deletion endorsed)
  - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CelticWonder/Sean Kennedy (Author) (outcome: speedy delete G12 copy vio "for violating the GFDL")
- Sean Kennedy (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer) (outcome: delete). Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted the following redirects should also be deleted: Sean Kennedy (author), RantRadio, Sean Kennedy, Sean Kennedy (Author), Rant Radio, Rant media, James O'Brien (internet radio). Entries should also be removed from the James O'Brien and Sean Kennedy disambig pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the article PA1N, the station's zine. If the station is not notable, this can't be either.DGG (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, why can't you just CSD PA1N? It's a one line unsourced article that's plainly non-notable. Notability is not inherited anyway: if PA1N merits articlespace, it would only be as a redirect to a section in the RantMedia article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per all the above deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as creator and as arguments FOR KEEP on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 26. I'm done fighting ~~you fucking retards~~. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

That is a completely unacceptable comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it's only a PARTIALLY unacceptable comment. Just because you disagree with my display of how this bullshit has made me feel about Wikipedia/deletionists, doesn't negate everything I had to say. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Do they all get barnstars as well? (check out the bottom of my userpage) --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. ~~Just you. You're obviously special.~~ ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was canvassed to be here otherwise I wouldn't be, so take this with a grain of salt (I'm unsure if CW put a notice on the pages of _all_ participants last time or only those !voting keep). Given that, this is a clear keep. Sean Kennedy really should have been a keep last time around (rather than a redirect) as there were entire article about him and various parts of Rantmedia. There are plenty of sources for this and they are in the article. If you have problems with the sources please be plain why the 10 or so of them don't meet our policies. I view this article as the some of all those redirects and a number of them are likely notable.Hobit (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by another editor to look over this article please look at the article's talk page and my talk page one never knows where best to put things. I say KEEP. it needs improvement certainly but is well referenced and wikilinked and see no reason why it should be deleted. VOTE KEEP'. SimonTrew (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is somebody WP:CANVASSING here? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI: Canvassing concerns were raised and are being discussed at User talk:CelticWonder#AfD. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The matter of WP:CANVASSING in this AFD is also under discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard (perhaps a more appropriate place). Victoriagirl (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just out of curiosity, why are paper-based news articles that are obvious scans of the original and posted on a site (complete with reference of whence it came) not enough for a WP:N reference? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
- They are fine unless someone has good reason to believe they are faked up. Heck, just referencing paper articles is okay, but having them on-line helps a lot (so people can see what they say). Hobit (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - latest re-constitution of various articles cobbled together from a bunch of non-notable components, the product of several AfDs and at least one deletion review. The "substantial" coverage on which the "Keep" advocates keep trying to lean consists of one short article in Wired and lots of one-sentence passing mentions in articles on something else entirely, plus lots of self-publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
While the article does contain more than 10 citations, many definitely fail at least one of the quoted conditions, in particular the requirements of independence (i.e. not published by RantMedia or someone associated with the organization) and non-trivial coverage.
Just for reference, I have copied below a list of sources identified by CelticWonder (18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) in the March 2009 DRV:

Wired magazine: personal audio/written interview with Sean & Cimm

Vancouver Sun interview (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) with Sean, Cimm, and Derek

Spin Magazine article ABOUT Sean.

Seattle Times activity involving Sean

Computer Paper (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) article about Sean & Cimm and Sean's show

Langley Times article about Sean & his show

New York Times article mentioning Sean via popular mention

Straight.com "Vancouver's Online Source mentions Seans shows

Based on the sources in the article and those listed by CelticWonder (most fall in the category of "trivial or incidental coverage")—I could not find any additional coverage in independent, reliable sources via a web search—I say "keep", but protect against recreation (i.e. require a deletion review to rereate) per Thryduulf if consensus is to delete the article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I very much appreciate your inclusion of my references posted in the past, but those specifically were the attempt to prove notability of Sean personally. These would be articles about RM/RR:

- - Wired magazine personal audio/written interview with Sean & Cimm (July 28, 2000)
  - Vancouver Sun interview (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) with Sean, Cimm, and Derek (September 9, 2000)
  - Globe And Mail article (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) (July 3, 2002)
  - The Langley Times (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) (August 4, 2002)
  - Exclaim! Magazine (September 2002)
  - Computer Paper (PAGE 1 & PAGE 2) article about Sean & Cimm and Sean's show (May 2003)
  - Langley Times article about Sean & his show (July 2, 2003)
  - May - September, 2005 - Patrolling with Sean Kennedy aired on Berkley TV Channel 28.^[1]
  - January 19, 2007 - Tales From The Afternow episodes 1 through 15 are played on terrestrial radio station CFMU on the show Twilight of the False Gods episodes 25 through 38

₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

While all of these are independent, reliable sources, not all offer non-trivial coverage of the subject. The Globe and Mail, Langley Times (2002), and Exclaim! pieces offer only incidental coverage, and the 2003 Langley Times article is really just a short announcement. However, the Vancouver Sun and Computer Paper articles do seem to provide non-trivial coverage of RantMedia/RantRadio, as does the Wired interview. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Summary of non-trivial articles

Wired News (2000): article exclusively about the founders of RantRadio
Vancouver Sun (2000): article exclusively about RantRadio
Spin (2000): column entitled "THE FUCKIN' MAN" exclusively about Sean Kennedy regarding RantRadio
The Globe And Mail (2002): second page is solely about RantRadio and Cimm (also establishing a 5,000 listeners range in news print in 2002.)
The Langley Times (2002): An article about DisRadio.com, declaring RantRadio.com as "pioneers of industrial radio" and "the first to really get people listening to independent Internet radio", and goes on to include a byte from Kennedy.
Exclaim! (2002): "RantRadio.com has been particularly active in trying to repeal Tariff 22"
Computer Paper (2003): article exclusively about RantRadio
The Langley Times (2003): second page is primarily about Kennedy and RantRadio.

I beseech ANYONE to answer this question: What SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for a 10-year-running staple of internet radio to STAY in Wikipedia if this isn't enough??? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:RS guidelines. PK T(alk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. After Celticwonder's work early in the morning of June 17th, the referencing is much stronger, and there are enough reliable sources used to change my opinion. PK T(alk) 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not sure if this meets WP:CORP but it appears to meet WP:N for the collection of entitites they run. RantRadio by itself likely meets WP:WEB. (nota bene: I am assuming the summaries above are accurate especially those about the articles from the Langley Times , Computer Paper, the Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun) JoshuaZ (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Keep Rantmedia may have started as a single ShoutCast station, but it was an early one, and heavily involved in the radio copyright mess from a few years ago, coverage of which was included in magazines and newspapers. It may well not be important as a corporation, but it certainly is as a radio station, with a 10-year history. Its a (very) early web-only radio station that has now grown to 3 different streams, indicating a significant number of listeners. Add to that all the other projects under the Rantmedia umbrella, some of which have coverage in other media, and its notability is undeniable. It also has a large presence in the Vancouver scene, promoting local bands and DJs. However, there should be no problem putting all the personalities (sean kennedy et al.) under the same article, with redirects. Cheers! The Steve 09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the bulk of the articles described above as 'non-trivial' do not feature RantRadio as their focus (mention in the Exclaim! piece is limited to three sentences), it is the subject of the Vancouver Sun piece (albeit a regional supplement) and another in the now-defunct Computer Paper. It's my opinion that these, combined with the few trivial articles (particularly the 300-word Wired piece), might just meet notability requirements. That said, I point to two areas that need addressing:

Not one of the articles concerns RantMedia - in fact, the name is not even mentioned.
As it stands, RantMedia references very few "reliable, independent secondary sources". In all but three, the references provided point to sources connected to RantMedia or the RantMedia website.

For these reasons, I suggest that the article undergo a major rewrite. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - As you say, none of the "sources" even mentions RantMedia. What we've really got here, and the Wonder is pretty explicit about it, is a last-ditch defense of this, the latest end-run around this deletion review and all other AfDs, etc. on Sean Kennedy and his projects. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Probably should be SALT as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep keep if the article gets properly sourced before AfD close (See below): I want to put a few things out there for actual discussion.

The large number of sources, together with the cultural cachet of some (Wired, for example; also, Exclaim! is Canada's only monthly alternative music magazine and has been for over a decade, while the Globe & Mail is Canada's NY Times), demonstrate notability, per WP:N and as noted by Victoriagirl, Hobit and BLACK FALCON.

Victoriagirl's concern about a re-write is valid as far as I'm concerned: the page is about 80% unsourced promo-spam, and the article violates WP:NPOV. Still, as Wikipedia's rules say, if you think an article meets criteria but deserves a rewrite, feel free to wade in and re-write it. "It's notable but the article sucks" is a valid argument for immediately re-writing the article, not a valid argument for deletion.

If, per Thryduulf's argument, this is a re-create of a previously deleted page, then this is a CSD or PROD and not an AfD. I'd actually be in favour of a CSD, as then Celticwonder could take the discussion to a DRV and get the deletion overruled permanently by more senior editors. That's always worked for me.
comment: I actually debated speedily deleting this as a recreation, but as I am not 100% certain that there is no significant material in this article that hasn't been deleted before, I decided to allow the AfD to run it's course.
You also seem to be under some misconceptions about deletion review - the editors who contribute there are no more senior than those who contribute here. Decisions here are not "overruled" - outcomes are only "overturned" if there is consensus that one or more of the following apply:
1. There was an error of process in the closing of a debate, and that this led to the wrong outcome (e.g. if the right thing happened for the wrong reasons, the original decision would not be overturned)
2. The facts that led to a decision have changed, or more information is now available that wasn't at the time of the original debate, and this additional information would affect the result (for example, if more sources are presented, but these don't address the reasons why an article was deleted it would not be undeleted)
Also, even if an outcome is overturned this is not "permanent", there is nothing to stop anyone else nominating the article for again (although doing so shortly afterwards is frowned upon unless it is for a different reason or there is more information now about that materially changes the outcome of the deletion review). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel for Celticwonder, as it seems that nobody here will bother to explain to him, with reference to WP:N, how the article fails. Hobit has made note of this above.

Unless someone changed the rules here in the past 5 years without me noticing, nothing in WP:WEB or WP:CORP is allowed to override WP:N, much less the three pillars. It's always better to disregard WP:WEB, WP:CORP and other such sub-guidelines, and just go by the main rules. (Why? We used to have a notability subguideline for porn, and got rid of it when we realized it violated WP:N and made Wikipedia look stupid.)

With apology, by the above, "fails WP:CORP" shouldn't appear in a deletion nomination: Cameron Scott should assert "Fails WP:N" so we could have a broadly-accepted Wikipedia guideline to refer to.

BTW, in case anyone wonders, yes I was canvassed, but I've also had this article (and the previous Sean Kennedy articles) on my watchlist whenever they existed. Contributors to an AfD are not meatpuppets when the article is on their watchlist, or when they have contributed to the article in the past.

~~There. Now time to go back to work.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

clarification - I just noticed that Celticwonder hasn't bothered to INCLUDE the good sources (Globe, Exclaim, Langley times etc.) in any sort of "references" section. Celticwonder, if you don't add your sources to this article by AfD close (about 4 days from now), don't go crying to anyone when the article gets deleted. I'll leave more on your talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - I must apologize for all the above. My arguments up there are completely valid, but unfortunately, looking again at the article, I have to change my vote. This article fails WP:RS and WP:V because Celticwonder didn't use the reliable sources in his article and doesn't provide the easily accessible links to them. Also, it fails WP:NPOV because the references that he does use are nothing but a pile of links to RantMedia. This article's topic passes notability, but the article itself fails all three pillars of Wikipedia. If Celticwonder doesn't fix it in 4 days, delete. but please don't salt - the topic itself passes WP:N. You just wouldn't know it from the poor sourcing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AGTTH Your comments are GREAT, but PLEASE before you assume I'm responsible for those links not being there, refer here and realize they WERE there before others decided to remove them simply because they were hosted on RantMedia.ca. The original articles were 6-9 years old and in print (not online), so they aren't available anywhere else ATM. The links provided were clearly obvious scans of the original articles, but not counted as "independent secondary sources" simply because the link had "rantmedia" in the url, nevermind the fact that the CONTENT was independent. This guy is the one that started reaching in and ripping all the cables out, btw. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

They are still sources, and you can use them as references as the articles exist. In fact, any editor with LEXIS/NEXIS access (like me for now) can verify your sources as long as yu provide the paper, date, article title and page number in your footnote. In fact, you should have reverted whoever removed these. However, your article should use information primarily from these sources, not from Ran's website; and should use proper formatting and footnoting so that the average person can see that it's been well-sourced. You shouldn't use a "Rant in the media" section, as that isn't how we format articles, and it makes your article look like spam.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As AFTTH says, references to print articles are fine; there is not, nor shall there ever be, a rule that a reference to a print source is not valid simply because there is no online text available. Links to scans of articles, though, most especially scans on the subject's own website, raise concerns about Photoshopping and other fakery. Better simply to refer to the plain text in a standard manner and not raise such concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate your genuine suggestions to help the article (the first few I've received, really), and have undertaken citing the article. The links to the article scans had been removed by an IP (I had assumed wrongly before that they were removed by an admin of sorts, which seems to happen a lot), hence my query. Please keep the article, everyone. It's notable. Look at the page and help improve if you can, but it's getting there. See here for some pertinent notes & WP links. It becomes very difficult to stand up for something while standing by and watching it arbitrarily shot down multiple times. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 13:29, 16 June 2009

comment I see here that there are at least 9 related articles created (and re-created) by multiple editors over at least the last 5 years. I think this should say pretty clearly that a. The subject is probably notable and b. It probably isn't going away. Even if deleted now, it will likely be recreated soon.

What is there now, a single article with multiple redirects, is probably the best form to have it in. Maybe, just maybe, this one article should be left alone to avoid many more discussions just like this in the future. The Steve 03:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If everyone would kindly direct your attention here at the references section, you'll notice that as per suggestions made, I've vastly improved the article since the AfD nomination as well as -- since this afternoon. Please reconsider. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 03:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Still needs work (WP:NPOV is still a concern), but since Celticwonder has begun putting proper cites in, and since the sources establishing notability have been put back, it's now worth keeping. Thus I changed my vote. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I C Gupta

Though there are some references on him at Google News, there doesn't seem to be enough to assert notability of the doctor. Does not pass basic or additional criteria in our biographical notability guidelines. ^blurred _peace ☮ 10:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is, there is no hint of a place to look for more specialized references to his claims to notability. Seems like a resume or social ad. Anything innovative or provokative?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There do appear to be mentions of this individaul in reliable sources [56]. Whether it is enough to make him notable per our guidelines, I don't know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By about the fifth or sixth link down, it's not related to him anymore. I doubt those references directly mention usable information on him (e.g. birth date, fields of specialization, where he graduated from, etc). ^blurred _peace ☮ 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on closer inspection there are not even many mentions and I don't see any substantial coverage. I think this is a pretty clear Delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough for notability WP:Notability certainly not for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Very weak and subjective notablility. --Deepak D'Souza 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think his directorships are enough for WP:PROF #6 and the article presents no evidence that he passes any other criterion of that guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris J Flowers

WP:AUTOBIO notability not shown. Not enough found to support the article. Triwbe (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Poop You Cat

Non-notable game. The website being used as a reference directs to this Wikipedia page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reliable sources, unfortunately. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge THere are a couple sources and knowledge of this interesting party game shouldn't be lost to the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ChildofMidnight: If they would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources, would you mind showing us these sources? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Newby, Peter (1995). The Giant Book of Word Games: The Bumper Book of Ingenious and Enjoyable Games for all Occasions. The Book Company. p. 42-43. ISBN 1863091726. 2) Games Quarterly #11 (Winter 2006), pg 64. It also has its own website eatpoopucat-dot-com as well as a Facebook group. But for some crazy reason that's not considered evidence of notability. :) Could also possible be merged to whisper down the alley/ telephone (game)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook groups can be started by anyone, and anyone can put up a website. The places to go are secondary sources, like the two books. So, regarding these sources, from Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Make sure both sources address the subject in detail.

Make sure the books are published by reputable publishing companies

If there are specific people credited with making the game, make sure that the books come from another individual (although having a publisher may count towards that)

It may help to reproduce scans of the pages, if you have them (Put on a photograph repository site) to show that they address the subject in detail.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Compromise: redirect to new page: Telephone Pictionary. My vote is keep. I propose also a compromise, which may be irrelevant, as no one has mentioned that the title is...challenging? By which I mean that it includes a reference to feces, synonyms of which are considered by some 'curse' or 'swear' words. There is certainly a rich vein of alternative page titles that could be used, listed in the article itself. Anarchangel (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penis game

AfDs for this article:

Not enough reliable sources. One is a student newspaper, and the other is a movie review, all of which only trivially mention the game. The sources dug up in the last AFD are all similarly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't by off on the mention of it in a movie review and a school newspaper as non-trival coverage by reliable sources. Also took care of the vandalism done to the last AfD discussion.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as Niteshift, well, at least the first sentence.--Abce2|AccessDenied 14:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Trivial, non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The article's description of this game fits my use of the term, but I also could not find sources to verify. However, a Google News search yields a fair number of hits for a different game from Waiting... and it may be worth making this a redirect to the movie's article. —Ost (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a good reason to suspect that there will never be enough standardization in this sort of game to merit a separate article, except possibly a mention in Chicken (game). Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Very notable prank/ party game. Would be fine to merge it. I don't know why we would need to delete this well established silliness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources proving notability were provided in the previous AFD. To sources listed there, add [57], [58]. Edison (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is talking about game from Waiting... where one tries to get others to look at his penis. That is not what this article describes. Also, neither of those sources have significant coverage of the game as they mention it mostly in passing. As I mentioned before, my personal experience confirms this article, but I have not seen–and could not find–the significant coverage in reliable sources to verify and demonstrate WP:N. —Ost (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is borderline, but there's no harm in having the article. Powers ^T 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last AfD and per arguments by Edison and provided sources. Seems notable to me with sufficient, if not overwhelming, RS. — Becksguy (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per last AfD. 10 Lb.'s argument is compelling; I urge him to reference this with a WP rule that is relevant. The arguments of Niteshift, abce2, and Ibaranoff24 all fail as legitimate under WP:IDL, where "Delete as trivia" is given as an example of arguments to avoid. I put to you and to Jclemens, who required of the game that its rules be standardized so that they could be recorded here, that standardization would in fact make the article shorter and less interesting. Anarchangel (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Notability is barely existent. Question is better whether this is encyclopedic in any way as a stand-alone article rather than a minor variation of an existing game.SpikeJones (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Googly Moogly

AfDs for this article:

Nothing but a list of uses of the term. No reliable sources found, no way for this article to be anything more than an original research-laden dicdef and unsourced trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a list of instances of the phrases uses. Not really notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons I stated in the first AFD. I agree that this article has an annoying tendency to attract random, "it was said by X in Y" comments, which don't add anything, but I think the stuff at the beginning about the history of the phrase (full disclosure: I wrote most of that part) in music is interesting (and well-referenced) enough to merit a keep. If there were some other wiki venue more appropriate for etymology of popular phrases, it might make sense to transwiki it to there (and leave a pointer behind), but if there is no such better place, then I think it should stay (and get cleaned up). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that there's a giant etymological dictionary of all words and idioms of all languages right next door, don't you? You'll have to make a case that this truly is an idiom, and not just the mere sum of its parts, of course. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, like I said above, if there's a better place for this to live, I'm OK with it moving to some other wiki. My main concern is that it doesn't disappear completely. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Notable phrase used by multiple well-known figures. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Use is not description and documentation. And until something is documented (in depth, in multiple independent reliable sources) then it may not have an article, whoever utters the words. The world must have already documented things for them to be included here. Utterance of the heretofore undocumented does not negate our Wikipedia:No original research rule. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of the article fails WP:NOTE, in fact, I don't see any sources addressing it in-depth. Drawn Some (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary material with no encyclopedic value. Mintrick (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find a reliable source discussing the subject. I have no idea how this survived the first time. Jafeluv (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For the same reasons it passed an AfD last time. This is a well known phrase in many songs and is popular in older R&B and blues circles. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC) — 68.244.6.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Is it a well known, popular phrase? Yes. Has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? No. Popularity is not synonymous with notability. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unnecessary. 174.146.38.57 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) — 174.146.38.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Transwiki, while it is sourced, the main argument people seem to be making about this is that only notable idioms pass the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia. However, this might not be the case with wikitonary. --Rayc (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion require the the term show evidence of having "entered the lexicon" and, for multi-word terms, that it be "idiomatic" (Don't ask.). We require signs of use in durably archived sources, which some version of "googly-moogly" (with or without "great" or "good", the hyphen, and capitalization) is likely to meet, IMHO. AFAICT, the specific references in the WP article wouldn't count, but they might give someone citing the term a clue what to look for, though Google can readily find the term in books.google.com. It seems mostly to be used as an interjection, like more current version of "wikt:great Scott" or "wikt:jumping Jehoshaphat." DCDuring (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary would need at least 3 durably archived citations to keep. I disagree in that I think the references in this article can be considered durably archived. Regardless, citations are readily available as noted, and given that it would be kept, certainly we could keep all of these references, durably archived or not. DAVilla (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Delete Frank Zappa is associated so closely with the word to the point where there was a tribute band Great Googly Moogly but I can't find info that says they were particularly notable. Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Just listened to them on youtube! Lets not dump this into wiktionary for them to sort out though. Polargeo (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Pherson

Advertisement for a non-notable book. My speedy delete tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially self-cites and a white paper. Anyone can publish a white paper

as often these are promotional ( " a case study in use of our widget with foo"). If the CIA can't do any better than this creating news, you have to wonder about the reality (LOL). Are there even any independent white papers ( " we used randy's technique and found WMD at our abortion clinic")?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable and in addition at least 1/3 is a complete copyvio from here: http://www.pherson.org/Bios.html Drawn Some (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Joyce Walker

My suspicions were first aroused when an ip added that HMS Belfast (C35) was the flagship of this individual while at Normandy, a period at which Belfast was in fact the flagship of Admiral Dalrymple-Hamilton (and captained by Frederick Parham). But now I can't find any sources anywhere to verify the existence of Richard Joyce Walker, be he a captain, rear admiral or admiral of the fleet, the article is itself unclear. No sources relating to a career in the Royal Navy, as a government advisor, or as a representative of Deloitte. The University of Cambridge's alumni database does not record his attendance either at Trinity, or any other college. This may be a hoax, but certainly seems to be at least unverifiable. Benea (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would expect that someone of this sort would be able to be referenced, so I'm inclined to find it a hoax — but your point about unverifiability is by itself sufficient for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. FWIW, it's been my experience that Benea can find a RN source for anything. Maralia (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax - the handful of Ghits are false positives or this article. Edward321 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9 as artist was just deleted via A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Soon EP

Empty —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled a couple more albums from the same artist into this AFD. The band is tagged for A7, and if they're deleted, these can go via A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bombardo

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted, let alone shown. I also question whether the subject actually exists, since all other edits by the creator have been vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see the notability of this individual. Certainly the University of St. Thomas is notable, but merely the fact of going there doesn't make one important. Article also claims his work was published in several areas, but cites no references to back this up.--Slartibartfast1992 03:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not too convinced that being published in the academic planner is too notable. Nor does an entry in a small magazine cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Photos for a minor student publication and a very local newspaper is not notability. DGG (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tony Bombardo has work that is going to become large. Everybody starts somewhere and his photography is not amateurish in any way shape or form. 1:40, 15 June 2009
Speedy delete, as he has achieved nothing worthy of an encyclopedia as of yet. A couple of appearances in extremely minor publications counts for next to nothing, and basing articles off personal discussions with the subject is clearly in violation of our policy of reliable sources. I was about to speedy delete before I saw that this had been nominated here. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get Lives, are all you guys for real about how into this stuff you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.154.252 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better researched and more notable articles have met that fate. 220.101.91.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero notability, doesn't go anywhere near WP:BIO standards. The subject has already been the subject of two previous A7 tags. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Get Lives" comment is out of line. In my short time on Wiki I have never voted for a delete or commented an article negatively, but in this case it seems someone tried to advertise their average photography and then got a little angry it would be deleted. Editors on here try their best to maintain this immensely comprehensive and important project. Future generations will get informed on Wiki. Although everything on here is not quite perfect, please refrain from entering such juvenile comments. And if you do, please accompany brave comments with a brave signature. Turqoise127 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 23:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Yu

Contested WP:PROD. Individual in question fails WP:BIO --- only non-trivial source about him is a brief interview in the Hong Kong Economic Digest (經濟一週). Google "Ted Yu" "Conrad Design" gets 7 GHits. "匡正" (the Chinese name of the company he started) is a generic Chinese word, the hundreds of thousands of GHits on it don't mean anything. Creator is part of a group of probable meatpuppet single purpose accounts repeatedly making spam articles about Conrad Healthguard, Conrad Design, etc.-related topics. cab (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is about a truth that Hong Kong needs support of graphic design and develop more on the corporate identity so to maintain quality design in the region. Design awards are authenticated and can be referenced. Names and links that may contribute a consideration of ad/spam have been deleted. Other designers in other wikipages also show similar infomation which stil be kept. Margarettk (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can references be provided for his list of awards and his bio? In response to User:Margarettk's comment - whether or not Hong Kong needs support of graphic design is a matter of opinion and not a reason to create an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To respond to above comments, an encyclopedia is not a forum for advocacy. I have to remind myself of this too- " we need more foo in bar" isn't a reason or " if only more people knew" etc. You may be able to make some cases or exceptions but I have no idea what they may be. However, do you have links to various awards that are not dependent on his cite? Not sure these are notable but may be worth a look. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The awards and bio list stated in the article. Searched those are authenticated awards especially Vision Awards Annual Report Competition - offered by League of American Communications Professionals (LACP) is a renowned entity in the design industry. So the contents/article is worth-trusted. Pandalulu (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Pandalulu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Closing admin: Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Conradnana (note for example the deleted contributions of Margarettk). cab (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To review the situation of the article: (it took me a little while to figure this out, therefore this synopsis.) This article is about the founder of a design company called Conrad Design. It was mainly edited by user Margaretkk, a suspected sockpuppet of Conradnana. The latter was blocked indefinitly for spamming on June 10. The second editor who has weighed in here with a keep, Pandalulu, is a suspected sockpuppet of the same. Disregarding the block evasion and looking at the article: The claims regarding awards are unreferenced and therefore not verifiable. References to Economic Digest and idnproshop are linked to the front pages of the magazines - Economic Digest archive only goes back to 2008, corroboration is not possible. Whether the awards would establish notability would depend on the circumstances: independence, secondary coverage, competitive nature ... again, no evidence of that has been established. The LACP Vision Awards are notable - however the entry I have checked (2006 Awards to Bank of China) has the following problems: the same award is listed three times in the list, the citation lists a company (RR Donnelley Roman Financial) as the author of the cited annual report with whom Ted Yu's article does not document affiliation, and Ted Yu's name is not credited on the citation [59]. This fails WP:V again. It is not clear that the other awards are notable at all. The argument by Margaretkk that other articles are also really bad is not a reason to keep any of them. In summary: this is not encyclopedic material and there is no indication that it could reasonably be fixed. Enki H. (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Enki. I'm not sure any company annual report design specialist is going to be notable, & these seem to be his main claims to fame. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fournier

NN musician, article claims notability; however, no support for statements. A number of GHits for blogs, but no GNEWS entries. Article Prod'd but author removed Prod without adding references to support claims. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only "source" is subject's own facebook page. Gnews hits [60] are about other people. Edward321 (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. After I prodded this, the author created it again under the correctly capitalized title, but still didn't add any reliable sources. It's my opinion that this musician does not meet the notability criteria, and I didn't find any sources that would lead me to any other conclusion. Note the word "upcoming," traditional Wikipedia code for "not notable yet." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Up and coming" means not there yet........ Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CREATIVE, only references are self-written or blogs. WWGB (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:RS and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Necromancer: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted before; it has been brought back again and still doesn't appear notable; just a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Not even the external link listed on the page leads to any information about the release of the book or if the book is even in the works. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guest: I've re-written the article, hopefully making it more relevant. I do not think this article should be deleted yet. Undoubtedly, developments in the near future will add to the article, and when the book does come out next year, there will be a full article, including plot summary, critical acclaim and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.175.44 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guest: I agree with Guest, this article has citations to verifiable sources now and would just have to be recreated in a very few months as more information about the book comes out. This article should be left and people should be encouraged to add more content to it such as a basic plot summary of the series of books and other useful items. It could also contain references to forums where the book is discussed that are reachable through the author's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.143.174 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Re-opened per request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence (after two weeks) of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Weems

Please see the related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State‎ for his book. Considering that the book does not appear notable, there is not much of a claim to notability here. The disbarment mentioned was not covered in the media, and the sources are just the court records themselves. There is also no significant media coverage of his work, besides a couple of obituaries in Turkish news and other passing references. He just seems to be mentioned by either pro-Turkish or pro-Armenian niche blogs or interest groups, mostly for his book. Dominic·t 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weems is a denier of the Armenian Genocide. This man is widely read in Turkey and in Turkish, where readers are told that he was an American JUDGE and where a government ministry promotes his work as valid history. I recently found a footnote to his work in a paper on Christian terrorism written by a student at an American university. I think Wikipedia can play a role here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if his book was widely read and commented on in Turkey. The turks.us anf tukish.times sites are a start, but It would be much better to have something more. As for the disbarment, it would help to have some secondary sources also. This is controversial negative territory, though no longer BLP, and the sourcing should be as solid as possible.DGG (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you saying "keep if..."? If I had any evidence that the book was widely read and commented on, I might want to keep it too, but I don't. Do you? In fact, the book appears to have been self-published. The publisher, St. John Press, no longer has a website, and the Internet Archive shows that its former website was devoted solely to Weems and his one book, which is all it ever published. [61] Dominic·t 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, news + books. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain what those actually demonstrate? You have two news articles; one is a trivial passing mention, and a single article on his book from what doesn't appear to be a major Turkish newspaper (?). At Google Books, you have a couple of book reviews and a couple more passing references. This is, after all, a biography, and you haven't linked to any secondary sources that discuss Samuel Weems as a topic; I don't see how it's even possible to create a biography without original research. Dominic·t 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:20, 8 June 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 00:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient coverage in the two main references used as sources in the article to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B Synthesizers

Rather dubiously referenced article about a company with no particular apparent significance. The current article is a lengthy opinion piece, that if it were about a living person would undoubtedly be speedy-deleted as an attack page; the version prior to the recent expansion (created by User:PlanBguy, FWIW) is unreferenced and without even the vaguest assertion or indication of notability.
Disclosure: this AFD was prompted by a (gasp) post at a BADSITE (fetches the smelling salts). Just because you don't like the person saying something, doesn't mean they're wrong. – iride scent 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article is inappropriate as written. In addition, the entry appears to have originated with (and multiple edits by) one of the principles in the company.
See entry for MOTM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOTM) as an example of a less biased manufacturer's profile in the same business. Consider rewriting this one in a similar format?
.

Both articles should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synthesizer_manufacturing_companies.
A wider range of candidates are covered in industry magazines like Electronic Musician (http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/emusic_analog_renaissance/) or Sound-On-Sound (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/goingmodular.htm). 209.190.181.178 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 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 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lest it get relisted again. Clearly nobody cares about the article. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Totally opinion ridden article. Quantpole (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does not meet guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Tabilo

does not meet notability requirements according to WP:ATHLETE; top amateur tennis would be junior grand slam, not Under 12s in Canada or any other particular country Mayumashu (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed header of AfD; neutral on deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank! Mayumashu (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 June 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 00:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a BLP of an under 18 to be so badly written and sourced, I think it needs to be deleted even if notability is established. Quantpole (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Does not assert notability to warrant an article (between the COI issues and overall formatting of the article as well). ^blurred _peace ☮ 12:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. This BLP is a mess and fails to establish notability. لenna vecia 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Girls Can't Catch

The result was speedy deleted. —harej (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the notability of this one (specifically WP:BAND). Aside from their debut single apparently not even being released until next month, the only Google hits I can find are Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and various wikis. In addition, the official website says nothing about an album in the works. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've just declined a speedy on this, I think supporting Girls Aloud is an assertion of notability sufficient to pass A7. Ged UK 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable and/are becoming notable 83.70.77.4 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the band were together in 2009 and not 2008. The single is to be released mon 27th july 2009. But this is a real band, and all labels are correct and that they toured with Girls aloud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.63.160 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The group was mentioned in an article in The Observer about girl bands. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AP Computer Science. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Biology Simulation Case Study

Non-notable examination material M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GridWorld. From a quick search, I see multiple books and peer-reviewed articles that would definitely meet WP:V and WP:N. While notability is not temporary & this could probably survive an AfD with a keep, I believe that it would be better-suited in the context of the current case study. --Karnesky (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both articles to the article on the exam--not notable separately, and the new one is not more notable than the old. DGG (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AP Computer Science. Lack of third-party independent sources means the subject is not notable by itself. -Atmoz (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Hartford Quilt Guild Quilt Show

Downgraded from speedy to prod, and then the proposed deletion tag was removed without addressing notability concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. It comes complete with admission pricing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails all CSD categories. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:56, 13 June 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) 00:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN event of NN org. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live (Live album)

Fails with WP:NALBUMS. Canniba loki 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely redirect, permastub, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 8 June 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) 00:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is hardly the only live album called "Live" 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kane (American band)

No sources, article say the band writes and records for EMI but I can't find any sources saying they do, doesn't really seem notable Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the sources I added, from Knight Ridder's wire service. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases don't count. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What press releases? These are two articles credited to Kate O'Hare, for Zap2It.com, and carried on the Knight Ridder news wire service. [62] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BestSync

Software stub recreated after PROD. No claim to notability (WP:N) and no indication of such in a Google search. Sandstein 10:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Laurent (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:15, 8 June 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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable product. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Blue and White

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Men's Blue and White

I originally proposed Speedy under A7 for this but it was refused on the grounds that the group had won competitions (although the article does not say this, the awards were for the arranger of the songs) and on the bases that the are the oldest group in a consortium, however the consortium is made up only of the seven Claremont Colleges, which may make them notable there, but is that enough for an individual entry here?

There are no secondary sources cited, or that I can find, so I feel the group fails all the tests required in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and that the article, although well written and presented should be deleted. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The historical importance alone of the group to the small but highly significant subgenre of collegiate a cappella music warrants the existence of this article. It's clear that much of the information presented requires further verification, but immediate deletion isn't the proper course of action here.--69.178.64.64 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) --69.178.64.64 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I just moved the above signature from the title to here, probably a typo) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well written and presented article, there is no doubt at all about that. I don't know much about collegiate a cappella music, and thats a fact (I am a folk, roots and acoustic guy). So it pains me that having spent many, many hours patrolling the backlog of new pages, the majority of which are bland or boring but correctly referenced, that I have nominated an otherwise excellent article for deletion. But perhaps that detachment from the subject means that I am more likely to go by the principles of Wikipedia than be guided by a soft spot for a subject. Wikipedia:Verifiability sets clear guidelines, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" but not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater I attempted to reference this article my self, and I failed and found nothing to verify they were of note or indeed to verify anything in the article other than the subject's existence. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:35, 11 June 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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be my recommendation for the time being. College a cappella groups are not exactly in short supply, and the only sources provided in this article are the group's own web site and the web site of an a cappella association. I would need to see mainstream media sources about this group to support keeping this article. If the sourcing is improved before the AfD ends, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of mainstream secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Chavez

Notability? references? Nuβiατεch ^Talk 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable clearly fails WP:BIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to Video (song)

Only charted on sales charts, never entered singles charts. Permanent stub, no sources, qualifier in title makes for an unlikely redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable single. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

keep it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlllllllllIlllllllllIff (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree - notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability or coverage in reliable sources. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay for It

Same as their other singles. Only charted on sales charts, never entered singles charts, no sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to If (Mindless Self Indulgence album) as a likely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable single. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - It's a notable search term for many other things. A redirect is merely confusion ans undue weight. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be speedy-renominated at any time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Wear (song)

Same as their other singles. Charted only on sales charts and not singles charts, no sources, no notability besides being by a notable act. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 8 June 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, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable single. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Charted at #2 on Billboard hot singles chart and #1 on Billboard dance chart. Keytar Shredder (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ RantMedia history

[tRadio-1] RantMedia history

[1]