Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 June 17 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete by Nihonjoe, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agnitum[edit]

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

non-notable corporation, here due to speedy removal by SPA 3rd party Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:08, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potent Pi O[edit]

Potent Pi O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable chapter (Pi Omicron Chapter) of a notable organization (Alpha Phi Alpha). Notability is not inherited, so the chapter needs to be notable on its own. Based on the information provided (without any references) and a gsearch I find nothing to indicate notability. Perhaps this chapter deserves a line or two in the main fraternity article.

As it stands now the name is incorrect because it is a nickname that is not widely used ("Potent"). If AFD is closed as keep then renaming should be considered.    7   talk | Δ |   22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's a train wreck of an article that looks suspiciously like a copyviu though I haven't been able to track down from where. Some of the text does come from other wikis but I can't find the root. All of which isn't a reason to delete, just one to be wary. As per the nom this is a fairly non-notable chapter which below all the rhetoric doesn't really make it stand out. --WebHamster 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable local chapter of a national organization, see WP:CLUB. Drawn Some (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drawn Some. Articles like this (on individual chapters of national fraternities) are pretty much always deleted at AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Pi Omicron chapter is a notable chapter in Texas and has won Chapter of the Year and has had members become Brother of the Year on several occasions. It also known for its community and national programs and events such has Go-To-High School, Go-To-College and Alphapalooza. Also, it is the home of famed CNN ancor Roland Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PotentPiO1985 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Disclosure Note: this comment by the original author of the article.[reply]
  • Delete None of the matters above are significant, as confirmed by the lack of 3rd party references. The extensive list of members that makes up 90% of the content confirms it. Even if the chapter were for some extraordinary reason notable, this wouldn't be acceptable content. DGG (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:51, 23 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 00:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Len Mink[edit]

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

Declined a speedy on this because there are good faith claims of importance, but I feel notability is not clear, so I'm sending to AfD.

On the delete side, there are just 19 gnews hits, none of which show notability. Gsearch also turning up lots of advertising and passing mentions, but I'm not seeing anything solid.

On the keep side, his show is on in 173 countries (I didn't know there were that many), and the show business career is impressive. Since the show business career was pre-intertoobs, it's quite plausible that a gsearch wouldn't turn up notability that might exist in dead tree sources. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I agree that the usual Google searches don't turn up a lot. There are a few more mentions at Google Books including one long-out-of-print "book" about him that may actually have been a pamphlet, an out of print kid's book he wrote, and a few older references from magazines that acknowledge moments in his long career. However, the key for me is the TV show: I'd be inclined to think that someone who has his own regular show on a TV network carried by DirecTV--even if it's a relatively obscure one like the TCT network on Channel 377--is prima facie notable. If we keep it, of course, this article is going to need serious scrubbing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)This one is a tough call. His show is broadcast on TCT, which isn't exactly a major network. The GNews hits are mostly "he will perform here Sunday" type notices and not actual coverage. He has had some CDs released and written a couple books, but not anything remotely notable in its own right. Interestingly there is a book written about him, but it is only held in 1 WorldCat library. With appearances on a number of popular programs, it is probable that there is some reliable source coverage in period newspapers.
Overall, there is nothing that screams keep by itself, but his body of work is enough that I am going to say keep nevertheless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this a tough call? No in-depth coverage in reliable sources according to Google News which incorporates archives going back well over a century. His book is held by no libraries according to WorldCat; I'm not even sure it or they exist. Appearing on television doesn't make someone notable or every newscaster would be in Wikipedia. Being carried on an obscure channel in multiple countries doesn't confer notability, either, it just means he is non-notable in many places. I would be more impressed with actual numbers of viewers. If anyone has independent reliable sources providing significant in-depth coverage to establish notability by our guidelines here at Wikpedia, please share. Drawn Some (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, GNews certainly has some newspapers that go far back, but they are the minority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this autobiographical vanity article created by user "Wikilmm" = (pound to a penny) "Wiki Len Mink Ministries". There are no sources in the article - none at all. The (alleged) size of his body of work does not make him notable. I am with Drawn Some - unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject this has to be a straightforward delete. Springnuts (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep May just about be notable. I have wikified and categorised the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:46, 23 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 speedily deleted by User:Nihonjoe. Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper skiing[edit]

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

This appears to be either a hoax, or a non-notable "sport" created by some people who were messing around on a boat. Besides the fact that it sounds just plain dangerous, I can't find any reliable sources for this. Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:36, 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 speedy delete per G11 and G3 by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweentv![edit]

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

Hoax. Are we to believe that a whole TV channel in India has no Google hits? Deprodded (in good faith). Abductive (talk) 22:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magicthegathering.com[edit]

Magicthegathering.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst the game it represents is notable, I'm doubtful we should have an article about a section of a company's website. In my eyes this at least should be merged to Magic: The Gathering but I'm again doubtful it warrants a mention there. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment / Keep . First the comment part. This article's predecessor was nominated for deletion before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatherer in 2005, where it was (incorrectly in my opinion) kept. I moved the article and expanded its focus awhile back, but haven't maintained it since. Note that to be accurate, the article should probably be moved to MTG Daily now, as the maintainers decided that not having a name and just using the URL was a bad idea.
As for the keep part. Normally, sure, a section of a company's website is non-notable. However this is not just a section; this is an entire online newsmagazine that happens to be hosted off their official site. Magicthegathering.com / MTG Daily is the continuation of WotC's defunct dead-tree magazine The Duelist and was merely moved online after the economics of magazine publishing started to go downhill with the growth of the internet. Think the Seattle Post-Intelligencer but on a smaller scale.
I did a quick Google for secondary sources. The main "problem" is that the main other Magic sites on the Internet refer to mtg.com / MTG Daily *constantly* but also often trivially ("WotC says here (link)..."). However I can pretty much assure you that non-trivial coverage does occur (I distinctly recall reading Starcitygames.com whining about how magicthegathering.com would hire away all their best writers). I'll drop a note on the project page for people more current than I to see what they have. SnowFire (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I go to the website almost every weekday. I would have no idea what MTG Daily meant if I saw it in a list, but would know the full URL. Surely others are the same way, so I'd weak oppose a name change.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per Snowfire. Major source for a major game, but lack of secondary sources could be problematic.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a while searching, and the best I could personally come up with is this after crawling around Google for a few dozen pages of results on various searches (though I did find a thing or two on Starcitygames.com that refused to give me working URLs...). I don't think we'll be able to find enough sources for WP:N to really be satisfied, because, as SnowFire notes above, all I can find is constant trivial references. But at the same time, there is some good content there (though admittedly the article could use some heavy pruning; a barely-not-a-stub seems about the right length to me) and there isn't really room for that content at Magic: the Gathering, as that article is already overcomplete. This may change in the near future (I'm going to set about some subtractive editing of the article fairly soon), but it can be revisited on the talk pages and by the project at that time. I'd say weak keep in favor of other options, overall. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 00:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Snowfire and Bedford. Also regarding moving the article to Daily MtG: that should be done. I agree that many people will not recognize Daily MtG (personal experience), but a redirect will remain at magicthegathering.com anyway. OdinFK (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikia:mtg and/or wikia:magicthegathering (MTGSalvation's license is incompatible), with a partial merge into Magic: The Gathering. Not notable enough separately from the game to warrant its own article. NeonMerlin 03:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no room at the main M:TG article. If this is merged anywhere, I'd tentatively suggest The Duelist. Kind of amusing... The Duelist certainly had higher production standards, due to actually charging money and thus having a staff of noticeable size, but the Daily MTG website surely hits more eyeballs than The Duelist ever did. A dead-tree magazine's notability is pretty much self-evident, though, since it's a mini-business despite having less "influence." Changing times... SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, unless there are secondary sources out there that establish notability. There probably doesn't need to be this much content there. Croctotheface (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:51, 23 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, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Crows[edit]

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

I'm nominating Orange Crows for deletion because I can't see that it meets the basic guidelines for notability in any fashion. It has no real, verifiable references -- two of the bibliography links go to DeviantArt, and so do two of the External links. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, and general notability in my view. ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 22:10, 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. Jamie☆S93 22:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union and state terrorism[edit]

Soviet Union and state terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confusing dab. The problem can easily be solved by hatnotes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is simply a disambig. page. I do not see what's the problem.Biophys (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the fact that the terms it disambiguates are quite different from the title? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the dab is "confusing" that is proof enough it is required since it represents both, yet neither, title being disambiguated to. Hatnotes that will of necessity wind up implying or stating the Soviet Union was responsible for or engaged in state terrorism will aid neither article. The dab page neatly avoids such controversies and associated wailing and gnashing of teeth. PetersV       TALK 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful redirect that does not create any problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible use for readers who decide to read the comparable USSR article from the U.S. article, and as a low-cost solution for the wailing and gnashing of teeth mentioned by Vecrumba. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reasonably plausable redirect or dab. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a useful page. Ostap 04:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a useful disambiguation page per PetersV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:50, 23 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 Slow keep Withdrawn two weeks ago and nobody noticed. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOON-kana-[edit]

MOON-kana- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable singer. A Google search for "moon-kana" does not return any reliable sources, and I haven't been able to find any evidence that she meets any of the other criteria, such as having a record certified gold or higher or having an international tour covered by a reliable source (the latter can be more or less proven using Google News. Unscented (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Now that we've found some evidence of notability, I withdraw my recommendation to delete. I'm not going to close the debate myself, though, because it appears that the page may require a history merge with Kana (Japanese musician), which only an administrator can perform.--Unscented (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"considered for deletion"? MOON-kana- was simply moved from the original page to reflect her name change. The other article (Kana (Japanese musician) ) has been around for quite a while. She's anything but non-noteworthy. Not having a gold album does not mean that she should not have a wikipedia page devoted to her. Apart from being a singer she is also a model and a desinger. She has a massive following in Japan and a large following in the US and Europe. She has over 20,000 fans on her myspace page and tours fairly often. If "Survivor" contestants get their own pages for doing little more than appearing on a television show, Kana certainly deserves a page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.46.108 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How does any search in the Latin alphabet "more or less prove" unnotability for a Japanese subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Certified gold isn't required by WP:MUSIC -- the simple expedient of having two albums on a major label or one of the more important indies suffices, or even having charted once. I see several albums (and one even has its own article) but cannot determine the label(s) they were released under. Can anyone with mad Nihongo skillz give an assist here? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was only using the certified gold criterion as an example - I haven't been able to find evidence that she meets any of the criteria. If anyone knows of any evidence, it would be greatly appreciated.--Unscented (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it is kept, the article will need a history merge with Kana (Japanese musician), as it appears to have been created using a copy-paste move. --DAJF (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm neutral on the notability issue because my Japanese skills are insufficient to seek out reliable references. However, a history merge could be unnecessary. Except for the addition of this AfD and the incorrectly done move, neither MOON-kana- nor Kana (Japanese musician) have undergone any edits to their content. If MOON-kana- was to be speedily deleted, I think Kana (Japanese musician) could be moved correctly with no impact to the licensing requirements (though I would be happy to be corrected on this point). Astronaut (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I note that there are an unusually large number of other language wikipedia articles for a nomination on notability grounds. In particular, the French, Spanish, and German articles have information not in ours (particularly about the European tours) and can be presumed to have been created independently, and not translated. This very strongly suggests there's international coverage of this musician, which would satisfy either C1 or C4 of WP:MUSIC. I also note that GNews searches for the international tour should be made under Kana, not MOON Kana, as that was the name she was using at the time. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've redone the search, using the terms "kana singer tour" (without quotes) - there are results, but none of them are relevant to the article's subject.--Unscented (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sounds to me like you just want to delete the article no matter what you find. Have you tried typing in kanji? And why is "google" the deciding factor here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.238.123 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the case at all - I certainly don't want the article deleted if anyone can find any evidence that its subject is notable. The problem is, we haven't found any. I can't type in Kanji, because like most people, I only have an English keyboard, and like most English Wikipedia editors, I don't speak Japanese. If you can do a Kanji search, please do so - it could very well turn up some notability evidence that we've all been missing. And remember to assume good faith.--Unscented (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 5600 hits on Google in Japanese and no Google news hits. Nothing in Japanese that shows evidence of notability or a massive following in Japan. Anecdotally, I've never heard of her after several years in Japan. Does not pass WP:NM as far as I can tell. Dekimasuよ! 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Searches that use "Kana" without the "Moon" part yield more results. Dekimasuよ! 10:05, 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, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the releases are all self-released, so no easy way on to WP:MUSIC by label. Pending any reliable third-party reviews of either her music or her touring, which I could not find in German or English, it's a delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turns out the "self-released" part of the article was ambiguously worded. Only the newer albums were self-released, the rest were released under the Teichiku Records label. Found out via a quick search on Amazon JP. [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.169.203 (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for finding that that. Teichiku Records looks to counts as a major label for WP:MUSIC purposes, which means she definitively passes that notability guideline. Changing my !vote to keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is kept, it should be moved to Kana (singer) to conform to WP:MOS-TM, WP:MOS-JP, the name she actually markets herself under, and the name of her article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 10:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kana is apparently the name she formerly marketed herself under, with this being the current name. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that may be so; let me rephrase. Per the evidence I previously struck out above, the name that gets a respectable number of hits and can be sourced sufficiently is the one that she has been marketed under until now, which makes the common name for her "Kana". Dekimasuよ! 00:16, 16 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 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's "Moon Kana" now, not "Kana". Why is the article at "Kana (singer)"?76.181.44.154 (talk) 16:39, 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 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shine on Me[edit]

Shine on Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As with Christopher Dane Owens, a little popularity on the internet isn't a reason for notability. Unfortunately, the song hasn't gained any mainstream popularity, and hasn't charted in any country - I'm not sure it's even been released. There is a reference given from the LA Times, and it was given (sarcastically) a "Best Music Video" award online, but these two things don't meet WP:MUSIC on their own. It's a good song, but that's not the point. Esteffect (talk) 23:31, 10 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 21:32, 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.

http://chrisdaneowens.com/news.html he was in japan.... touring. seriously wikipedia is a pain to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erifneerg (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that sources, while extant, are insufficient to support an independant article. In the absence of a viable merge target, the article has been deleted. As usual, if any editor wants a copy in their user space to improve with a view towards restoring the article, let me know. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marquee Room[edit]

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

Contested PROD, original prod reason was "Does not appear to be notable. Third-party sources are non-notable local publications, or generic sources that do not show notability. Google search reveals little of note." Prod tag was deleted by the article's creator with the assertion that FFWD is a reliable source, but I don't think it does anything to prove notability, because the coverage is so trivial. My search confirmed that the hits are all trivial and promotional. Notability is hanging on the MartiniBoys review, which to me doesn't meet the standard of " significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Also, for what it's worth, the only two significant contributors to the article have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. I was responsible for the original PROD, and was going to take it to AfD, but decided to wait until the conclusion of the related debate concerning Bell Tower (band). Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The kinds of concert listings that show up in those searches don't amount to significant coverage - the Marquee Room is mentioned in passing in articles about bands, but the articles aren't about the Marquee Room. And there's a reason I did my searches with "Marquee Room" in quotes - of the 10 items in the current Google news search that you did, only 4 of them mention the club in question - the other 6 are articles that just happen to have the words "marquee" and "room" in them. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is loads of information about this place, and the block for sock puppetry was a mistake because a person I work with uses the same IP to access his account. FFWD weekly is a notable publication, and as listed above Google news has also covered The Marquee Room.

Kinty500 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This user has been blocked in the past for being a meatpuppet of the blocked creator of this article, User:Element014; see User talk:Kinty500. Also, my point with the FFWD reference is not that the publication is not notable, but that the coverage is not significant - the Marquee Room is simply mentioned in a list, there's nothing written there other than the club's name. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is an article about the Marquee Room specifically, I am about to add it to the references. Beatroute Magazine The Meat Puppetry block on the person who created this article is also a misunderstanding, view:Element014 (talk) (Element014's talk page) for an explanation.

Kinty500 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete"A Calgary newspaper source listing it as the best new bar in the city for the year is not significant coverage. The article just mentioned is however substantial, but I am not convinced about the reliability of the source "BeatRoute Magazine: Calgary's Indie Arts & Entertainment Monthly" as being adequate for notability.DGG (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable outside of one locality. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete average music venue. Abductive (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Barely meets notability, but name is ambiguous.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:54, 23 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. And cleanup. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Animal Rights Coalition[edit]

Southern Animal Rights Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable group, that fails WP:ORG that appear to be using Wikipedia as a advertising/soapbox. Numerous references are attached to the article, the majority of which do not qualify as independent. Those that are reliable and independent, such as the BBC and The Times, make no mention of ths coalition. Searching returns 160 unique GHits, all of which fail the independent and reliable criteria required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article's contents communicate the advocacy and positions of the group, but I'm not seeing any independent sources. As Wikipedia is not a web-host, I would think this information would be better left on the group's own website. Are there any independent sources with coverage of the group that we can base a trimmed article on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not that I've been able to find. TBH, I think the article sums up the problem. All of 'their' campaigns, once you read the article, are actually being carried organisation x, y or z rather than SARC. The coalition is a banding of like minded souls with a common cause, but not a organisation generating coverage of its own. Nuttah (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fundamentally rewrite. I agree that this is a shameless soapbox article, the vast majority of references appear to be claims on the groups' own websites being passed off as fact, and any group that sympathetic to the Animal Liberation Front surely has received sufficient criticism for this to warrant a significant mention in the article. The only thing that saves this article is that amongst the gazillions of non-references there is the occasional reference to an actual news story, such as the BBC or The Times. Therefore, some sort of article can stay around those few stories, but any events not covered in reliable third-party sources have to go. If no-one's prepared to clean up the article, I'd reduce it to a stub if needed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for proper citations of independent reliable sources. I say this with regret, as I am fundamentally opposed to campaigns of this kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We-Vibe[edit]

We-Vibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was db-spam and because it does have references and is encyclopedic in tone I believe it requires broader review. I consider it a marginal case and have no opinion whether it should be deleted or kept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Clear case of spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I proposed speedy delete as db-spam but I accept the author's assurance that he has no connection with the product. However the article still reads somewhat like a press release and has no references other than to the makers' and similar sites; I think it fails WP:N and WP:RS. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now Weak keep. Reviews and other possible reference material are mentioned in the article, but it does need to be found and added. It might possibly show the importance, but at this point there is no reason to suppose that the product is as special as claimed. I urge someone else to give it a serious try. DGG (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, I found some of the reviews, and the ones from a well thought of site do indicate what the site calls "unique" features [5]., [6] DGG (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While the username is not a definite violation, it does sound sort of...sticky. Also, the article fails WP:V, WP:N, and, if kept, will need a complete and utter rewriting. However, the reason for the "weak" is, as said by DGG, that it does have review, however minor they are. Cheers. I'mperator 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Entry is spammy, but a rewrite is possible. There's a quite a bit of mainstream news coverage: [7]. Hairhorn (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails WP:N, seems pretty spammy to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. --Alynna (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an actual product and is a social revolution. I work in that industry. If asnything it just needs a rewrite.--Guywithoutaname (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the inventor, Bruce Murison. Please note that this is truly a new device and patents world wide have been applied for based on : a middle portion connecting the inner arm to the outer arm, and being sized and shaped to permit sexual intercourse when said sexual stimulation device is emplaced on said woman. Please see our review section http://www.we-vibe.com/Reviews_and_Blogs.php as there are many testimonials that this device is indeed a revolutionary concept that allows women the stimulation they need to orgasm, while providing the ability to make love as normal. I agree this article should not read as a ad for We-Vibe, so please feel free to re-write it, but please give due consideration that the We-Vibe belongs in Wikipedia as a truly new and unique product that is having commercial success because it is an invention that gives women (and men) something that is highly desirable and until now, never before available. Thanks. Feel free to delete this comment if it is in bad form. --Bruce (talk) 15:36, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Retail[edit]

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

There are a couple of things about this article. It looks like a copy and paste of an already existent article as the [Edit] tags are there. gordonrox24 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble figuring out how to reply to you on this page. I removed the edit tags. I had copied another similar Wikepedia page just to get an idea of structure but deleted it once I input original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dielectra (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National Retail Properties is a billion dollar company (a publicly traded real estate investment trust) trading on the New York Stock Exchange [8]. I've tagged the article for better sourcing and cleanup, but I'd say it's definitely notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above. There are sources, and the company is pretty big. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:17, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced and inspired by Michael Jackson[edit]

List of artists influenced and inspired by Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems a little redundant. There are likely thousands of artists who found him an inspiration and influence to become a pop star. Contains little encyclopedic infomation other than quotes which appear fan cruft towards Jacko, little else. It is a shame that the creator has put a fair bit of work into it but I think it falls short of content requirements and does nothing but glorify Michael Jackson. The article might be salvagable however if it is written in prose examining the influence of Michael Jackson on pop culture or something but a list is redundant I think. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This tells us nothing about his influence, except that tons of artists namedrop him. Let's hope that they're not inspired by his non-musical actions as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Yes, he probably has influenced thousands of artists. Perhaps the list doesn't go totally indepth about his influence, mainly because it is just that; a list documenting those he has influenced. And, please, drop the attitude in here. Nobody cares about your opinion on him or his 'actions'. Pyrrhus16 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think this list could easily be sourced beyond the mere name-dropping? Someone can easily cite artist X as an influence, but never show artist X's influence in their work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do. What better way to cite than from the horses mouth? It's not as if they're going to lie. Pyrrhus16 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restructure. This shouldn't be a list, rather part of a prose article on Jackson's influence on popular culture. Also agree, drop the sarcasm folks, it's not need. — R2 19:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you moved it to an article on Influence of Michael Jackson in popular culture and removed the list but maybe mention a few in a written article on his influence and write about his influence on popular culture in a well referenced written article then I would support it. As it is the article is redundant. Please assume good faith people all round. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with this suggestion. An article that explains, in detail, the influence that Jacko has had on other artists would be far superior to a list of artists who have name-dropped him as an influence. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such an article could not only explore his musical influence but also his style/dancing influence etc. Actually you could explore his influence by genre in nice chunky written paragraphs e.g Influence on hip hop, dancing etc. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the topic of "influence of Michael Jackson in popular culture" is notable by virtue of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources don't bother. Just throwing together an indiscriminate collection of people who have been influenced by Michael Jackson doesn't create a notable topic no matter how well referenced the entries are. The subject of the article itself needs to be notable. The encyclopedia doesn't need more of that. The information should be included where it is has meaningful context, in the Michael Jackson article or in the the articles on the other artists or both. Drawn Some (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having researched Jackson myself, it would be quite easy to write an article on his influence in popular culture/society. The media discuss it and there are even lectures on it in US universities, hard to believe. — R2 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great then as long as there are references discussing the actual topic in-depth. Once the topic has been established as notable primary sources can be used as verification (I see the discussion above about horses' mouths.) Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't get me wrong, i like MJ but there is no point for this article. Many other musical acts could have pages like this but they don't and as was said what's the point in just a list of names as there is little information on how he actually influenced their work. I agree to this being included somewhat in his legacy section but not as an endless list. A paragraph listing the biggest artists he has influenced and how. OgiBear (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is better off addressed in articles about the artists that claim they were touched by his.....work. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stars name dropping his name, it's too subjective as we don't know the indepth influence he really has on them. I aggree with the suggestion to merge this as his legacy. --TitanOne (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, userify. We have no ability and no authority to distinguish genuine influence from just sending regards to M.J. At least some entries on the list, taken out of context are just that, sending regards. They could just as well send them to the Pope or the late JFK. Can it be mended in current form? I doubt it. NVO (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm inspired by him when I doodle, do I get my page at Wikipedia now? Aw, shucks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it backed with reliable third party sources? If it is, why not? Sparks Fly 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I will say keep in this regard unless someone convinces me otherwise. The article may not be perfect but this is about whether the article should exist, not how good-looking it is. Perhaps find musician who has openly spoken of their dislike of his music if you want to balance it out. But I imagine that won't be very easy. --candle•wicke 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh that again would be completely redundant given that the article is on those "influenced and inspired by Michael Jackson". That is a ridiculous proposal, you think we should have wikipedia pages dedicated to why people think other artists are crap? LOL. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a user's suggestions "ridiculous" is counter-productive, particularly when you completely misunderstood what I said. Have you heard of renaming an article? --candle•wicke 11:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is saying the list is vague and not in keeping with standards "anti-Michael Jackson"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you didn't say that the list was "vague and not in keeping with standards", did you? You insinuated that he was a pervert. Some people in here definitely need to read WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Pyrrhus16 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Insinuated? Really? Then that would be a WP:BLP issue and not a WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX issue wouldn't it? Except I never said anything perverted or made any sexual reference. I just left the door open and your mind did the rest. What you ever read the article about sense of humor? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not solely referring to you when mentioning the above policies. And yes, I have read that article. I particularly enjoy the part that reads "the extent to which an individual will find something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence, and context." Pyrrhus16 11:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You quoted me and responded immediately after my response, saying "you" three times. So one would naturally presume you are referring to me. So either you aren't able to communicate clearly (which doesn't seem likely) or you were talking about me. You pick which one it is and I'll tell you I believe you. Being lectured about decorum by one who allows violations of WP:NPA on their talk page though always makes for an interesting day though. Thanks for the humor. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Michael Jackson? Did you not read my suggestion? Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Needs to be better formatted (and retitled?), but notability of topic is certain. Full disclosure: I'm NOT a Michael Jackson fan.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I didn't say that the topic itself isn't notable. I suggested how it should be done above. Bu to list just a bunch of quotes is really not what wikipedia is about. As I said remove the tabled list and write an article in prose on the page I suggested. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This opens up an enormous number of articles and I don't see why this one is particularly special. It's not a WP:RS of notability for a rolling stone article to say "x was influenced by y" but that's going to be exactly the kind of arguments that will come from these kinds of articles. There seems to be some major misunderstandings of what notability is, and just because it's a notable artist, doesn't mean this TOPIC has been notable. Also, we are discussing articles for deletion, not topics for deletion, although some people believe it should be the other way around, that is a controversial position. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Shadowjams. We don't need these lists. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:00, 23 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) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coactive TV[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any reliable source coverage of this term ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 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. Neither rewriting nor moving the article require deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarian Pigeon Corps[edit]

Bavarian Pigeon Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another editor objects to a {{refimprove}} tag on this article for some strange reason. All the references seem rather thin and could relate back to a common source which is an hoax. But I think the conclusion will be: the technique was tried in 1903, exhibited in Dresden in 1909 but never used on any battlefield. The drawbacks, eg. shot down for food, listed in the article never happened but were anticipated by the military so the pigeons were never used. The army corps may well never have existed, so pigeons in aerial photography will probably be a better article title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nominator has failed to provide any rationale for this article's deletion. Reliable sources are already included, including Reuters and the Smithsonian. Even if the nominator's unsubstantiated speculation that this subject relates back to "a common source which is a hoax", which frankly seems unlikely, that would not be grounds for deletion. According to the deletion criteria, "articles that are themselves hoaxes" are candidates for deletion, but not "articles describing notable hoaxes". So there are no grounds for this article's deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - i am not a deletionist. I refrained from going down the AfD route and merely tagged the article for better referencing. It was you who, I believe, removed that tag. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're using an AfD to enforce a tagging that I objected to? Please remind me, which of the deletion criteria apply to a disputed tagging? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Malleus. Reliable sources are provided. There doesn't seem to be any real reason for deletion. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have you checked them properly? The weaknesses of the citations have been pointed out in the articles talk pages. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to see the evidence that my work is based on "an hoax", when I've got sources to The Smithsonian, the FBI and University lectures. If he's got sources to support such a claim, then I and others can rewrite the article to reflect it. However, I've seen nothing to support this other than a bunch of opinion and OR. I'd also like to point out that as the author of the article, I find it disrespectful that I was not notified of this AFD. لennavecia 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jenna, why do you think Google gives no hits for "Bayerische Taube Korps" nor for "Bayerische Tauben Korps"? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when was a lack of ghits for what you suppose a subject might be called in another language with which you are unfamiliar a substitute for what it actually is called in reliable sources? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would love you to provide credible citations especially German ones. Can you? The "FBI" citation is a repeat of earlier speculations is poorly written and inadequately referenced itself. It is clear that the author didn't care much since the footnote points to an obscure US legal case report about something else entirely. In any event just because NASA, the FBI and even a lecturer at a US hallowed hall of higher learning have mentioned something in passing without adequate citation themselves does not a credible article make. The NASA reference you gave is an archived pastiche of "cool stuff" from the last century and is not by an stretch, credible as it just repeats earlier "popular" reports. As for the Smithsonian - well they have been wrong in the past too - vide their attitude towards the Wrights. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're talking about a topic from the early 1900s. If I recall correctly, the internet didn't come around until sometime way later. <_< So I'm not shocked that I'm unable to find a lot of online sources at all, particularly in German, since I don't speak it or read it. لennavecia 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as the undoubtedly reliable sources already mentioned, Googling the title brings up a wider variety of sources, from NASA to the CIA. "I haven't heard of it" doesn't mean "it didn't happen". – iridescent 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have you checked those references? They are merely repeats of earlier references themselves. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the references are strong enough to show both the existence and the importance. DGG (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the point is that the citations when looked at properly are very weak and all seem to derive from one singe source. most do not NOT mention any military unit with this name and there is no mention of the unit name in German.Albatross2147 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If ever an article screamed "HOAX" it is this one. The photo looks like someone Photoshopped a big camera onto a pigeon. I expected to find one clever hoax from recent years with other writers uncritically parroting (!) the claims. But Google Book search shows mentions of Bavarian pigeon photography dating back quite a few years.Some are snippet view, but the search results show that if this is a hoax, it is an old one which fooled a lot of people. A 1965 British photography publication mentions "For example, the "pigeon" panoramic camera devised by Dr. Julius Neubronner of Bavaria was strapped around a bird and set for exposure by a windup,..." . A 1978 history of photography mentions "He employed also a carrier pigeon photographic apparatus and a portable dovecote. This small camera, for from two to eight exposures, was attached to the..."(shows up in search results, not in snippet). So keep and improve. (Edit) Found the motherload ref: Photographic Times frpom 1909 with details of the project.More books on this at [9]. The 1916 Popular Science article documents the battlefield use and has some great pictures. Would copyright laws allow 1916 pictures to be used in the article? Edison (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just looking at that article myself, some great background material about Neubronner in it as well. If this is a hoax then it's a bloody good one. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would urge the nom to withdraw so this can be closed early. I'm confused about the deletion rationale. Thin references is not a valid argument. That's followed by some odd speculations about pigeons and Dresden, and finally with a suggestion to redirect to another title? Generally noms have very specific ideas about what should be done with an article and why. Law type! snype? 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • RHaworth has actually said why xe nominated this for deletion, and what xe actually wanted to do but found other editors resisting. I suggest reading it in conjunction with the edits where both Malleus Fatuorum and Jennavecia say things like "take it to AfD", "Yes […] please just take it to AFD", and "Yes. It's a hoax.". Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My suggestion is that someone, either the nominator or you, provides a valid rationale for deletion, based on the deletion criteria that very few here appear to be familiar with. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You now owe an apology, for that rather foolish remark, to (for staters) Edison, DGG, and Iridescent, who all not only appear to be familiar with deletion policy from this discussion alone, but in fact are familiar with it, as evidenced by many AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I sincerely hope that you're not holding your breath waiting for that cold day in Hell, 'cos it ain't gonna happen. This AfD was clearly vexatious. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are suggesting the reading of the article talk in conjunction with edits to find out what the nom is saying? AfD is not an Easter egg hunt. Furthermore, after reading that link provided, I am even less clear now. This AfD is a result of an editor frustrated that a tag was removed? Either way, I see no deletion rationale nor do I see where the nom is calling for an actual deletion of the article. Law type! snype? 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'm suggesting exactly that, if one wants to understand why the nomination was made. And your understanding is almost at the right place, although there's no evidence of frustration, merely good faith adherence to the requests made by those rejecting the tag. RHaworth doesn't want the article deleted. Xe just wants {{refimprove}}, but that was rejected when someone else applied it, with "take it to AFD". So xe did. (In some ways, Malleus Fatuorum and Jennavecia only have themselves to blame for this.) The only person who apparently actually does want the article deleted is Albatross2147. The whole idea of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to have passed xem by. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Malleus Fatuorum and Jennavecia only have themselves to blame for this." Blame for what? More like "thank". This is exactly what I wanted. I knew it wouldn't be deleted, and the talk page discussion was going nowhere. Just original research and opinion. I told him to take it to AFD because I figured here people would actually read the sources and perhaps find some others. That's happened, and now the article will be improved in a way it wouldn't have been from those providing nothing but OR. لennavecia 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Uncle G, I did not nominate the article for deletion. I said I might when I begged in Talk for better citations but then as I am not a deletionist I just tagged it appropriately. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, yes, the "Yes, it's a hoax, thanks for asking" comment. Sarcasm got the best of me. It was, what I viewed, as a stupid question. I mean, it puts into question NASA, the Smithsonian, the FBI, Reuters, etc. I had no objection to the expert tag. I welcome expert attention and German sources, which have been provided and I am very pleased with. I will work on adding them tomorrow. My desire for this to go to AFD was simply to end the threat of it. I cannot spend time debating OR. So apologies if my comments were taken as something more than sarcastic frustration. لennavecia 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've asked Hans Adler, who is de-N, to drop by this discussion and double-check the German. I hope that xe will. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current references are very weak and appear to be a continuous trail of copying a "cute" story seen in an earlier (generally US) "popular" publication. The are no credible serious German references provided or French ones for that matter which given their paranoia about the Germans pre-WW1 would be expected if there were any reports of this sort of activity. There is no evidence that this unit was ever in existence other than the reports in the popular journals. That is to say there is no citation from any proper history of the army(ies) of Germany. I do not dispute that use of pigeons by the military as carriers of light weight messages. The article should be deleted and re-written from the Neubronner Vater-Sohn-Beziehung point of view ideally with a citation of the actual patent(s) and perhaps with a mention of the possible military use. I have pointed out the weakness of some of the citations in the talk page as have others. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Others have of course pointed out that the material is reliably sourced on that same article talk page. That you disagree with those reliable sources is not a criterion for deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot read via Google the sources that Edison cites, their being yet more examples of things that Google doesn't show here, but here's yet another source to add to the mix:
    • Robert D. Fiete (2002). "Imaging science in overhead surveillance". In Joseph P. Hornak (ed.). Encyclopedia of imaging science and technology. J. Wiley. p. 773. ISBN 9780471332763.
  • It repeats the information about the patent, mentions Neubronne (no 'r') by name, and talks of the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" (using that very name) operating in 1909, with those 30-second interval cameras. Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hornak only repeats early reports - there is nothing new in there (and no citation). No mention of the unit's title in Gernman which what one would expect if this was a rigorous publication. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is probably the earliest mention of the unit name that has been found. But those are English words which was, so far as I can ascertain, not commonly used in German unit titles. Why can't you find an article with unit name in German? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • When did you stop beating your wife? Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way: Did someone say German sources? Here are two:
    • K W. Wolf-Czapek and Hans Becker (1911). Angewandte Photographie in Wissenschaft und Technik. Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Zweigniederlassung Berlin. p. 44. […] das den jahrelangen Arbeiten des Dr. Neubronner in Kronberg im Taunus seine Entwicklung verdankt. Er has as durch Training erreicht, daß eine Taube 75 g, d. h. ein Drittel ihres Eigengewichtes, 100 bis 150 km weit tragen kann. Den so vorbereiteten Tauben legte er eine kleine Tragevorrichtung and und befestigte daran einen […]
    • Hermann Julius Meyer (1912). Meyers grosses Konversations-Lexikon (6th ed.). Bibliographisches Institut. p. 73. Julius Neubronner, Cronberg, hat Brieftauben dazu herangezogen, Winzige photographische Apparate in die Lüfte zu tragen, die dann automatisch funktionieren. Auf der Internationalen Luftschiffahrtsausstellung in Frankfurt 1909 brachte er Apparate […]
  • There are other German language sources that state that Neubronner magaed to create a camera massing 40g. Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The dispute is not about the JN's invention it is about this specific unit ie. the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" and their supposed use of the cameras in some "European theatres of operation" which is not referenced properly.Albatross2147 (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a "dispute", it's an AfD. And the rules of this game are that you must provide a reason why you believe that this article should be deleted. It may help you to refer to the deletion criteria before wasting any more of your and everyone else's time. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only disputes here at AFD are whether an article should be deleted or not. (And please try to place your comments correctly. You've placed three right in the middle of someone else's comments so far.) To that end, the existence of multiple independent reliable sources covering the subject in depth, and allowing for an article to be written, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is sufficient. Everything else is a content dispute resolvable through ordinary editing, not a deletion matter, and not an AFD matter. On that subject, here's yet another:
        • Alfred Hildebrandt (1909). "Brieftaubenkamera von Dr. Neubronner in Originalgröße". Die Luftschiffahrt nach ihrer geschichtlichen und gegenwärtigen Entwicklung (2nd ed.). R. Oldenbourg.
      • Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I repeat that this is NOT about JN or his invention. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Did you bother to read the Popular Science 1916 article documenting the World War 1 pigeon cameras operating for the Germans? What is your problem? Are you arguing for a move to some other article name? Edison (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Edison, I now believe that we are now at the point where there is plenty of evidence for JN's invention(s)(which I never disputed) but no real evidence for a BA unit of this name - so a name change and rewrite may be appropriate. Albatross2147 (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here are two more:
        • Erich Stenger and Edward Epstean (1939). "Carrier-Pigeon Photography". The history of photography: its relation to civilization and practice. Mack Printing Company. p. 104. — dates Neubronner's patent application to 1907, and his pamphlet on "Brieftauben-Photographie" to 1909
        • K. Fuhrmann (1912). Die Photographie im Dienste des Messens: Festrede. p. 28. Die Versuche der Hofapothekers Dr. NEUBRONNER in Kronberg sind durch die Zeitschriften bekannt geworden. Der kleine Apparat ist fur 2-8 Aufnahmen engerichtet, darf bis 75 g wiegen und wird auf der Brust der Taube befestigt, die ihn bequem 100 — 150 km weit […]
      • Apparently, Neubronner published a pamphlet entitled Die Brieftaubenphotographie und ihre bedeutung für die kriegskunst at some point, too. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No real rational given. Ohms law (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to pigeons in aerial photography as proposed by the nominator, or to some other name. I share the concerns of RHaworth (the nominator) and Albatross2147: There is plenty of information around (including in German and French) that pigeons were used by the military and that pigeon photography was hoped to have military applications. What I could not find at all is any mention of the actual use of pigeon photography by the military. E.g. there is this source - probably not technically a RS, but it looks trustworthy enough. The author claims to have conducted an interview with 101-year-old Carl Neubronner (son of Julius Neubronner). From this I get the following time line:
    • 1904 first aerial photographs with this method
    • patent initially rejected for impossibility, then granted after authenticated aerial photographs of Frankfurt have been presented
    • 1909 Internationale Luftschiffahrtausstellung (in Frankfurt, not yet in Berlin); Julius Neubronner is awarded the messenger pigeon in silver for a photo of a housewife's washing in Eschborn
  • If there had been a Bavarian Pigeon Corps, it would have been quite natural to mention it in this context. Then there is this source on Google Books. Two pages, technical details, 1909 exhibition, citation to a 1910 report in the Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung, called Militärluftschiffahrt und Brieftaubenphotographie. There were feasibility demonstrations for military use in 1912 in Berlin, and in 1918 the military explained that they are no longer interested in buying the patents, due to advances in aviation. This simply doesn't seem to leave any time for the subject of this article.

    However, it makes no sense to delete it altogether since there are related topics that I suppose are not yet covered in Wikipedia. Here are some sources for them:

    • L. Du Puy de Podio, Essai sur le vol des oiseaux en général
    • Photos of Belgian cavallery with messenger pigeons [10][11][]
    • Photo of a man with pigeon and camera, 1914; could this be Julius Neubronner? [12]
    • Gallica also has contemporary French books (online) that treat military use of messenger pigeons; just search for "pigeon"
    • Britannica 1911 has an article on "Pigeon post" that focuses on military uses
  • I think a good working hypothesis is that the technology came a few years too late to be of use to the military, that any practical experiments happened in Frankfurt and Berlin (so not in Bavaria), and that speculation about possible uses and problems found its way into a newspaper in Munich which may well have speculated about a future "Bavarian Pigeon Corps". Under the circumstances the title of this article seems to raise a red flag and therefore require extraordinary proof. Having just learned elsewhere on Wikipedia that widely reported claims of Roman Emperors having imported British mastiffs ("Pugnaces Britanniae") for fighting in Roman amphitheatres [13] were completely false and based on the flimsiest of evidence plus a telephone game that ran over several hundred years, including more than 100 years after the hoax was first debunked, I think this is by far the most plausible explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, well done for Brons(2007)! I didn't see that. (I was using date-limited searches with a cut-off of 1940, to try to find contemporaneous sources.) That points in some new directions. Franziska Brons also authored a magazine/journal article on Neubronner the year before:
    • According to the magazine's editorial, she "erzählt, wieso seine hochfliegenden Pläne nur eine kurze Episode blieben".

      Jenavecia, this does seem to be a more reliable source than the Smithsonian, even though I have yet to find indication that Fotogeschichte is peer-reviewed. It's a German-speaking historian of photography, who is apparently directly using primary German historical sources from archives. (Aside from all of the primary sources cited in the article that M. Adler cites above, the magazine article by Brons has a picture of Neubronner and his pigeons from the historical archives of the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin, notice.) As far as I can determine, M. Brons is a lecturer in art history at the Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. So whilst xyr paper credentials may be less than those of other authors, this is, conversely, an expert on this specific field, with direct access to primary sources in the relevant language, writing in xyr field of expertise.

      The bad news is that it does strongly support the thesis that Neubronnner's work never took off (as it were). And whilst there are plenty of details in the German language sources that I cited above, including the masses of the cameras, how far the pigeons could fly, and so forth, I see nothing that contradicts this thesis (I hope that M. Adler has checked my German on these sources, as requested.).

      The Internationale Luftschiffahrtausstellung mentioned above is the one also documented in Meyer(1912) that I cited, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep There are not a lot of info, however this thing exists. --NovaSkola (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What thing are you refering to? The military unit or the fact that there was an inventor called Neubronnner?
    • Comment I'm talking about unit.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a speedy close, as there now seems to be a consensus to rename the article. It is very dubious whether the BPC ever existed, while pigeon photography and its inventor are both notable and provide plenty of information to build an article on. But it should be closed with the understanding that the article will be renamed, since the BPC appears to be a hoax. It's very unlikely that this kind of thing would have been forgotten in Germany. We have historians there, you know, and other people who dig into the archives for interesting facts. It can still be mentioned, and a redirect makes sense, but we must not say more than that it may have existed. Hans Adler 07:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AfD is not the right place for article improvement or reference searching, and other needy AfD nominations are deprived of necessary attention. This discussion sets a new standard for investigative multinational Wikipedia source researching. Bottom line is that we have a RS mentioning BPC, and then we have Uncle G's and Hans Adler's crisp words of caution. Wikipedia is not the truth however, only a collection of information in independent reliable sources; as such the words of caution, and the present absence of additional sources, bear a tinge of WP:OR. It is extremely unlikely that a novel spying opportunity of this nature should not have had significant military interest. Some military funding and experimentation must have taken place, and plans drawn up. Exactly to what extent these plans have been carried out; and at what level (national/regional/local); the exact name of the (experimental) unit(s?); the exact sequence of go-stop-go-stop project management - in an environment of no imminent threat of war, and alternative opportunities (planes) developing in parallel, plus contemporary press reports of state-of-the-art military technology - make this case murky. Jenavecia's standpoint could at least be defended as a minority view and the article title could be kept. However, I agree, that the article should not say more than that BPC may have existed - as it reads now, one comes to think of regiments of battle-hardened pigeons. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep but rename or (at least) remove capitals from "pigeon corps".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, with no evidence that the unit actually existed under that name, it will probably be changed to something like Pigeons in aerial photography, but were there evidence of this unit being used by the Bavarian Army, much like United States Marine Corps, the title would need CAPs. لennavecia 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am glad you agree we had better move to a broader title, but I think AuthorityTam's point (probably with an eye on !voters above who apparently feel the title is OK) is the hypothetical one that an article on a Bavarian pigeon corps that may or may not have existed had better use lower case. By the way, I hope that we can settle the question sooner or later: Once I consider the article stable enough I plan to translate it to German, and I hope that someone in Munich can locate the Bavarian newspaper article which is so far the only certain connection to Bavaria. I wouldn't be surprised if it mentioned an existing messenger pigeon corps in a way that could be misunderstood. And if it did exist, after all, de is also the place to find people who know about it. Hans Adler 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether the Bavarian Pigeon Corps actually existed or not—the jury still seems to be out on that—has no bearing on whether or not the title should be capitalised; the "Don Olivero, President of Ruritania" doesn't exist either, but that doesn't mean it ought to be written "don olivero, president of ruritania", they're still proper nouns. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a subtle point here because whether the name is correct is even more uncertain than whether there was a pigeon corps in the Bavarian Army. Hans Adler 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's even more subtle than that, because sure as eggs is eggs if there actually was a "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" that wasn't what it was called officially. Bayerische Tauben Korps perhaps? (You'll have to excuse my schoolboy German I'm afraid :-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Probably Ba(y|i)[e]risches (Brieft|T)auben(c|k|-C|-K)orps. That's 4 possible spellings for Bavarian, two options for the pigeons (pigeons or messenger pigeons), older or newer spelling for corps, and hyphenated or one word. Altogether 32 possibilities. There is actually a source for one of them: "Bayerisches Brieftauben-Corps". [14] But the details are not available online, so I can't check if it's independent of our sources in English. Hans Adler 22:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Can we block Jennavecia for having the audacity to create this mess in the first place? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think you are confusing Jennavecia with Julius Neubronner. Very easy to get this wrong, as both start with a J and have lots of Ns; this kind of thing happens to me all the time, too. Hans Adler 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hans, I've been waiting for the AFD to close before making any big changes. Like I noted on the talk page, I really think we can probably get two articles considering all the sources you've been able to find. One for the pigeons and a biography. لennavecia 20:03, 23 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. لennavecia 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Monroe[edit]

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

The article fails to meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. – Zntrip 18:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TrueAchievements.com[edit]

TrueAchievements.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete- non notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page was moved to TrueAchievements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per style guide.
  • keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (web) "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." References include Joystiq and OXM, and it was mentioned in an OXM PRINT article as well. -- Norvy (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this meets our criteria for inclusion. Disclosure: I recently declined the db-corp speedy. –xenotalk 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. –xenotalk 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable per WP:WEB. The article cites multiple independent, reliable sources. And since the nomination consists of a grand total of two words, I don't know of any other reason why this should be deleted. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator has a practice of not attempting to find sources and this one is no exception. There are sufficient sources to justify inclusion, and they are even included right in the article text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was a reason I opened this up...."12:32, June 16, 2009 Xeno (talk | contribs) (3,679 bytes) (declined db-corp (should have been db-web) "20,000 registered users" a (somewhat weak) statement of notability, no prejudice to AFD) (undo) " Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No prejudice to AFD doesn't necessarily mean I think one should be opened though! =) –xenotalk 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is true but it should be opened to community discussion as there is no proof of notability.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidelines only require coverage in multiple reliable sources, as you have been informed numerous times by many different users. That qualification is satisfied here. Maybe it doesn't meet your definition of notable, but it does meet Wikipedia's. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the article? You're the only one who doesn't see notability, and I'm not sure you found the time to actually look for it because you tried to speedy delete it the same minute I created it. Have a second look at it, and maybe withdraw the nomination so we can speedy keep and move on. -- Norvy (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
xobox scoring doesn't exactly make something encyclopeadic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding of our style standards is that the article should be moved to True Achievements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name they use is TrueAchievements, and yes it should be moved. Otherwise we're just providing advertising. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing precluding editorially-motivated page moves in the middle of an AFD, have at it! –xenotalk 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered in many reliable sources. -Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability requirements and is well sourced, cannot really find a reason for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 07:09, 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 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of Faith[edit]

Cradle of Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax entry for a non-notable band. The article asserts that the band "won a Sydney Film Festival Dendy Award for Australian short film in 2008"; however, this statement cannot be verified. The band has a Myspace page, and that appears to be their only existence on the Internet. A Google News Archive search returns no related results. I am also nominating the band's album:

An Evening With Cradle Of Faith (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cunard (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation on the talk page of the article

Do we count Facebook groups as legitimate sources? Nick\\

As a general rule, no. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contestion Of Vandalism[edit]

Cradle of Faith are a legitimate band, notable for their international touring presence and 2003 hit single Metallic Blues. They are identified in the two referenced text in great detail (unfortunately neither of these texts have wikipedia pages, hence the amazon links). This page was identified as a stub as more information was needed on them and thus this page is incomplete. However this does not constitute vandalism it just constitutes an incomplete wikipedia page. If this page was identified for deletion as the information was not notable that may be understandable and further evidence could be supplied to prove their existence however the tagging of this page as vandalism has no backing or proof and is highly incorrect. The pseudonyms of artist in the band may appear to be falsified but they are true. The band has humorist aspects in both their songs and stage shows and the names they operate under are examples of this. Given more time this would have been established on the page and thus an explanation would have been given. You will notice I was not the creator of this page. This in itself shows that the page and band have some form of validity. If there was a real issue with this page i wonder why it wasn't tagged previously as vandalism. In Fact today it was tagged by an unnotable non-moderator user after an innocent attempt to add more accurate information to the page was partaken in by myself by adding a citation to where one of their more notable works came from. This obviously does not constitute vandalism and as such cannot be categorized for deletion under these terms. I also question why it was not categorized for deletion after some obvious vandalism did take place on the page 12:38, 25 April 2009 by 121.44.160.135 ? Thank you for your time, I hope this matter of injustice can be sorted out in a swift and easy manor for all parties involved--Guywithoutaname (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Google hits for group or song. Photograph and links appear spurious, too. JNW (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to disappoint [15] <---This is off the An Evening With... album. If you need more just ask. There's a stack on that site. Yang used to update that site with things he'd been listening to (with permission) and had some band stuff up there. He distributed the address to friends and fans (I understand how this could be seen as a breach of copyright, however this is just to prove a point and it was uploaded by the artist anyway)--Guywithoutaname (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
quote: Given more time this would have been established on the page and thus an explanation would have been given. :Unquote. The article has been up for four months now, how much more time did you want? Less than 2 good verifiable secondary references means no note, and I can find none, in fact I could find NO reference to the band at all, hence part of the reason I suspected it to be a hoax. As for the groups they have opened for I feel I should point out that notability is not inherited. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you've made a mistake; the band certainly isn't a hoax (I went to a concert a few years back and watched the doco at SFF), but I'm not sure if it would meet notability guidelines completely. I think where you're falling up with the google hits is that 'Cradle of Faith' is an anglicisation; it's a Mexican band. You probably won't get many hits for it on google because of this particular title's similarity to Cradle of Filth, and I'm not entirely sure, but I assume it's a parody of it. Someone removed the references for reasons I don't quite understand, but I originally created the page because I read a passage on it in Rock and Roll by Lynn Goldsmith. It was about it being an example of the renewed world interest in World music in the early 2000s. I'm not sure what the other reference is about. Their music is apparently very popular in Mexico. Sorry, I'm not sure if I stuffed up somehow, but I think you're being a bit quick to declare it a hoax. :) Tarquin (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated the band for speedy as a hoax I did not do it quickly, I referenced the band, nothing verifiable on the web, all the usual search engines returned zilch. So I did the same with the band members names, nothing. Then the records the have released, guess what? Nothing. Then there is the 'early picture' of the band, a group of mainly elderly Mexicans holding cornets and bass, that is then said to play "Alternative metal, Nu metal, Christian Rock, Hard rock". You now also point out that "'Cradle of Faith' is an anglicisation; it's a Mexican band" So why is there not any reference in the article to point out their Mexican name? So to summarise, there is a dodgy looking photo, nothing verifiable and no other evidence than hearsay that the band exists. So if you can offer some verifiable proof that it does exist (a few reliable secondary references) and I will happily remove the CSD tag. But if you can't then perhaps it can go to AfD, but I feel that would be just delaying the inevitable, without verifiable references it does not stand a snowball's chance in hell. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found, after much trawling on the internet, this: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/1015357.html if you go to the bottom post on the thread there is a mention of 'Metallic Blues' but it is just that and is no way near a reliable secondary source to prove notability or otherwise. Incidently the reference to 'Metallic Blues' in the article links to the article of the movie with the same name. I try to patrol at least 100 new pages a day, and I really should not have to reference an article to justify it's existance, if the references are not there then it fails. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've taken this article to AfD because I believe that the band exists (see the Myspace page), but the assertions in the article are all false. The assertions are enough to make the article pass A7 but not outrageous enough to be deleted under {{db-vandalism}}. If the consensus is to speedy delete this article, I would have no objections. Cunard (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt Band doesn't seem to exist and if it does it isn't notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it a bit hasty to claim the band doesn't exist and extreme to request SALTing the article? The band is not a hoax and I understand if ultimately I have to do some more research and recreate the page with more accurate material but strong delete and salt??? A bit drastic don't you think?--Guywithoutaname (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's blatant enough for me. Gigs (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - As per all my comments on the article's talk page, even if I was convinced the band exists there is nothing to suggest it is worthy enough for it's own article. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Whether hoax or non-notable, this is a candidate for WP:SNOW. Or feel free to use the rationale I created, WP:LOAP. JNW (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've seen them live. They are a very notable band within Mexico itself. You can't use the fact that there are very few google news articles on them; the Mexican media is notorious for under-reporting Christian bands of Mexico due to the Institutional Revolutionary Party having a secular control order on the media. The cultural bias of the English language media means that it's not surprising that 'Cradle of Faith' (the anglicisation of the band's name) does not show up too much. Look, I've tried to do this as well as I could with the information I have; I don't speak much Spanish so I'm sorry if I can't make the article as prolific as would be most appropriate.--Guywithoutaname (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have tried looking for reliable sources but unfortunately I couldn't find any. However the article does not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria. It is not "a blatant hoax". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoax, given the claims made throughout the article: They achieved international radio airplay with their breakout single Metallic Blues; There is no evidence that a group with this name gained international airplay, nor are there even any Google hits for a song by that title. Mexican Christian Rock band is something of a giveaway, too, as is the photo. So, perhaps a garage band by this name exists, but the content is fantasy. The article on the band's album was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. JNW (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this website, Cradle of Faith played at The Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver on February 2nd. This could be a misspelling of "Cradle of Filth" and in any case, the website doesn't constitute a reliable source. However it does provide circumstantial evidence for the existence of the band, especially as Wikipedia's article describes a Canadian tour. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good research, but I think you're right about the misspelling; I entered 'Cradle of Faith', along with 'Vancouver', and got a lot of hits for the 'Filth' variation at the Commodore that evening [16]. When we have to dig that hard to verify an entity's existence, that's a pretty strong signal...but no harm trying. JNW (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in question (the album one) was deleted as a blatant hoax BY YOU!!!! without due time for rebuttal. This is not a valid point to make about the band's non-existence seeing as you are the one bending the information. Isn't this a violation of wikipolicy? It is destroying evidence of realism for personal gain (creating new false and condemning evidence) and in real life it's totally illegal. False evidence like this would be thrown out of a courtroom as it's violation of the truth. And there's no contesting it's a real album anyway, check Yang Martinez's ftp if you don't believe me ([17])--Guywithoutaname (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not delete the article; only an administrator can do that. JNW (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tha album's article was speedy deleted by Nihonjoe. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Off The Recommendation Of JNW Before Due Process Had Been Served
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.84.203 (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I found the album's page whilst patrolling the backlog of new pages, it was that that led me to the bands article, when I considered the band to be a hoax (incorrectly, as it would seem they do exist even if they are not of note) I also considered the album to also be a hoax in support of the band's article. So it was me that tagged the album for G3 deletion, not anyone else. However, if the band goes, then the album will too, so please let the process finish then if the band stays then so can the album. But I can not see it being worth replacing the albums article as there is no secondary sources for that either so I can't see it making the WP:NOTE guidelines. Trevor Marron (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. BTW, how many albums on wikipedia do have secondary sources (apart from reviews)?--Guywithoutaname (talk) 07:59, 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. لennavecia 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hayes Weinman[edit]

Tyler Hayes Weinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a person who is notable for one event only and as such, Wikipedia is not a news service. TNXMan 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on Wikipedia that qualify as "one event" (Air France flight 447) and also qualify as only news. This article is important because catching a serial killer of animals is rare and gaining national news attention about it is rarer still. What becomes of this case has the potential to change how such people are dealt with in the US legal system. And how is this person exempt from being written about and Rostislav Bogoslevsky is not? --Kamoore36 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a difference between coverage of an event and a person. Also, we cannot cover events that "[have] the potential to change" something because we are not a crystal ball. And finally, whether or not Bogoslevsky has an article has no bearing on this article. TNXMan 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Event was noticable enough to warrant widespread US coverage in major news sources, such as NY times, Miami Herald and CNN. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's my point. This is the only thing for which he is notable. TNXMan 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment, Dahmer was only notable for his crimes, granted they were more extensive....Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But two movies and a book were made about Dahmer. That's significant independent coverage. TNXMan 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Casey Anthony saga has been a major news story of sufficient durations to meet the guidelines. The series of incidents carried out by this individual hasn't amounted to that... yet. If there turns out to be mroe to the story then maybe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well be right about that. But that's getting into WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Check that. Casey Anthony is a redirect to the article about the murder of her daughter. That's actually a perfect demonstration of what BLP1E is about. You are failing to distinguish between a person and an event. --L. Pistachio (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge if no trees are killed or wiki doesn't exceed allotted bookshelf space, then an entry which may serve reasonable research purposes may be useful to readers later. If there are enough words to generate a google hit from likely searchers, it should be worthwhile. Seems notable is sources check out. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you look over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The fact that the article doesn't hurt anything by its existence, or that it might be useful to someone, do not mean that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --L. Pistachio (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've been through all that. I'm claiming it meets notability and is a net service alone or merged- ok, so maybe merged into something. Does it have archival value for wiki's audience? Claiming wiki is not news just means it doesn't create notability or report on things of passing fancy. What presumptions about the audience guide wiki's criteria? Are you saying encyclopedias' relevance to research is not a consideration? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A person notable only for a series of what are , after all, relatively minor crimes. They attracted popular attention, presumably because people love cats. So do I, but the story is for a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. This is exactly the sort of article that BLP is intended to prevent. DGG (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is killing cats more minor than humans? Presumably for reasons that aren't relevant to notability. Published accounts, if they check out, establish wiki notability and we should try to keep our personal opinions out of it. It was notable to someone in judgment of editors are reliable sources. I often mention my own for an aside or indicate a bias. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Newspaper article at best. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has become international news and he is now known as the "Miami Cat Killer". I see news articles in French, Spanish, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, etc. Don't underestimate the power of cat lovers. Felines have been worshipped for thousands of years. Drawn Some (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not care if it has become "international news" or even "interplanetary news," it still should be deleted per {WP:NOTNEWS]] and WP:BLP1E, and if Wikipedia has an article about a crime it should usually be about the crime and not the criminal, if the person was otherwise non-notable as this person was. Edison (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not 19 events....it's WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. Some people just don't get the BLP issue. Jack Merridew 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. This is a BLP based on an arrest, not even a conviction. The event may be notable, not the suspect. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A person who has received news coverage for one allegation and is otherwise unknown. The allegation is of a crime which, however unpleasant, is not a major national or international event: the fact that many newspapers have chosen to cover it does not alter that. Note that WP:ONEEVENT says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Trenk[edit]

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

Fame have never gone beyond reality TV, therefore fails WP:Notability Donnie Park (talk) 17:23, 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. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTR Studios[edit]

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

Recording studio, not notable, possibly a speedy candidate. Incoming redirects, e.g. Extended Sound Environment (E.S.E.), should be deleted as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see now it's already referenced in the artice as http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_recording_vibes_ese/index.html 86.44.25.57 (talk) 04:48, 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. لennavecia 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Fairhurst[edit]

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

This is simply WP:BIO1E. No notability beyond her crime Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuan Shu Kuan[edit]

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

AfD last year was no consensus. Has been tagged for lack of notability, spam and lack of sources for 11 months. No work on it since Aug. 2008. The art fails WP:MANOTE and probably WP:CORP. All listed sources are an unreliable website that most likely belongs to an instructor or student. No gnews hits. First 50 ghits show no reliable sources about it, mainly student news announcements, blogs and school listing sites. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete relatively new and local art with no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Insufficient notability. Lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of notability, and the material that is in the article does not serve to distinguish the subject sufficiently from many other martial art schools. Janggeom (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 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) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jieishudan[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability and lack of references since Nov. 2007. As a "hybrid art" founded in the 1980's, it fails WP:MANOTE. No gnews hits and the first 50 ghits I reviewed were mainly blogs, mirrors or other sources that would not pass as WP:RS. Article was authored by a WP:SPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 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 deleted (non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan talk contribs 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G Runna[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unsigned rap artist who has never charted, no third party sources. DurovaCharge! 16:31, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Do Kai[edit]

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

Not sure why this survived the first AfD last year. This martial arts style fails the notability guidelines of WP:MANOTE. There are no independant sources for it. The article was created by a WP:SPA and there is a WP:COI issue with one of the contributors user: Bob Jones Martial Arts who is also a subject in the article. 2 of the 3 listed sources belong to that editor. The third is a link to a magazine homepage. It makes claims of widespread popularity, but Gnews shows 1 hit, an article about a student fighting off a criminal. Top 50 ghits show no reliable sources, mainly mentions in either school promotions or blogs. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is the article I referred to above. But that was the only one I could find. I haven't been able to find much in the way of WP:RS that aren;t affiliated with the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Masss of unsourced promotional content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zen Do Kai is a notable Australian martial art organisation. I suspect it would be easy to meet the notability requirement if someone were to put a little work into the article. Janggeom (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was expressing my view that, in real life (without any regard to Wikipedia requirements), Zen Do Kai is a notable Australian martial art organisation. It has been around for a long time, it is a large organisation, its founder is a well-known figure in the Australian martial arts scene, and I believe that it has a notable position in Australian martial arts history. I think of Zen Do Kai more as an organisation than as a style, but others might see it the other way around, equally validly; I was not forming an argument based on that distinction. My view is that it would be easy to establish notability (such as by referring to reliable, independent sources) if someone were prepared to put some work into the article. There is a lot of information in printed sources that does not appear anywhere on the Internet, and so would not be detected by electronic means (short of asking publishers to start providing on-line copies of their publications). I think that the subject is notable enough in real life that it is worth keeping the article, and for someone to improve it, rather than for it to be deleted. Thanks for your question; I trust that clarifies my viewpoint. Janggeom (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't verify what we don't have and we all know (and sometime hate) the premise that Wikipedia isn't about truth, but about verifiability. Gnews came up with one mention in passing. Of the first 50 ghits, nothing was a WP:RS. Have you compared the art to the notability standards in WP:MANOTE for newer arts? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have looked at the notability criteria, and have nothing new to add to what I wrote above. I am not clear what you are referring to when you write "newer arts." Regarding electronic sources: using the Google news archive search linked from the Wikipedia search engine test page, I see many independent references to Zen Do Kai (link). Janggeom (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember, this article is about the ART/STYLE, not students. A lot of those sources are pay ones. Others mention people are students, but it's not coverage of the art, which is the topic of this article, not the students. Another one is about some of their involvement in some criminal proceedings. When I am referring to WP:MANOTE I am talking abou this: #1: Subject of an independent article/documentary;- Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program. I'm not seeing that. I see mentions of the art in articles about the students, but not articles about the art itself. Maybe you have one I missed. #2: A Long externally verifiable history (i.e. secondary sources, not the club's website that says it has existed since 10,000BC...) Since it is 35 years old, we don't have that. Even then, we don't have any external sources that show much in the way of history period. #3: Multiple notable practitioners. Coming up short there. #4: A Large number of students; - Try to be objective. Remember that there are over 6 billion people in the world. I guess we could debate this one, but I don't think that 500-1000 is a huge number by any means. Do we have external evidence of that many?
  1. 5: Competitive successes in large inter-style tournaments;- For example UFC 1. I see mentions of some tournaments, but they appear to be against others of the same style, not inter-syle. Do you have evidence otherwise? In short, I believe we fail all 5 of the criteria for inclusion as a seperate art. I'd be happy to discuss any one of those criteria if you have something showing they do meet a majority of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about the Google news archive search results was simply an addendum to your statement that Google news returned only one result. I was surprised at that finding, so I looked around Wikipedia and came across the Google news archive search. I decided to share my finding because it might be of interest. In any case, WP:MANOTE is clear that: "Google and other search engines are a useful tool for finding sources ... but is not proof of whether or not something is notable" (original emphasis). Moving on, the general challenge you issue ('show me something that will establish notability') is a rhetorical one. If any contributor did have ready access to such information—and had the desire to share it—you would not have nominated the article for deletion in the first place, or else would have been compelled to withdraw the nomination. Information about Zen Do Kai is not an area of expertise for me, otherwise I would simply add to the article, but I know enough about the Australian martial arts scene that I have felt justified in contributing my opinion above. I appreciate your general point and I hope that, likewise, you will appreciate mine. Janggeom (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Australian Google returns slightly different results [19]. Sports Illustrated (aka CNN) has many articles/videos [20]. jmcw (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you WATCH the videos? They are straight links to youtube. And I don't mean CNN coverage being put on youtube.... I mean homemade videos. And which of those articles in the first search you cite are you going to call a WP:RS? I'm serious. Convince me and I'll withdraw this. But youtube videos and blogs don't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 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) 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.P Manicham Errthaandaar[edit]

N.P Manicham Errthaandaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable person. gordonrox24 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - died in 1987 - not a living person. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing from searches in English or Tamil to prove notability. I realize that he died in 1987, but even then there should be something in reliable sources (beyond blogs) in either language to at least give some basic info. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not established. No refs. --Deepak D'Souza 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced, a search for his name brings up zero ghits of any kind; can't find news or other refs to confirm notability or back up anything in the article. – Toon(talk) 16:32, 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 redirect to List_of_martial_arts#African_martial_arts. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testa[edit]

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

This obscure art has almost no coverage. The article lists one off line source that would qualify as a WP:RS, but nothing else. The art fails the notability guidelines for the WP:WikiProject Martial arts found in WP:MANOTE. Minimal mentions in non-reliable sources. Searches are complicated by the fact that the word testa is a common Italian word and Eritrea was once an Italian protectorate. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw discussion of it on forums, but that isn't the coverage needed to establish notability is it? I searched both +"testa" +"eritrea" and +"testa" and "eritrean". That's how I ended up finding the discussions on forums. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur that it isn't notable, but redirects are cheap and it is listed at the other list page. JJL (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't see notability for more than a mention on broader topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. To quote the article: "There is no known historical documentation pertaining to Testa, only techniques taught from generation to generation." If this statement is accurate, it would seem that no one will be able to establish notability sufficiently to meet Wikipedia's requirements (short of going out and doing significant amounts of research). Janggeom (talk) 10:36, 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 withdrawn by nominator After significant clean up by user:Verdatum Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional martial arts[edit]

List of fictional martial arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged for lack of sources for over a year. Although fairly well written compared to many lists, it is an indiscriminate list of fictional arts mentioned in movies, books or games amounting to WP:OR in many cases. The list appears to be at odds with WP:NOT#DIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cleared out not bad and has definite potential. --Nate1481 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable list of a lot of plausible search terms. JJL (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge the provided three references seem to be reliable Rirunmot (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason for deletion. Major elements in fiction are appropriate for a list, and entries in it are suitable if the work is notable. If it is limited to those in works with WP articles it is not at all indiscriminate. "Indiscriminate" would be all mentioned in any work however trivial. All that is necessary by way of sourcing is to identify just where they are in the work. Better done than most such lists, and certainly many of them are significant plot elements worth articles of their own, if the work is important enough.DGG (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make sure listings are reliably sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a major rewrite of the article here entries that do not have independent sources. My edit presumed that entries that have their own articles are properly sources there, though I expect many of the terms are linking to generic entries, or redirect to subsections of articles on the work of fiction itself. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entries in this list are generally going to be WP:PRIMARY sourced bits of trivia, or the occasional entry that has an existing article. If the trivial entries are removed, the list appears to serve very little benefit over a category. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason for deletion. Ohms law (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent index to notable topics so assisting navigation. *Boot to the head* Colonel Warden (talk) 06:17, 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. لennavecia 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Mantl[edit]

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

This looks very much like a PR article for an insignificant person that wrote a wikipedia article on himself (without even knowing how to spell "Alma mater"). Why is this article not deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.113.18 (talk)

  • Delete: picture with Bill probably related to working on campaign. I'm still annoyed Bill helped get off-label tysabri for a lawyer friend when normal people aren't smar enough to decide for themselves. In short, just trivial personal details better suited for personals ad but I am biased........

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this is just a random, unknown person writing their own biography.
  • Keep: I think this article just needs to be edited. There is some extraneous information, but he does have some notability from his music and business projects.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. لennavecia 15:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notable. She is only known because of her marriage to a celebrity. The case could also be made that it violates WP:Attack page since (IMO of course) a reasonable person reading this article would think that its main purpose is to present negative information on its subject. Anyway, who cares? The wife of Dog the Bounty Hunter is not the same thing as the wife of Caesar.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mass of trivia with no real evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Although I don't personally feel she is particularly notable, should probably does meet the criteria for notability since she appears regularly on the TV show Dog the Bounty Hunter on A&E network. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails to show any notability, this is just a mass of trivia and gossip. Martin451 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider nominating the other Chapmans mentioned in the article (apart from Duane I suppose). Disembrangler (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they are both real people and characters in a TV show. Even the most minor TV character seems to get an article here. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may seem odd to have lower standards of notability for fictional characters than real people, but because of the way notability interacts with WP:BLP, that's basically where we end up. Disembrangler (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not transitive through marriage. As a character in a TV show, could be mentioned in the article on that show. Not all characters have or warrant their own articles. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems to be borderline on WP:GNG, some items in google news search (but a very common name makes it difficult to sort through quickly). I say strong delete if this the person were confirmed through OTRS and wished it deleted, but at this point her public exposure indicates a mild interest in the article. Definitely an attack magnet, so I'd envision a possible semi-protect if warranted. — Ched :  ?  11:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is not just known as the wife of Dog the Bounty Hunter, but also as a part of the show. If she were not involved notably with that, then WP:NN would apply, but she is so it doesn't. The article should be renamed to Beth Chapman, by the way. Eauhomme (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this being a reality show, we're not talking about her being known for separate things. Why isn't it enough to cover her role in the show as part of the show article (Dog the Bounty Hunter), especially considering how weak/short that is? Disembrangler (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it weak/short? I would put her #2 behind Dog and ahead of Leland. Eauhomme (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought you meant her role in the show, which clearly is significant. Eauhomme (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal magnet is not a valid deletion rationale, though I have no argument with BLP concerns. Eauhomme (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "plus". Besides, a "valid deletion rationale" is different for everyone. Garion96 (talk) 16:53, 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. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Bella Joiner[edit]

Christy Bella Joiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:CREATIVE. TV/Film work done is extremely minor and in most cases uncredited. The only reliable coverage is through a local county paper which does not do enough to satisfy notability. LeaveSleaves 14:28, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captcha Breaker / Captcha Solver[edit]

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

Personal essay and how-to guide. This could be a good, encyclopedic topic, but written in this way it is not useful. If there is any content worth preserving (although as far as I can tell there is not) it can be merged to the main Captcha article in a subsection on "Captcha breaking"; for now, though, there is no reason to have this article until someone is ready to approach it in an encyclopedic fashion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with Rjanag. While this could be a good topic, in its' current form it is nothing but a personal essay/how-to guide. Also of note is that one of the main contributors to this article seems to have a conflict of interest (check his user name with the url of the website cited in the references). -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to CAPTCHA#Circumvention. The current content of the article is too personal and not encyclopedic. The redirect is probably not suitable since the double title is not that intuitive. Lechatjaune (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuitable for Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would suggest a merger to CAPTCHA#Circumvention, but per Rjanag that appears not to be needed. I don't see this title a useful term for a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect: deletion does not seems to make sense. SF007 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why deletion doesn't make sense? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • CAPTCHA seems to be considered a notable issue, right? So why not merge this? The information seems factual. I usually don't believe in simply deleting articles like this. Now if the concern is the legallity of the CAPTCHA breaking, then I do not oppose deletion. SF007 (talk) 13:53, 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) 11:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Tower Inn[edit]

Shot Tower Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I had prodded this, and after the prod expired (but before the article was deleted) an IP came along, copied the article's content to Shot Tower (Dubuque), and redirected this page there. Since we don't combine two unrelated topics in the same article merely because of a similarity in name, I have deleted the "merged" text in Shot Tower (Dubuque) and am bringing this here as a contested prod.

This article appears to fail WP:COMPANY for lack of substantive treatment in reliable sources. There are a few Google Books hits in travel guides, but these are simple directory-type listings. Many of the 26 Google News hits are behind paywalls, but none seem to constitute significant coverage that could be used to write an article; the ones that are fully visible are, again, of the travel-guide-listing sort. The Google Web hits seem to be mainly in customer-submitted-review sites and WP mirrors. Deor (talk) 14:12, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth)[edit]

Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL 龗 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because you are a Deletion God wielding a righteous Scythe of Undoing throughout all of Wikipedia and we all can't wait to delete along with you...Oh, do you mean the article? Anarchangel (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the album is really scheduled for a September 2009 release, I should think there would be a lot more quality sources on this by now. If such sources are uncovered, I will gladly change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a bit closer to what I would have expected to see. WP:HEY. -Verdatum (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album - there is enough sourced information to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album should be added to his AfD? Astronaut (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both this and Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album. The only place this upcoming album is being talked about is Blabbermouth. There's not enough coverage of this for it to have its own article, and neither a release date nor name is known. Timmeh!(review me) 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - make them both go away until there is a legitimate subject to make an article about. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is further coverage here and we now have the album title, approximate release date, details of where it was recorded and mixed, who produced it, and the track listing. Seriously, how much do you think we need to know about the album before we have an article about it? This is more information than we have in most articles about already-released albums, and there is bound to be further coverage as we get closer to September.--Michig (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement of the album title has given rise to several more news stories, including Blabbermouth.net, Metal Hammer, and thetripwire. Even if the album was never released we would still have enough for an article.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, some of those aren't really reliable sources, but there seems to be just enough information in the reliable sources now to have an article; plus, there's now a name, apparently. Timmeh!(review me) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comment above. Timmeh!(review me) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or the other - As well as the above sources, there's this one too: http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=45415 I think it's safe to say there's an album due September with the title Endgame, and the "Twelth studio album" and "Endgame" articles together have enough info to warrant an article, but obviously we don't need both. So just merge one into the other. I certainly wouldn't see any point deleting both, not with only 3 months to go until it's due out anyway. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDIT: Now that the pages have been sorted out, my vote becomes a keep. 86.146.156.203 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The stated reason for deletion was an essay, not a WP rule, one that proposes that things should be deleted because they are often deleted. Which only brings up the question, what was the rationale for all the other deletions? "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia." could also be read as a threat. Furthermore, the premise that the upcoming media is unnamed, is no longer relevant. I believe that content from the 'Unnamed' article should be merged into this one. But the suitable place to discuss the merging of 'Unnamed' into Endgame (album) is on 'Unnamed's talk page, it seems to me. Perhaps I am mistaken. And would it not be appropriate to change the header of this AfD to reflect the new name of the page? Anarchangel (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia frequently has untitled and advanced-notice versions of album and movie pages up. Untitled 9th Metallica Studio Album was up ages and ages before it actually came out, Bond 22 was up before Casino Royale was even out, and it should also factor in that the scheduled release date in this case is only a short three months away. It's not as if, at this stage, the album would be completely cancelled forever, why delete it now only to recreate it in a week or two? PolarisSLBM (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article has sources, confirmed tracks, lots of verified information. Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The album has a name now, and all the information we have so far has been confirmed. 70.169.130.99 (talk) 23:21, 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 WOR-TV. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction Theater (WOR-TV)[edit]

Science Fiction Theater (WOR-TV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am unable to verify this program's existence via Google. Unless someone can confirm this meet Wikipedia notability standards, I would recommend its deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It unquestionably was a program that WOR aired during the early '70s. I hope to have at least one reference to confirm it by today.

--Jtmatbat (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion about it on YouTube (full disclosure: I'm "Earl" :-):

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=AGLoaTAzMfY&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DAGLoaTAzMfY--Jtmatbat (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing in its favor was that it was the only movie program that showed sci-fi films exclusively at that time in the NYC area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmatbat (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1973 references from the NYT are indeed the program in question. Thanks for finding them! As for merging it with the WWOR page, I have no problem with that. I just hope that I would be allowed to create its own page once I can get more info, references and footnotes for the show and that I wouldn't be locked out if I attempted to do so at a later date.--Jtmatbat (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the Google Books link refers specifically to the WOR-TV show -- "Science Fiction Theater" may have been a common name for film programs on a number of local stations around the U.S. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That "Science Fiction Theater" was a sci-fi anthology series that aired during the Fifties. It shouldn't be confused with the program on WOR that ran old science-fiction movies during the early '70s.--Jtmatbat (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merged certainly doesn't preclude splitting it out later if independent notability is established or the content becomes extensive and unduly burdens the main aritcle per undue weight. The main thing is to include the content appropriately with good sourcing. Sometimes a merge exposes good content to a greater audience than a lonely unlooked at separate article. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a passing mention of "Science Fiction Theater" to the WOR-TV article, along with two other film programs from that channel, "Million Dollar Movie" and "The 4 O'Clock Movie." FWIW, I am from New York City and I grew up watching WOR-TV back in the 1970s -- though, honestly, I don't recall "Science Fiction Theater" at all. I remember "Chiller Theater" on WPIX, however. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Keefe[edit]

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

Unelected candiate in canadian federal election from previous years. Notability not really established, fails WP: Politician (No coverage in secondary sources, unelected). Article has no references. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Danube[edit]

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

Vanispamcruft SPA created Saint Danube, Saint Danube, issue NO 1 and Saint Danube, issue NO 2 as promo for a non-notable magazine. The last two have been deleted per A1 (Not enough context to identify article's subject); but I think Saint Danube should be deleted too. Searching "Saint Danube" on Google gives me 178 results. I think the "real" name of this magazine is Sveti Dunav[1] which gives me 348 results on Google.

The magazine was started by a nongovernment and non profit organization called: "World and Danube" (811 Google hits). It is possible that the NGO is notable, Unesco.org proofs it exists, but their magazine is not notable. The author used the same pattern of articles on a foreign language wiki.[2][3][4][5][6]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.svetidunav.rs/index-en.php
  2. ^ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti_Dunav
  3. ^ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti_Dunav,_broj_1
  4. ^ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti_Dunav,_broj_2
  5. ^ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti_Dunav,_broj_3
  6. ^ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti_Dunav,_broj_4

Kwiki (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; the magazine isn't notable 龗 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - evidence exists, but no reliable sources exists to prove it is notable. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As you said, the magazine doesn't seem very notable. Also, the information provided is almost entirely in the form of an advertisement. Br3k (talk) 19:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ong's Hat, New Jersey[edit]

Ong's Hat, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I suspect this is a hoax; q.v. Ong's Hat, isn't listed by the BGN. Quentin Smith 11:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not too sure it is a hoax. this seems to suggest it was a real place.The article needs some work but it seems to be less than a hoax. JodyB talk 12:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This demands investigation! This book made me think there's something real (and real bizarre) here. I've added one book reference and am seeing a lot more. Give me a few days and this will be a Wikipedia:Good Article perhaps. It's a ghost town tangled up in a faux non-fictional book, making this wonderfully confusing, but I do think it's notable. It's been covered in many books apparently, as has the legend surrounding it. this apparently factual book has an entire chapter on the town. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Hold until it is established that this is a real place. If it is, then keep, as places are notable. SeanMD80talk | contribs 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of the sources are just about how it's indeterminable whether this was a real place or a name on a map that didn't correspond to anything but a hut. Nevertheless, the existence of so many sources I think shows it's notable as a legend/piece of folklore. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The Wikipedia article is now quite possibly the best single source anywhere on this weird little place. In a nutshell, it was a hut that got put on maps as Ong's Hat. Elaborate legends circulated about this place's fictional history, a writer believed them and printed the claims as history, then he recanted years later but people kept repeating his earlier claims. Then it gets confusing but but basically people on a BBS made up a new fictional history of Ong's Hat (see the article Ong's Hat) which eventually was published as a book. Before and after that book, Ong's Hat appeared frequently in tourism books about NJ as well as books and articles about strange place names. It wasn't an officially recognized place, but I think it was notable as a persistent bit of folklore. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable folklore, per Chiliad22. DGG (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable folklore, well sourced. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contains solid sources like NY Times. The settlement is notable to New Jersey folklore rather than being a notable settlement only as such. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well sourced article about notable folklore. Kudos to Chiliad22 for the work on this article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable folklore (and a ghost town to some extent because of the one hut), well-documented and well sourced. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami (political)[edit]

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

The topic of this article, tusnami used as a synonym for a landslide victory in a political election, is not notable per WP:NOTE. No sources discussing it as a term are given nor did I find any. The article merely gives examples of use and pure speculation on the origin of what is nothing more than a idiom. Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Drawn Some (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NEO, use of a term itself is not enough to confer notability on a neologism. Rather, there need to be multiple, indepth discussions of the term in reliable sources for it to be deserving of an article. There are sources that demonstrate that this term is in fact in use, but nothing more than that is provided, nor can be found. Delete article as non-notable neologism. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one part of dicdef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NEO. Ohms law (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO or WP:NOTADICT, take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 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 speedy delete (A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Solutions[edit]

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

Advertising for non-notable company and non-notable products.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glory hole (naval)[edit]

Glory hole (naval) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Definition of a slang word - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Passportguy (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou JohnCD - my error. Buckshot06(prof) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Delete WP:NAD - Already in Wikitionary, see above. Frozen4322 : Chat 12:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem - I inserted this into Wiktionary as discussed when first suggested, updated dab page accordingly, and amended main article on sexual slang usage to reflect the source that this is the origination of the sexual usage - delete by all means. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I agree Wikipedia shouldn't have this article, but it wouldn't hurt us in the least to point to the Wiktionary entry.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, although I have set up a redirect to Wiktionary already on the disambiguation page for Glory hole Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A redirect would require that someone actually search for "Glory hole (naval)" .- not likely. If you are talking about putting a link to a seperate redirect page on the disambiguation page - I don't think that's a good idea. Again - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we start creating redirect pages for all those dictdef pages we delete we might as well abolish this policy altogether and incorporate the definitions straight out. Passportguy (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - if they search on Glory hole, they will find the dab and can get to Wiktionary from there, rather than a page they might not want to visit. I'm not bothered one way or the other, bit think the link should stand on the dab, in case somebody is searching for it and doesn't find what they are looking for there. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One point - there was as much substance and source in the article I created as in the article immediately before and after it. It also had the potential to be expanded beyond its initial content in relation to the three naval uses of the word. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this can be rescued, but currently it is just a dicdef. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you are probably right. It might be - and if it is I'd have no objection. However the page has been around for quite a while and I don't see that happening any time soon. But if anyone can turn this into a larger article - which would have to demonstrate the importance of the subject i.e. word in some way btw - I certainly wouldn't object. Passportguy (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't do any work on it because I when I responded to the original delete request I was told it should be in Wiktionary - so I did that, and left it alone. I have been quite busy with the Viva for my PhD, and this is not my area of expertise. I have added more detail, with quotes, one from the recollections of a Royal Navy WW2 veteran, and one connected with the Titanic. I have copied this to my user area, so can work on this in future, as I don't really want to spend too much time on this if it is going to be deleted, and I do have other things I need to get on with. If it survives, I'll keep doing that here, as I have time. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this dictionary definition which is already at Wiktionary as noted above. Cliff smith talk 01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cliff. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:17, 23 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) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Beach[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with only one published album Passportguy (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miamitom (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC) There are 3 A-list performers on her album, Dean Parks, Lee Sklar and Hermann Matthews.[reply]

She's been in top 100 Country and Top 100 blues on Amazon.

Check the discography of Lee Sklar, Dean Parks and Herman Matthews to learn more about their music.

Overly restrictive policies kill the ability to build information, and just about the time someone starts building the pages, your restrictions kick in and kill the new information. Overly restrictive policies will relegate wikipedia to being known for overly restrictive policies instead of a place where new information can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamitom (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAND "Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." But I believe the general guidelines of WP:N would trump that. Click23 (talk) 19:41, 23 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) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nile Ranger[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played first-team club football and his international appearances are at U-19 level only. BencherliteTalk 09:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark metal[edit]

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

Previously deleted, non-existent genre. There appear to be no sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal. The term is certainly in use, as a swift Google will attest, but the phrase is generally being used as an undefined/undefinable catch-all for an unconnected selection of bands that don't conveniently fit into other genre boxes. Searches of Google Scholar, News and Books also pull up hits, although the search is complicated by hits to "dark metal" in other usage. I found this in the New York Times, but the article is clearly talking about bands like Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer. I have removed a lot of spurious webzine references from the article (they fail WP:RS and are almost exclusively trivial mention anyway, not discussing the genre), but the version with the webzine refs left in can be viewed here. I left in the NME reference, as that's reliable, but it simply states that Rotting Christ call themselves "dark metal" (cf. Leng Tch'e describe themselves as "razorgrind", but that doesn't make it a genre). The remaining two refs are a passing description on Graveworm in a Blabbermouth news report, and Sea of Tranquility, which I hadn't heard of, but apparently produced some print 'zines between 1998-2001; probably still a fanzine, but I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another case of a sub-genre of a sub-genre being mixed with yet another sub-genre. These genres are really just names being thrown around with no actual definition. Would also endorse salting this article since I can guarantee it will be recreated over and over and over again. I think music genres are currently one of the major areas that need attention improvement and editing on Wikipedia. 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment The log suggests it has already been recreated a number of times already. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, no substantial coverage, just names thrown around indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I agree with all. FireCrystal (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly yet another made-up genre, or case of a reviewer using an off-the-cuff phrase and people jumping on the chance to call it a new genre. fact is that to justify a genre you need a number of sources discussing the genre in detail. this doesn't have that. 87.224.19.114 (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. It's not exactly a made-up genre, it's more of an "everything else" genre. The article even says that there is no dark metal scene and no agreement on what dark metal is... WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC may discourage arguments that a topic just isn't encyclopedic, but in this case it's apt. In the unlikely event that dark metal actually becomes Something, the page can be rewritten and unsalted. McJeff (talk) 07:06, 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 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Slovenia relations[edit]

Finland–Slovenia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wp:n Habanero-tan (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I "userfied" the article: User talk:Pzrmd/Finland–Slovenia relations (just for users wanting to keep x–y articles). Pzrmd (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a proposed standstill and it specifically excludes AfDs already underway. Drawn Some (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now the standstill is in force, however it only applies to new AfDs, this AfD will be allowed to run its course as normal. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive195#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
similar cultural values? I don't see evidence of that in the article. trade? according to CIA World Factbook, total trade of Finland is about USD200billion, I don't see Slovenia to/from Finland as significant. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source, which is included in the article, that discussed this is here. The page says

"Looking at the map of Europe, one easily draws the conclusion that Finland and Slovenia cannot really have much in common, but actually there are several factors that they share. Both countries are geographically situated in regions where eastern and western cultural spheres meet, and both have for centuries been a part of various regional superpowers. As much as 70% of the Finnish and 57% of the Slovenian territory is covered with forests, which means that nature and its forces form an integral part of the citizens' lives and minds. Sports are a national interest and passion in both countries. Slovenia is a Catholic country but in both countries' history and cultural heritage, the Lutheran faith has had an important role. Education is highly valued and a minor language area has forced Finns and Slovenians to learn also other languages. Diligence and punctuality are shared virtues. Political relations between the two countries are excellent, which is proven by numerous visits. The foreign policy is based on the same European values and, in the internal politics, the same elements of social responsibility can be detected. In Slovenia, Finland is respected for its high level of competitiveness, IT-development, education, innovations and strong EU-policies. Slovenia has followed the Finnish example in, for example, parliament-government EU-coordination and closer cooperation between scientific research and its commercial applications and e-commerce is developed with the help of Finnish experience. The head coach of the Slovenian national ice-hockey team is a Finn. It is only the trade between the two countries that is still on a relatively modest level. In Finland, Slovenia is known to be the most advanced of the new EU Member States, but maybe someone still considers Slovenia as one of ex-Yugoslavia's crisis areas. Slovenia is definitely worth getting to know; everyone who has been here once, wants to come back and learn more!"

--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's a primary source, if the above can be backed up with some independent sources then it becomes more credible. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The source is fully sufficient. It is not a primary source. The primary sources are the text of the treaties and so forth. What the problem is, is that it is not an independent source. But an official source, even though not independent can =be used to show factual information. If the Finnish government describes its own actions, the description is reliable, although the interpretation may not be. Nations do not establish embassies and sign treaties carelessly or indiscriminately--they are major political activities. DGG (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and should therefore be covered widely in third party sources in order to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a note to say that I've continued to follow the development of this article, and in my opinion none of the newly added references meet the bar of WP:N, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Yilloslime TC 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOTE, has not been subject of significant coverage in WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N, it has some coverage, but not significant. Click23 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent coverage of the relationship. Lists of agreements and visits, without any hint of contextual relevance, violate WP:NOTDIR; they don't describe a phenomenon as such. As for the Patria case, well, see Patria case for that, I guess - no need to duplicate content like this. - Biruitorul Talk 20:30, 23 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: this was patent nonsense, and moreover an obvious hoax, and therefore vandalism as well. Thanks to Tim Vickers for pointing out the blatant hoax and patent nonsense: All biomass contains pyrolytic crystals whose crystalline lattice expands greatly under heat: add a few links and you can see why that's a classic demonstraton of the power of impressive sounding but meaningless malarkey. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biomass Hydro Dynamics[edit]

Biomass Hydro Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a new plan to solve all the world's energy needs by delivering two trillion gallons of "hydrogen super-fuels" by a process involving "Magneto Hydro Dynamics", "High Temperature Pyrolytic Graphite" and "helium fission by-products". Referenced only to the originators' website and a pending patent application. Possible hoax (the author denies this), certainly original research - the article says "First referenced in Wikipedia (unknown in Google at the time), June 15th, 8:00 PM PST", and fails our key policy of verifiability as it lacks any confirmation from independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here to provide first announcement of new ideas, however fantastic. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete: The US patent app suggests they just have a better way to turn biomass, dead plants, into fuels. Fine but there are plenty of these and many extraordinary claims made. A scientific article or even a USA Today article on a water burning car would help make the claims in the wiki article notable.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:37, 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. لennavecia 16:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Ramirez[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD about a Gibraltarian footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE, as having never played in levels higher than Segunda División B with UD Linense, and Northern Ireland league with Glentoran, none of them being professional. International appearances with Gibraltar team are irrelevant, due to the team not being internationally recognized. Angelo (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 08:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Glentoran are in the highest level of Northern Irish football so he passes WP:ATHLETE. 173.103.216.125 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:ATHLETE states he has to play in a "fully-professional level", rather than the highest level in a country's league system. --Jimbo[online] 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not sure where exactly this should be discussed but the "fully-professional" criterion is so vague as to be largely useless. Which countries top-flights are fully professional? It's impossible to give an objective answer to that question. While reading the pages for deletion I see that the US baseball pages are an absolute mess right now with no clear distinction whether the US minor leagues, where players often receive higher than the median US salary, are considered "fully-professional" and it seems completely arbitrary which pages are nominated for deletion. All of these issues need to be discussed. 70.4.195.39 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment for football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is a good place to check for league statuses. Nanonic (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The list is a bit of a joke really due to lack of sources. The 'athlete' criteria can't really be proved so is almost useless. Eldumpo (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Feel free to come up with something better. Nanonic (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say it's impossible to do so given the definition of professional league! Eldumpo (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The definition of fully professional league is made by the type of contract players receive. For instance, in Italy all clubs up from fourth tier have to sign players as full-time professional workers with a minimum guaranteed salary of 1,800 € per month (I am unsure about the amount, it might have changed recently). Your opinion on the athlete criteria is, actually, just an opinion of yours; we've had plenty of AfDs like these where WP:ATHLETE was widely used as a fundamental rule of thumb, if you disagree with it, well, sorry but this is the wrong place to discuss it. --Angelo (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually in my experience WP:ATHLETE is completely arbitary, see the above comments about US minor league baseball players. They are full-time professional workers and many of them receive minimum guaranteed salaries in that range, yet many people argue that US minor league baseball players are not fully professional. How can an Italian 4th tier player be fully professional yet a US 4th tier baseball player not be when they are both under full time contracts? It makes no sense. 70.4.168.108 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • First, what is your experience? This is your first Wikipedia edit, with all the possible respect I don't see evidence of such "experience". Secondly, I don't know anything about baseball, including the basic game rules, so I am not going to make any claims regarding it; if you can provide sources to support your claims, provide them at WP:BIO's talkpage. This is definitely not the right place to discuss the matter. --Angelo (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; non-notable player. GiantSnowman 11:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he's played in the Northern Irish League he should be kept as is a notable league. Eldumpo (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually I even failed to find evidence of actual appearances in the Northern Irish league for this subject. I managed to find a couple citations regarding his appointment with the club back in January 1996, but no evidence of games where he actually was featured. --Angelo (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even without considering whether or not playing in the N. Irish league would pass muster, as Angelo points out above no sources have been yet found to confirm that he ever actually played for said club's first team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has only competed at in semi-professional leagues and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, and there's nothing else to suggest he's notable in any other way. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails criteria at WP:N, WP:V and WP:ATH. --Jimbo[online] 22:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FYI multiple keep votes have been deleted from this page, check the revision history. Deletion discussions should not be altered. 174.152.146.29 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not true, I checked the revision history and no keep !votes have been deleted at all. Do you have a policy-based reason why the article should be kept -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This isn't even a vote, it's a discussion, but there are multiple comments that have been deleted as "personal attacks" simply because they disagree with an admin who has a long history of telling people what they can and cannot revise as if he owns the pages in question. 99.202.15.61 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE - even if he had played for Glentoran, he still wouldn't pass it because the Northern Irish league is not fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the list of "fully professional leagues" is so largely unsourced such that article itself shouldn't survive an AfD. 99.202.15.61 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And your point is? I wasn't referring to any list; it is well known that the IFA Premiership is not fully professional. Do you have a source that states otherwise? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This book (published in 2007) clearly states that the NI league is semi-professional. End of discussion on that front, methinks. And BTW, simply lacking a number of sources is NOT a stand-alone criteria for deletion (especially in WP-space), and a lot of the entries on that list ARE sourced. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to have played in the highest level of football in the country, he has also played at the international level for Gibraltar. Nfitz (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that Gibraltar is NOT a member of FIFA and does not compete at the World Cup makes Nfitz's observation irrelevant. There are a lot of IP's coming in here trying to save this article, which can not be saved in my opinion. Also note that this can be interpreted as a vote if enough of one side shows up and demonstrates a clear consensus with the rules. TaintedZebra (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • TaintedZebra's argument is spurious. Simply because a national team is not a member of FIFA, and doesn't compete in the World Cup, doesn't mean anything. Guadeloupe is neither a member of FIFA nor does it compete in the World Cup, but no one would dream of using that argument against it's team, which ranks ahead of better known teams like Georgia, Albania, Guatemala, and Indonesia. Nfitz (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least Guadaloupe is an associate CONCACAF member, and it competes in the Gold Cup. Gibraltar is not recognized at all by both FIFA and UEFA, and can compete only against the likes of "national" teams like Isle of Wight, Minorca, Rhodes and Shetland, as can be seen here. --Angelo (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, but that wasn't the criteria that TaintedZebra tried to establish. Nfitz (talk) 19:12, 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 speedy delete. Per A7 - no indication of importance or significance and restaurants are companies, too, so A7 can be applied. SoWhy 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement bar[edit]

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

Unnotable bar and live music venue Grahame (talk) 08:08, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Hall[edit]

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

His main claim appears to be that he received a "Chief of the General Staff Commendation for bravery during a helicopter rescue". I'm not sure that this is notable. Also it has no sources. Grahame (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like a fine, non-notable career. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No references so violates WP:BLP. I do not believe that the subject meets WP:N but will hunt around to see what I can find. On first inspection Major Hall is no more notable than my own OC. I will reserve judgement for a few days though. If the contributor were to add some sources and wikify the article, it might make it easier to determine notability. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A CGS Commendation is the old name for the Chief of Army Commendation, I believe. It is not listed in the Australian Honours System and exists beneath (or outside) of this. The only other reference I have found for it is in Army Standing Orders for Dress (Vol 2, Part 4, Annex B to Chap 6 if anyone is as sad as me as to have a copy close to hand...). You can also find it here [22], but it doesn't really add anything to the debate, just says how to wear it on one's pollies. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a fine man with a decent military career, however the article does not meet WP:BLP or WP:BIO. A CGS Commendation is not enough to warrant inclusion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:10, 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 00:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scions of Eden[edit]

Scions of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A possible WP:HOAX, this book fails all criteria for WP:BK guidelines. No references are provided other than the author's on-line resume. All searches for the ISBN number (including the WorldCat) find nothing. The supposed publisher is a government imprint that does not publish fiction and shows no record for this book. — CactusWriter | needles 06:48, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elio & Company[edit]

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

Small non-notable consulting firm. Author insists on removing CSD. Fails WP:COMPANY. Article lacks references. Company lacks GHits and substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : but see if author, esp if COI author, can produce notability. There are

US firms ( although consulting is a big catagory) that sometimes make the news for various reasons. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:02, 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 speedy delete (A9). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Business (album)[edit]

Family Business (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nicely written, but fails notability. New band, debut album, hasn't charted. Almost entirely self-referenced and the remainder from unreliable sources. DurovaCharge! 05:41, 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 redirect to Sadhaka. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakha[edit]

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

Dictdef, promotional. Unreferenced. DurovaCharge! 05:30, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Pringles[edit]

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

NFT - 'nuff said. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen K. Johns[edit]

Stephen K. Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Isn't mentioned in third-party sources (only primary court case references). Does not establish notability of the person. blurredpeace ☮ 05:07, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Keith Johnson[edit]

Anthony Keith Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person does not assert notability (only primary sources mentioning him, none from the third-party). blurredpeace ☮ 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had PRODded this nearly concurrently to the AfD nom, so I'll restate my PROD concern: "No assertion of notability for the convict, the victim/crime, the legal proceedings, or the public or legal aftermath". I'd even contemplated speedying it as an essay with a total lack of asserted notability. And I'll also bundle the following article with this AfD:
which is in the same style and has all of the same problems.DMacks (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like it became its own nom. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 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 speedy delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matteous[edit]

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

Declined speedy (for some strange reason), and the {{prod}} tag was removed by the creator without reason. This article is basically nonsense. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as it's blatantly non-sense. I'd also like to see the administrator's rationale for declining it. blurredpeace ☮ 05:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete The user who removed the speedy is not an administrator Porturology (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:IAR. It is remarkably clear that this is not suitable for its own encyclopedia article. MuZemike 05:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G1 or G3 and also WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flow Festival[edit]

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

PROD was contested by the author of the page, but my research shows no notability for the festival described in the text. (There is a notable "Flow Festival" that takes place in Finland, but that isn't what is described here). ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was left on the article's talk page by the creator:

  • Delete Article's author has given the reason why it should go Porturology (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've added the prod template. The subject of that article is a local Canadian festival without encyclopedic notability. The author can inform about his project on MySpace or somewhere else. Check WP:N, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Creating a wikipedia article to publicize something in the hope that it will become notable is not permitted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klick Communications[edit]

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

Bundle of trivial awards, no substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: referenced chiefly to listings, local papers, and business awards nobody outside of the industry is likely to have heard of, this is a non-notable, non-consumer business: a privately owned technology and marketing communications company. In other words, another advertising business that thinks a Wikipedia article is good advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical debt[edit]

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

Article serves as stealth spam or WP:COATRACK for a predatory corporation. Not encyclopedic; medical debt is debt incurred from medical costs is hardly worthy of its own article. No sources. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Health insurance. Anything that is encyclopaedic about this topic can be better covered there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to more appropriate article, perhaps Health economics. Wikipedia should have an article whose major point is that the goods and services involved in healthcare are not free, but this isn't that article. Whatever article it's redirected to, it should include debt (and taxes, and insurance, and bankrupt healthcare facilities) as an issue, but place that debt in the overall context of healthcare costs, instead of isolating it like this article does (which is to say that if the article rescue effort is successful, the page will need to be moved to something like Cost of healthcare.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concerning spam objection from the nominator seems to have been taken care of. What remains IMO is likely a very noteable subject deserving its own article. Im running out of wikki time for 2day, but plan to exspand the article probably tommorow. If i cant find any useable sources I'll withdraw my vote, just voting now in case there might be an early closure for deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Health economics is more about the economics field rather than its impact on individuals; I don't think it is a good redirect or merge target. A related topic would be Uninsured in the United States, but a redirect there would fail to give a global coverage of the issue. "Personal debt" redirects to Consumer debt, which covers debt much more from a credit angle, whereas medical care is not an optional purchase. My feeling is that this issue deserves treating independently, but I need to do some searching first. Fences&Windows 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from a fairly quick look, the topic does warrant coverage on its own. All the sources I found were US-based, so we may have trouble coming up with a global perspective. It is a significant social issue, leading to a lot of personal bankruptcies - 60% of them.[23] Most other developed countries have some form of national health coverage so medical debt isn't such an issue, but medical costs and debts are also an issue in developing countries, where simple illnesses aren't treated as the patient cannot afford it, and increasing privatisation is an issue.[24] Perhaps Cost of healthcare would be a better title, focussing on the costs of healthcare to patients rather than issues of cost-effectiveness, drug pricing etc. Here are some sources I found on medical debt: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Fences&Windows 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are sources, how could there not be? But Health economics certainly needs expansion and would treat the topic in context. Abductive (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that Health economics is an appropriate place to write about this. That article is about the economics discipline, with discussion of QALYs and cost-effectiveness; the cost to patients of health care is something else entirely. An article on the cost to patients can encompass medical debt, alongside direct-to-user costs such as prescription charges in the UK, or taxation, etc. But medical debt could easily stand on its own as a subject, there's no reason to argue for deletion. Fences&Windows 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it needs to be treated elsewhere. Abductive (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about context, yesterday i had a quick search through some of the papers and external web links on the Health economics page and couldn't find anything about medical debt. It might be just a tangential issue and challenging to add to the economics article while complying with no OR / Synth. I was surprised to see how big an issue it is in the US , with extensive coverage in sources exclusively dedicated to the subject. Maybe if you have a chance to look at the article now its improved you might be up for changing your position? Ive tried to show it in context to the wider issues with wikki links and stuff. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did this Google search for the following words from the article; bankruptcy health care debt costs coverage plan reform expenses financial insurance insured medical, limited to Wikipedia only. The only two mainspace results that were returned were Health care in the United States and Social Security (United States). Therefore I suggest that this article be merged to Health care in the United States. Abductive (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, I'll cross link to that. We'd have no problems merging to Health care in the United States on OR/ synth grounds. However the article is already over 100KBs, above the reccomended size for splitting to smaller more specific articles. So I still think we should ideally retain the medical debt article with its current title. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject stands on its own, and there is no good argument for deletion. Merging or widening the scope is something we can consider, but AfD is not the place to discuss that. We now have a sourced stub to work from and improve. Fences&Windows 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good place to discuss that, we're all here. I am pleased that the article is now on enough watchlists that predatory companies won't be able to slip their urls in there. I doubt that the closing admin will impose a merge. But is there any place to merge it to? Or anything else it can be named? If not, don't forget to link it to articles in which the term occurs. Abductive (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good job of improvement. Notable topic in its own right, apart from more general topics. Health Care in the US is a very broad topic indeed, and it would not be appropriate to merge every problem with heath care into it. Rather, develop this one. Fences & Windows has already found some of the probably dozens more good specific sources. The original nomination was appropriate for the state of the article at the time. DGG (talk) 03:30, 23 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) 05:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crosscurrent (Star Wars novel)[edit]

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

Zero third-party sources. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:12, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sherri's Conundrum[edit]

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

Nonsense neologism. Single author removed prod without improving article. I can't think of a category of speedy for this except perhaps Hoax Porturology (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Quantpole (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G3. This is the second such page I'm coming across in two weeks. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't fit into any speedy category - non-vandalistic hoaxes are explicitly excluded, and anyway I wouldn't call it a "hoax" as it's not trying to deceive. Nevertheless it is complete unencyclopaedic junk. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest village in England[edit]

Largest village in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Thge page is currently a largely uneferenced and poorly written/presented mess, and the references that do exist are of questionable quality, where you cannot tell who the person is that is making the claim (or in the case of the one or two independant news sources, where they are repeating the claim from). But that in itself is not a reason for deletion, the question is: is a 'list of places claiming to be the "Largest village in England"' something with inherent encyclopoedic value? Given the fact the article pretty much explains why anybody can claim it, and anybody else can refute it, and given the fact we have Fordwich and Manningtree, both smaller than any village on the list and both claiming to be towns, I have to say that even if the list were perfectly complete, and reliably verifiable to the people/authority making the claim, this list would still be pretty much pointless, being both a collection of trivia, and something that turns Wikipedia into a soapbox/POV battleground/free advertising host for any passing soul who has heard the claim made. MickMacNee (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the first paragraph of the article itself, reproduced here for your reading pleasure:

Many villages claim to be the largest village in England. This title is essentially a meaningless one, as it cannot be verified because of the lack of a common definition of a village, the absence of any particular benefits associated with the status, and the vagueness of 'largest' (population or area?).

which says it all. Vague criteria for inclusion leads to POV articles, which are a Bad Thing™.  pablohablo. 09:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I made several attempts to improve this page last year and gave up in the tide of unsupported dubious claims and general lack of cohesive source references. It just ends up as a meaningless list that grows and grows. Until a sensible definition of "largest village" is agreed this article is a nonsense 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 09:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to London ;-). Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the large number of settlements that claim it, it is something with encyclopaedic merit. Yes the article is currently a mess, but that is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps merge it with a list of smallest and largest towns and cities in the UK to form a List of largest and smallest villages, towns and cities in the United Kingdom or something (I'm sure someone could find a better title than that!). Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be brilliant, once there is an agreed definition to distinguish villages and towns, and an agreed measure of size (surface area, population, aggregate mass of population etc). I have a rather large hamlet.  pablohablo. 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what number of claimants has got to do with it. If anything, if there were only three genuine bona fide claimants, that list would be worth more to an encyclopoedia imo than a list that only exists because a bazillion places claim the title, because it is essentially meaningless. Mergeing wouldn't fix the inherent pointlessness, it just makes it another article's problem. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the majority of settlements listed on the page have nothing to show for the claim other than the fact that a wikipedian said so once. Those that do have a claim appear to be little more than incidental mentions in articles, usually a local paper. If this article must stay (and I still don't think there's any non-trivial coverage to warrant this), the article will need to be fundamentally re-written as a list of settlements claiming to be the largest village in England, with the list whittled down to only those settlements whose claims have been covered in reliable independent sources, as per the general notability guideline. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article raises a number of POV issues, but that is inevitable due to the nature of the subject. The problem is that there is no clear answer to "What is a village?". The article is not (as alleged) wholely unreferenced as population figures are taken from 2001 census. The question is an intersting one, and the article fairly sets out the various claims. I am not convinced by the cities and towns sections: these would be better having separate articles. The smallest village would be particularly difficult, as there were a handful of parishes with no population. There must be several with just one farm. How few houses do you need to make it a village? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has sources, thereby meeting general notability guidelines, and describes a legitimate topic that is covered. Sure, it may need cleanup. The best way to deal with this is to add a {{cleanup}} tag and the rest is up to future editing. Sebwite (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has about two reliable sources, for single claims only. The rest are extremely amatuer websites. There are no sources that I saw that cover the topic itself. MickMacNee (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be empirically observed that if there is no definition of village, then defining villages is problematic. To talk -about- such problems in an article is not original research. To talk -about- the fact that there is no accepted definition of village is not the same as stating a definition of village when there is no accepted consensus. Statements that the article is faulty because such and such a village does not belong in the article, however, -are- original research (for what that is worth, as they are outside of mainspace), as their criteria are not generally accepted. They are falling foul of the problem itself, blind to the lesson given in the very article. Is it really the business of those for whom a little knowledge is a dangerous thing to see to it which knowledge is presented by Wikipedia? Anarchangel (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wha? We don't have articles such as Discussion of the vagueness of the definition of a village in the UK. At best, and if it could ever be sourced, that constitutes barely a paragraph or two in village. This article purports to be a list of the largest villages, and as you seem to recognise I think, its actually pretty pointless doing that. MickMacNee (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try entering 'The problem of' into the search field. Need it be said that you are inventing an agenda for the article? I would be happy to assist with a title that matches its content more fully, such as perhaps 'Claims to the title of largest village in England' or 'Defining the largest village in England'. The article attempts to rise above and stay neutral in the matter: "This title is essentially a meaningless one, as it cannot be verified because of the lack of a common definition of a village, the absence of any particular benefits associated with the status, and the vagueness of 'largest' (population or area?)". It is not the article that is irrelevant, because of the lack of a definition of village. It is the disputes over which 'village' is largest that are irrelevant. The article is quite clear in showing this. Showing an irrelevance is not in itself irrelevant. I really can't make it any clearer than that. Anarchangel (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when did querying an unsourced claim constitute original research? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See your (perhaps unintentional) straw man, and raise you a specific argument. I was not referring to anything you wrote, if that is what you were thinking. Rather, I was referring to the nominator's "...given the fact we have Fordwich and Manningtree, both smaller than any village on the list and both claiming to be towns, I have to say...", which utterly misses the point of the article. Anarchangel (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an interesting geographical article for English village statistics. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. See WP:INTERESTING. 2. There is not a shred of evidence in the article that this is a complete work, so its value for statistics purposes is utterly useless. Maybe you have confused it with a proper list of villages ranked by population, but this article quite clearly is not that. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer "keep" but the most important is to provide reference notes for the data Ricky@36 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. Since 1) most of the keep !votes seem to be based on keeping sourced information, 2) Most of the verifiable information is on what a village actually is (and not that much on what the largest village is) and 3) we don't have any other articles about villages in England or the UK, would it make sense to move this to an article about villages in the UK/England and include the few source claims to largest village in that article? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename. For example, Large villages in England. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:22, 23 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. Cirt (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Czar[edit]

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

List is OR, sources are thin, seems to be little more than dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Office of National Drug Control Policy only because it is a common enough term that I can see people searching for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, don't redirect it to an article about the American drugs czar, because it's also found in other countries. The BBC has seven pages on the term (here) and it even mentions a Mexican drugs czar (here).

    On balance, I think we need to disambiguate between the various possible people it could mean.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Make lowercase. Discussion makes clear that "drug czar" is an internationally recognized position. Article can provide sections and links to the various incarnations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per ChildofMidnight; Office of National Drug Control Policy is only one example of such. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a well known term for he/she who controls drug policy in the United States. --Dabackgammonator (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per ChildofMidnight. The first paragraph should be tweaked to say that this is a term used first in the US and subsequently differently in the US, UK and anywhere else. The rest should be sections per country with lists of people who have held the post. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per ChildofMidnight. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per ChildofMidnight. Click23 (talk) 19:52, 23 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. لennavecia 15:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Montt Swett[edit]

Rodrigo Montt Swett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician. The numbers given right in the article show he was not elected in his main run for office, and I see nothing else in the article that amounts to a real assertion of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I vote delete, but there is no AfD notice on the page. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it looks like a Facebook profile and is not notable in any way. Why is there no AfD on the page?--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed by the page's creator, but has since been restored. Likely need to keep an eye on it for further removals. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I know nothing of Chilean politics, and this article is very badly translated, but it looks like he was a major-party candidate for a seat in the national legislature, the host of a TV talk show, and the descendant of two Chilean presidents. I'm guessing that a comparable U.S. political figure would be considered notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:POLITICIAN, just being a candidate is not enough to be considered notable. They have to actually win, or to otherwise meet the more general WP:BIO criteria. This person does neither. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, in the U.S., major-party candidates for national office (including Congress) are per se notable, at least in several AFD's in the last couple of years. The policy you cite needs to be updated (though I have no idea how it would apply to non-U.S. candidates). See also the article George P. Bush for a U.S. figure (not even yet a candidate for any office), related to two presidents, who is apparently notable enough for an article.
As to this current AFD, I have no idea how prominent his role in the TV show is, but it sounds like a claim of notability to me. The real question is whether he has been covered in multiple independent media sources, and since I don't speak Spanish, I have no idea about that. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at GPB's article shows links to a number of prominent pieces of coverage. So I would say GPB meets the general WP:BIO criteria, regardless of his level of political success or failure.
As for changes to WP:POLITICIAN, if you feel that the policy does not reflect current consensus, please feel free to try to get it changed. But until/unless it is changed, the current wording is IMHO the official policy on the matter. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has done nothing important except come third; not even second in an election. If he gets an article then everyone else deserves one too--79.78.199.183 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable politician, but if he is elected, article can be recreated. TNXMan 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andreehuer keeps deleting the AfD templete. --I dream of horses (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore it each time, and give him increasing {{uw-afd}} templates each time. If he reaches final warning and persists, report him to WP:AIV. I can assist with the reverting and warning, but since it's my AFD I would be crossing the line of "involved admin" if I took any official admin action myself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:51, 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. clear consensus of everyone who is not a SPA DGG (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto supremacism[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable, little used term, possible "crystal ball" entry. Prod declined, with some edits. Borders on a rant, with bizarre references to "scientism" (and, in an earlier edit, jews). Hairhorn (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save. How in the world can this Not be a notable subject? Antagonistic motivation evident - Looking for reason - shifts to a second reason, "thus, delete for".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulac (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. The fact that the concept can't be found in a traditional encyclopedia doesn't mean it is unjustified to have it here. Wikipedia is the most progressive source of knowledge and this article should be saved for futher development and improvment. --JansonParker (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) — JansonParker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sorry, but how do you explain racist bunk entries like this?
Mulatto supremacism is likely to be at least as great a hazard (3) to (e.g.) ethno-Europeans (list of countries by birthrate) as liberal-left elitism has been, as it stems from a longer evolved element (Bushmen) than has liberal-left elitism (elitism through use and abuse of the theories of e.g., Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Herbert Marcuse). (4)
Mulatto supremacism hence, is a hazard to cultural diversity, genetic diversity and biodiversity;
... thankfully since edited out by other users. Hairhorn (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hairhorn, I know I really shouldn't edit these articles while they're under discussion when I think there's no improving them. In fact, removing that sort of racist nonsense might even lessen the chance of the article being deleted. However, that particular statement is so repulsive (besides, of course, being untrue and unverified) that it gives Wikipedia a bad name and embarrasses me. Oh, Frunobulac, you really shouldn't cast stones about rhetoric when you obviously (judging from your article) live in a very fragile glass house. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I agree entirely that this should have been removed as fast as possible. Hairhorn (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:frunobulac

Ad hominem. Your antagonism has already been noted. Deletion of this article would only serve to illustrate the bias of those who wish to remove it. I don't claim that it cannot be improved or should not be revised as an article (You have deleted the above material, and I did not protest) but to say that the subject is not notable is absurd.

Deletion is much more like racism or the death penalty; you will never hear the other side of the argument. So why are you, Drmies, using these terms as weapons against knowledge and information? --JansonParker (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harihorn, please, ask Wikipedia to check the IPs and make sure that you are as biased to different voices as you are to this article. Good luck! --JansonParker (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the sockpuppet comment I made. However, please note than an account whose first post is in an AfD page is considered suspicious at best. Meatpuppetry also frowned upon. Hairhorn (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


talk) I did not know who the supporter of this article was, but thanked him for his comments and asked him to correct his grammar by adding an article "the". I didn't know that you were capable and willing to spy on such a "horrible" issue. It seems that you have friends on your side...they appear to be afraid of the term, mulatto supremacism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulac (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your comments, so I can be clear on who is who. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frunobulac, what are you talking about? "Horrible" issue? Surely you agree that the propagation of racist theory by means of false information is really horrible. JansonParker, go on throwing around your conspiracy theories (..."friends on your side..."). You don't seem to understand that in this debate we are hearing the "other side"--courtesy of you and Frunobulac. Unfortunately, neither of you have said anything worthwhile that relates the supposed notability of this made-up term (or at the very least misapplied term) to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. There is no free speech issue here. There is no conspiracy. And there is no such concept as "mulatto supremacism." Both of you could benefit from a healthy dose of looking at other articles to see a. how they are written and organized and b. what kinds of standards are at work here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and inform another secret society of "friends" about this issue here. Freemasons? Elks? You'll never know... Drmies (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Save

Dear Sirs/Ladies

Why do you hurl these chlche's at us? And why do you lie?

Frunobulac, what are you talking about? "Horrible" issue? "Horrible issue" was a remark that I made in response to its being alleged that I was meatpuppeting with Janson/Parkere when in reality, I asked him to add the article "the" to correct grammar in one spot. You seem to be full of notions derived of upper class parents and the scholarships that others are not insider enough to be granted. You don't want me to have friends, but obviously, you do.

Surely you agree that the propagation of racist theory by means of false information is really horrible.

There is nothing racist and horrible in what I've said and nothing false (nor in the parts you've deleted), either. You know it. What you are doing is evil - and I mean in a real sense, that it does not give the quality of people a chance to respond and live, as opposed to the religious or new age nonsense to which you subscribe.

JansonParker, go on throwing around your conspiracy theories (..."friends on your side..."). It was I, Frunobulac, who said that you have friends on your side. Why do you spew cliche's, as if I/We believe in conspiracy theories? Your meat puppetry was/is evident.

You don't seem to understand that in this debate we are hearing the "other side"--courtesy of you and Frunobulac. Unfortunately, neither of you have said anything worthwhile that relates the supposed notability of this made-up term (or at the very least misapplied term) to Wikipedia policy.

I did not make up the term, although I first used it in 1987, spontaneously, as it is a rather obvious consequence of your kind of hatred; and shortly thereafter, heard it echoed in application to Dubois and his rigid Hegelianism. Mulatto Supremacism is not only a term which you have heard, but is a practice in which you partake.

Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. Therefore, do not treat it as a message board. Write in accordance with wiki's professional standards.

There is no free speech issue here.

There certainly is. That is abundantly clear; with proposed laws in Europe, for example, being coerced into alignment with Sharia; and laws being passed in North America attempting to enjoin any speech useful in the defense of ethno-Europeans. There is no conspiracy.

Actually, there is, though that is not the word nor the issue that I am taking up. As noted, you were discussing this with friends. I would not have phrased that a conspiracy, but it is similar. Tell me, why do you want to use the term "White Supremacism" and why do I not even have to guess that you want to use it?

And there is no such concept as "mulatto supremacism."

Of course there is, and no academic that I've ever ran the notion before ever batted an eye - more or less had the attitude that it was about time it was given more attention.

Both of you could benefit from a healthy dose of looking at other articles to see a how they are written and organized and b. what kinds of standards are at work here.

Of course I have looked at many other articles and while the standards of English and organization are fair, the theoretical underpinnings should be better.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and inform another secret society of "friends" about this issue here.

Nice try; you have hidden behind cliches to attack progress in wikipedia standards and I will inform my colleagues of your camouflage and ambush tactics (your friends are Scottish? you don't like hazel nut coffee?, want guns (for what?), war?, whatever other cliche's you can think of.

Freemasons? Elks? You'll never know... Drmies (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a message board. So do not treat it as one. Unskilled interlocutors such as you are a most regrettable thing; as one cannot even learn from arrogance such as you've displayed. "Freemasons, Elks" I should not have to spend time instructing you that I am not a member of these groups. You might never know what you have done to true outsiders. I should not have to be bothered defending against personal accusations.--Frunobulac (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)--Frunobulac (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)---Frunobulac (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)-Frunobulac ([[User[reply]

  • Well, you got that last part right: WP is not a message board--certainly not for incoherent, ungrammatical, and incorrectly formatted ramblings. I'm sure that shoe doesn't fit you. Since you said it best, "Write in accordance with wiki's professional standards," I assume you won't mind a few elementary corrections: leaving a space at the beginning of a sentence makes a box, which is one reason why your response looks so weird. I'll leave you your bold print, since you feel the need to shout. Let it all out! As for one of your remarks, "You don't want me to have friends," I'm sorry if you feel that way and it made me very sad to see you say that. I do want you to have friends (and I'm sure Jason feels the same way), and anytime you want to talk, I'm here for you. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Theory (EP)[edit]

Hybrid Theory (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP. Has not charted on music charts, and there is no substantial coverage in reliable sources. It fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh!(review me) 03:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NALBUMS also states that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It doesn't look like this article meets those criteria. Timmeh!(review me) 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Zetawoof. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this EP is a part of the band's history before they made a big breakthrough success in the mainstream media. Considering the status and popularity they've gained now, I say it's helpful to leave this article for improvement.davidmj926 (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NALBUMS on its own merits. Note that Zetawoof (and therefore Tezkag72) and davidmj926 make invalid arguments for keeping, failing to address the notability issue. This self-released EP didn't chart, failed to receive significant media coverage, and wasn't even released by Linkin Park, but by the group's forebear, Hybrid Theory. Noteworthy and sourced info could and should be included in the Linkin Park article but this EP should not have its own article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hybrid Theory and Linkin Park are one and the same. There is no distinction between the two. Zetawoof(ζ) 15:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The distinction is that the EP was released by Hybrid Theory, not Linkin Park. That is an admittedly moot point, however. A point that is very relevant to this AFD is that even if they had been called Linkin Park at that point, they were completely unknown and no one took notice of the EP's release. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - inherent notability from Linkin Park, important to be able to track the lineage of the band and their releases. The album is linked on several internal pages, which suggests it did influence their later work, and I believe the fact they later changed their name to be a minor nit-picky issue. Whatsmore, I'm not convinced there is a single article where the content could be merged. -Halo (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited. We should be judging this article on whether it alone is covered significantly by reliable sources. Linkin Park being notable does not make all of the band's releases notable. Timmeh 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the high number of internal links is merely due to its inclusion in {{Linkin Park}}, which appears in every single Linkin Park related article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:NALBUMS "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Already mention in the Linkin Park article, nothing else is needed. Click23 (talk) 18:21, 23 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 G12. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PECOC programme[edit]

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

Lack of context, references, or assertion of notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:08, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Elizabeth[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, notability does not seem to be established. Text of the article is largely breezy fluff. Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my text above because it has been brought to my attention that the article contained a troll message which I fell for. I thought it very peculiar to use such negative language in a WP:BLP and was thinking about removing it, but quickly checking the article history and some of the given links made me wonder. Rechecking makes me think that WP:ARTIST might still be a problem, but I think I'd better retire from giving an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article has been reverted to an earlier version which does not contain the trolling reference, and the edit notes allege vandalism. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article was nominated for deletion is because it was vandalized by IP address # 71.36.101.63. Prior to the vandalism, the article was approved by several administrators, with a few minor changes. It was posted for 4 weeks before it was altered by # 71.36.101.63, and during that time there were no complaints. All the above complaints were logged during the interval when the article was vandalized. Hhtttt (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - extraneous material removed from AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What do you mean by "when met with approval of the admins"? Admins have no more say than any other editor as to whether or not an article meets notability standards, and where did these apocryphal admins give their approval? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just meant that the article was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but that on the closer inspection of the admins it was decided that enough notability had been claimed. After that point the subject of deletion was not raised again, until the page was significantly defaced by IP address 71.36.101.63. Perhaps "approval" is not the correct term, sorry about that. Hhtttt (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be notable enough. I'd protect it, tough, against cyber-stalkers. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: this article needs a lot better sourcing to pass WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, feels notable - just - but could do with better sourcing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 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, Keeper | 76 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That discography doesn't look notable to me. BTW, removing a speedy tag means notability MIGHT be there, not a pronouncement of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not consider the sources provided meet WP:RS. Cannot find RS from searching. Quantpole (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.225.100 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability; fails to provide reliable sources, relying instead on blogs and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 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) 20:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero_to_IPO[edit]

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

Advertisement for a book Ainbritain (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • StrawToGrasp : if it really is used in business schools all over the world as the last sentence claims, then it may be some kind of notable icon within the MBA subculture, like the old grade school reading books. But, I don't have any idea how to find sources nor do I feel motivated to look.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound like a decent guide to Venture Capital, though. Get your book some media coverage, Mr. Smith, and you can have a Wikipedia entry.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 19:28, 23 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) 05:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy-China Elite Development Program[edit]

Ivy-China Elite Development Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student organization; no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources; obvious advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 02:33, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No They Didn't[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oh No They Didn't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm bringing this article for community review, as I am unsure of whether it meets the inclusion standards as a standalone article. This article is mentioned slightly and in passing in a few magazine sources, but the vast majority of the so-called "sources" are just links to threads on livejournal that have screencaps and such.

So, what do you guys think: NW (Talk) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of the perhaps three sources that are not to the livejournal pages themselves, those only tangentially mention this community. I don't see that as particularly notable. NW (Talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: To me, it passes WP:WEB, but barely. Various sources mention it as a "top" gossip blog. Passing mentions, perhaps, but it's not like you're gonna find in-depth research articles on gossip websites. The article is concise, has sources, and is fairly well written, although it needs some sources to be "fixed" (as in, directly linked to the sources, not to the ONTD "articles"). SKS (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion/Merge Marginally it should be merged with the Live Journal entry, and at best one line noting it as the largest Live Journal community, which is essentially what it is. The majority of the article is self-promotion and publicity, as enacted by the members themselves, who continuously drive visitors to the entry to keep it alive. Voting for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.164.67 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with the sourcing. faithless (speak) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although someone needs to update the article with info on their editorial approach, which is rampant copyvio jengod (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough sources for this to be permitted. — Kendra Michele — 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourced and referenced in several notable places (RollingStone, MTV, Oprah's mag, etc) The article itself is really too large to be pushed back into the main page for Livejournal. Morhange (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe ONTD passed WP:N. First, as requested I am disclosing that I do have a vested interest in this community as I am a long time member. According to NW Guidelines I believe this article falls under categories 1 and 3.
  1. A topic "needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources." The guidelines also state that the article must have "consistent" mentions and not just a "short burst." I can assure you that ONTD (and the article should/will be updated to list these mentions in a more thorough form) has had consistent coverage for several years. The article must also relate to a "subject of multiple non-trivial public works." I believe that if a proper list of references is completed this will become more clear. I'd also like to submit that while the mentions themselves in some instances may be qualified as minor, I firmly believe that multiple minor mentions far outweigh one or two major mentions. The website is both noticed by celebrities and the media alike. The website itself actually contains an entire "gallery" of celebrities who have willingly posted with ONTD "fan signs." While the idea behind these signs may seem trivial, celebrities have gone on to "verify" that they do in fact read or are aware of "ONTD's" presence.
  2. In reference to guideline 3 of NW. The content must be hosted on medium which is "respected and independent of the creators." I firmly believe that Livejournal while host to "personal blogs" has seen that ONTD is not simply a "blog." Nor is it at all "personal." It is a community within itself. It is a repository of information that has warranted multiple media mentions. "Editorial oversite" is present through website moderation. The content itself is provided by members. Livejournal, in this case, is simply the platform through which this is presented. RudeNotGinger (talk) 01:27, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Asia-Pacific Education Association[edit]

Princeton Asia-Pacific Education Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student organization; no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources; obvious advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 02:31, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peking University Global Exchange Network for Students[edit]

Peking University Global Exchange Network for Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student organization; no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources; obvious advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 02:29, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Asia-Pacific Development Society[edit]

Columbia Asia-Pacific Development Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising for non-notable student organization; a variety of issues with unencyclopedic and non-notable content; also nominating Ivy-China Elite Development Program created by same author. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:26, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calum Clugston[edit]

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

A Google search for "Calum Clugston" and "Order of Australia" turns up nothing. Without the honor, there is very little to confirm Mr. Clugston's notability, as per WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:12, 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. Rough consensus to keep, mentioned in several reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Eddington[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. No real indication that he has any notability beyond the local area. TexasAndroid (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will revise article on Jack Eddington to reflect more references to indicate outside coverage on issues by reliable independent sources.-- 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyphemus5000 (talk • contribs)

Suffolk County, NY [39] is part of the New York City metro area and contains over 1.5 million people. The Suffolk Legislature is at the forefront of providing creative policies and innovative ideas to deal with the unique challenges faced by a densely populated area that is unique environmentally due to being located on a island with direct exposure to severe natural hazards, and due to being situated over a Federally-designated sole source acquifer. The Suffolk County Legislature is regularly covered on nightly news on the four major news networks in New York City - ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. As such, the governing body of the County, the Suffolk County Legislature, is influential over a geographical area containing close to 10 million people. The County Executive, Steve Levy, has a Wiki entry [40], as well as another County Legislator [41].--Spydrwomyn (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any Suffolk County Legislator passes second two tenants of WP:POLITICIAN--Spydrwomyn (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. County governments aren't first level. They are second level in the US. State govt. is first level. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This raises a interesting issue, the "reliable secondary sources" is the NY Times, and there are several articles about him. But if you look outside of publications from New York, you do not find anything about this guy. Even though the NY Times is a huge source of material, in this case it just the same as a hometown newspaper. WP:LOCALINT addresses this, but as of right now it is just a proposal. Without WP:LOCALINT we have to base this on WP:POLITICIAN, he does have significant reliable secondary sources, so we should keep it for now. Click23 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:26, 23 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 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Produsage[edit]

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

Neologism; Violates WP:NOT -- Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. mhking (talk) 01:44, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junior High Camp (movie)[edit]

Junior High Camp (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) & related redirect:
Junior high camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was supposed to be created by twinkle but some bug prevented it from being so. Brought to afd cause speedy isn't speedy enough. The article is either blatantly hoax (use this search in google for example:Junior High Camp site:imdb.com) or non-notable, and the article is nothing but an incorrect reference (Schneider's list) and infobox (I put up the speedy tag more than a day ago). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Bug aside, you've done the right thing bringing it to AFD. If something sits at CSD for an extended period, it's usually an indication that no admin wants to deal with it, for one reason or another. And if admins do not feel comfortable speedy deleting something, or comfortable declining the CSD, a full deletion debate is generally a good idea to get a wider range of opinions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourcable probable hoax. Search with title and alleged production companies find absolutely nothing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember the movie Junior High Camp? It was 3 hours and 40 minutes long, and it came out last August and grossed $321 billion, remember? It's all right here in this article. Oh, wait, nobody could remember that, because there was no such movie. Speedy delete as vandalism in the form of a hoax, and block article creator. I would like to apologize to Noian as an administrator for failing to check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and speedily delete this article in a timely manner. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed, we're all volunteers after all. Can't help but wonder if there should be more admins though, the backlog for speedy looks intense (8 days for images?), I'll remember to use Prods/AfD's more often next time, and to let speedy's wait longer. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:42, 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 لennavecia 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Mirza[edit]

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

Notabilty is not established, appears to be just one member of a team. Speedily deleted 06:40, April 2, 2009 and recreated. Accurizer (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N does not define being a Muslim female rocket scientist as a criteria for notability. Besides, she is just a junior scientist, nothing more. There are probaly 5000-10000 junior scientists at ISRO. Being notable in a subset(which can be anyone's own definiton) does not make them notable. For instance if I create a subset called "male Konkani Christian Wikipedia editors with roots in Mangalore" I become part of a very esteemed set of just 2 people out of 8 billion. --Deepak D'Souza 05:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is not notable because she is a junior scientist. but because of the media (in at least 2 countries) coverage she got ( rightly or wrongly) as a poor muslim girl from Amroha who worked for ISRO on Chandrayaan . multiple independent reliable sources have done detailed articles on her. most junior scientists at ISRO probably dont even get a mention in their school magazine. agree the article is written poorly. I have improved the lead. if this article survives i will work on it.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite a local profile or two, an obvious vanity article of non-notable person.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made several improvements to the article as sugested by some editors. please take another look at the article and reconsider your voteWikireader41 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks better, but, there were 24 organizations/groups involved in this, and her team of 12 was one of many teams within one of these 24 groups. Also, just check the other people on nav bar/ Category at the bottom, APJ Kalam, Vikram Sarabhai, Rakesh Sharma, Homi Baba et al comprise the remaining 16 people. What Kushboo Mirza has done is commendable, not notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree Notability is some what weak. however I still feel it meets the minimum threshold of Notability required for inclusion. she is clearly no Wernher von Braun. But she is a member of a handful of the millions of organizations that exist which is capable of getting a satellite to orbit the moon. And likely not everyone in ISRO got to work on this project. Again She has had significant coverage in multiple independent RS of atleat 2 countries where the subject is her ( not Chandrayaan-1). I think WP:N is deliberately left a little ambiguous and does not have any 'bright lines' to confirm notability and leaves us editors with some leeway on what gets included and what does not. That her story is a positive heartwarming tale reminiscent of Homer Hickam and the beautiful movie October Sky IMHO is the icing on the cake. It will be sad if "Welding" Kumar survives the AfD and this article does not. Right now that article has more 'Keep' votes.Wikireader41 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is sad that if "Welding Kumar" survives (it appears that he might survive). But the survival of a totally independent article does not have any bearing on this article. Khushboo Mirza is just one among the thousands of engineers/scientists who have participated in Chandrayan project. In that sense she is not even a distinguished person in her own organization, ISRO. To me it looks like she received a little media hype because of her background, nothing more. Salih (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that only a handful of ISRO scientists got write ups like hers in the press. You are right her background is probably why she is notable. still whether the notability was for a 'legitimate' reason or not ( who decides ?) should not detract from the fact that she did achieve a degree of Notability. clearly WP:V and WP:NPOV are not an issue here. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria appears to be satisfied. maybe an alternative would be to merge this info into another article on related subject.Wikireader41 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is not notable for her contribution to Chandrayaan project, then the coverage she received becomes a case of WP:BLP1E. Salih (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well her notability is for her rise from a poor background in a small town as a muslim female. her colleague doing the same thing for the same project but from a 'better' background would probably be completely non notable. And likely that is the reason her other 11 colleagues did not get similar coverage. WP:BLP1E only applies if she is 'likely' to remain non significant. I dont think that is reasonable assumption to make about a 23 year old individual ( who already has 4 publications about her in RS and works for one of the top space agencies in the world). it might be if she was 70 years old and retiring or dying nowWikireader41 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that the whole Chandrayaan project was not entirely handled by a 12 member team of which the subject was a member. There were thousands of people (see SpacemanSpiff's comment above) involved in the project and she is just a junior member of one of the teams. As of now her contribution is not sufficient to have an independent biographical article in Wikipedia. I have no doubt that she will become a Vikram Sarabhai or an Abdul Kalam or a Satish Dhawan one day. But in ISRO it will take a long, long time! Also, I don't think being a Muslim girl and having a poor background (in fact, she has not risen from the slum, and I suppose she hails from an educated family) give her a special status. Salih (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak Delete - WP:BLP1E was new to me, and it does seem to apply, as she will only be the 1st, and only in a narrow area, one that will grow. However, gathering and keeping the knowledge of 1sts for a female breaking into a heavily male profession seem to me to be just the sort of thing that Wikipedia is for. That said... notability is weak.- sinneed (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak notability but sufficient to include in WP :-)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikireader, It can be... but it is a matter of consensus. I have waffled on this, from weak delete to weak keep to keep and back. If the New York Times covered it, I would swing to Strong Keep. If the weekly newspaper in my old hometown was the only newspaper that covered it, I would say Strong Delete. This falls in the middle, for me. Reading the responses to my note, looking again...weak delete.- sinneed (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Sinneed, please explain what 1st you are referring to. Salih (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salih, Sorry for the slow response. The 1st Muslim female in the young and small India program...accepting the statements of the (weak) sources.- sinneed (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say that there were no female rocket scientists before Khushboo Mirza? Wow! We'd like to see some proof of that claim, please. The article states that she is "the first Muslim space scientist from India" 9sourced. If that is true then it means that A. P. J. Abdul Kalam was either not Muslim or not Indian(khusboo should know better than that, after all she has something in common with the former President of India) . I also find the subject's self description of herself as a "Muslim scientist of ISRO" in the lead as funny. Does ISRO recruit people according to their religion? If true then it is a violation of India's constitution. And arent scientists supposed to be irreligious, at least at work? And lastly Wikipedia is not a list of things you like. --Deepak D'Souza 10:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deepak, I would encourage not using irony in these discussions, as it is an escalation technique, and there is enough wikidrama in the world. No, that is not what I meant, and no, it did not deserve a "Wow!", etc.- sinneed (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deepak, reading your responses again, I encourage you to focus on the content, not those of us with opinions on the content. I am sorry you do not wp:LIKE my post. My opinion on this article is in no way based on whether this is a thing I like... it is based on how I interpret the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia on notability. wp:AGF. Are these AfD's often focused on the poster rather than the article?- sinneed (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for my conduct. But I hope you understand that it was becasue you had made a claim which even the article does not. --Deepak D'Souza 05:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I was not clear. I intended to make no claim whatever. And thank you for your apology, which I accept and appreciate.- sinneed (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you have misunderstood what 1E means Let me quote the important line "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Which means if this person is notable for only one event , they do not deserve an article.--Deepak D'Souza 10:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear as to whom you think has not understood BLP1E. Salih (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deepak the key sentence in BLP1E is 'and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile'. not neccesarily a correct assumption in her case considering she is 23 years of age. how does is matter whether ISRO recruits based on religion ( or caste for that matter - which I am sure they do).which part of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria does this article not satisfy ????? regarding the 1st muslim space scientist that is from ARYoneworld reference and is quoted as such.Wikireader41 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salih, my message was meant for Sineed; she has said that she was seeing BLP1E for the first time. 1E simply says that you cannot have an article for a subject who is known for only one event. In such a case you either delete or merge the article into the article about the event.
Wikireader 41, if you say that I am assuming that the subject will not be notable in the future, aren't you implicitly assuming that she will become notable in the future?:-) So, on what basis can you say that my assumption is necessarily incorrect and yours is correct. And if you are basing the notability of the article on an assumption that she will become famous in the future, it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot keep a non notable subject assuming that it will become notable in the future. Just because there is a reference it does not mean it is true. Abdul Kalam was a scientist at ISRO and DRDO. He is a devout Muslim too and has been at ISRO long before Khushboo was even born . So Aryworld.com simply cannot be correct on that count. Personally I am not surprised that Aryworld has forgotten Kalam. When he was made President of India, the Pakistani media derided him, unable to digest the fact that a Muslim in India could rise to a high post on merit alone. The basic notability criteria states multiple reliable sources. So let me see the reliability of the sources in this article:
  1. Merinews is a citizen journalist newssite; a user-contributed site like Wikipedia itself. The reporter happens to be from Amroha itself.
  2. tehelka.com is the website of a tabloid famous for its sensasionalism.
  3. indian express: reliable. But IMHO, the article title itself plays on the stereotype of Muslim girls only wearing burqhas and not being allowed to study beyond a certain age only to be pushed into early marriage etc.(Take a look at the reader comments!)
  4. arynews: has got at least one point wrong(see above), so reliability s questionable. Anyway, the article is simply a copy of twocircles.net's article.
  5. Hindustan times: reliable
  6. two circles,net is a blog: relaibility not assured.

So, all in all, only two of your refs are reliable. Articles with much larger number of refs and g-hits have been deleted for lack of notability. --Deepak D'Souza 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well BLP1E only applies if we assume that the subject will not be notable in future. I dont think we can assume she will not. I would consider tehelka reliable also. the fact that ARYoneorld may have made one factual mistake in the article does not mean it is not reliable source and that subject is not notable. It is undisputed and verifiable fact that it did carry an article on KM. I can quote any number of articles which do exist currently on WP and have less by the way of citations in RS. anyway even going by your definition of RS ( assuming IE and HT never make mistakes in their articles)2 RS would also count as multiple RS for purposes of WP.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are assuming that the subject definetely will be notable in the future. On what basis can you say that she will definetely rise above her 10,000 odd comaptriots all of whom are the cream of India's best institutions? Have you read WP:CRYSTAL. You cannot assume that a person will become notable in the future. The notability of the article has to be decided on the basis of their meeting notability criteria now. And she does not meet that criteria. Yes articles with lesser refs do exist,but because they are notable on their own basis. Notability is not directly proportional to number of refs. And the aryworld article is a copy of another article. Two reliable refs are simply not enough. --03:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
'articles with lesser refs do exist,but because they are notable on their own basis' so you are implying that articles on subjects with one citation ( since you believe only 2 citations in this aticle are from RS) in RS can exist if they are notable on 'their own basis'. care to point out which WP policy says that. what exactly is notability 'on own basis' without being cited in RS. I am not assuming she will be notable. it is just that I am NOT assuming she wont be notable. subtle but important difference which decides if BLP1E applies or not.Wikireader41 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lest assume someone becomes a president of a country , and for some reason there is only one reference(the probabilities are rare but may happen in case of some small non-English speaking counrty). Are you going to say that the person is not notable? --Deepak D'Souza 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came across the wiki-entry on Khushboo Mirza when she came up as a probable speaker for one of our events. There should be no doubt that her work at ISRO alone doesn't qualify her -- but given her background, more people may look her up entry in future. User:rohitm_001 —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
that is exactly my point. Thank youWikireader41 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your concerns,rohitm_001. But this is what happens all the time: A lot of people come to Wikipedia and create articles about themselves or some relative without knowing the rules of Wikipedia. Some people come along expecting to find information about anything and everthing in Wikipedia and when they dont find it , they create an article. Some of them are deleted almost immediately. A good deal of them end up here. --Deepak D'Souza 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the article, she was the most junior member of her team of 12. Just a Bachelor's degree, just 3 years experience in the field. . I do not see how she can possibly be considered notable at this point. DGG (talk) 02:02, 23 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, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha[edit]

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

LouriePieterse (talk) 20:07, 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) 00:28, 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 no consensus. Whpq's sources (and others) would seem to provide a basis for a less promotional re-write, but there is no clear consensus either way. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Karma[edit]

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

Article has been around just a little too long for me to speedy it without discussion IMO, and it's a judgment call, but db-spam speedy deletion is my personal vote. There are 36 hits at Google archives, but they're pretty fluffy. The best of the bunch look like this and this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This Bloomberg article is specifically about Credit Karma. This Ecommerce Times article, although not exclusive, features the Credit Karma prominently. This combined with the less substantial coverage noted by the nominator is enough to establish notability. But just to pile one, there is additional smaller coverage with [44], [45], and [46]. The article currently inclues a link to a Lifestylemag article solely about Credit Karma but it is unclear if Lifestyle mag qualifies as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Disclosure: I am an engineer at Credit Karma. I was just going over the SERPs for our site when I ran across this wikipedia entry and I felt I should leave a note regarding site notability. We have about 450K users with thousands more signing up daily. We were listed as one of the "Best Online Tools for Personal Finance" (#5) by the Wall Street Journal [47]. We've been in the WSJ other times as well; here's another from last week [48]. Last year, we won Best In Show at Finovate [49]. We've been all over local news and the web; Consumerist several times, About.com [50], etc. Radio hosts such as Clark Howard routinely recommend us [51], [52], [53], [54], and so on. We've been in TIME Magazine, Newsweek [55], Reuters [56], the NY Times [57], and many more. A partial list is on our press page at [58]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.138.238 (talk) 20:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure advert; violates WP:SPAM --mhking (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Non-notable spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probation opportunity to become less promotional. Otherwise delete.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely promotional as it is now, maybe have someone without COI rewrite it from scratch if it's notable enough. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep on the basis of the WSJ reference above + the NYT. I do not think the article is particularly promotional, tho I would source the material to the newspaper s, not their own site. DGG (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite Bases on AuthorityTams comment. Click23 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its clearly a website with its notability on the rise, per the articles referenced. There's links to more articles on the site itself.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:34, 23 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Uncle G's comments as a "keep" so that gives us a week consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie and the Automatics[edit]

Ernie and the Automatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notable members, but no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:57, 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) 00:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article is sloppily written but speedily kept. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal[edit]

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

Article was last nominated in August on the basis that the term itself was an inconsistently-used neologism that has passed out of favor. The article itself was quite poor at the time of its last nomination, and has since worsened. Lacks any reliable, verified sources, full of original research, and is more often the subject of vandalism and spurious additions than legitimate edits. Same deal with the band list, which is filled with poorly-verified additions and edited by individuals who have refused to spend any time legitimately researching the musicians claimed within the supposed genre, and ignore research that shows that multiple bands were not, in fact, associated with the term. Multiple music critics and musicians associated with the term have agreed that it is a neologism. The archives are full of disagreement over what constitutes association with the term. Archives for millions of unconnected bands are filled with arguments over whether or not to associate that band with this term. Let's put this dog of an article to sleep and never discuss it again. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of nu metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Speedy keep Notable, widely used term. GripTheHusk (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some references establishing notability: a book, and a music news article from MTV and take your pick of news articles that use the phrase. Sancho 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. On what basis have you nominated this for deletion? I assume it is the claim that this article lacks reliable, verified sources. The other issues are not best resolved by deletion (vandalism, bad contributions, difficulty determining inclusion of musicians). The article talk page is the place to discuss and fix poor sourcing, bad contributions, and original research. Sancho 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion on talk, he nominated the article for deletion after consensus did not sway in his direction. It started as a content dispute, then ended up here. Landon1980 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and trout the nominator for wasting everyone's time. I may think nu metal sucks, but as a genre its as notable as thrash or prog metal (which don't suck). Umbralcorax (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Seriously? Obviously notable music genre, even if it flamed out. All other concerns are requests for clean-up, not deletion. Resolute 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The genre is played by a thick amount of notable bands, including mainstream bands. It isn't a silly umbrella term, either (not that that's a reason for deleting an article, though). BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is a mess, but AfD is not clean-up. Obviously not a neologism, as the term has been used in the mainstream music press for at least a decade. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is a notable sub-genre of 90's heavy metal. Portillo (talk) 08:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Selector (song)[edit]

Peace Selector (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence given that article subject meets requirements of WP:NALBUMS or WP:NSONGS. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yechida Satori (song). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:59, 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 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN in every way; no real cites. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" The musician, Adrian LG has already been deleted, makes no sense to keep this article.
  • Delete - I can't find a single source. Sorry. -CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:31, 23 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 Zompist.com. Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding delete !votes but not enough for a consensus to delete. Sound arguments for both keeping and redirecting. Consider this a "keep" closure combined with a personal editorial decision to redirect. No prejudice against undoing the redirect. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdurian language[edit]

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

The prod was removed. This is a fictional language, aka a constructed language, for which the only source is this website of the creator. I checked for sources and could find no reliable sources referring to it. Fences&Windows 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Fences&Windows 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect, can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. It is mentioned in Fictional_language#Internet-based_fictional_languages, so it can be redirected there. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, with the new information supplied it appears to have some notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Zompist.com - Michael J Swassing (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article contains not one but three different reliable, independent sources. Besides, everyone in the Internet conlanging community knows about the language. Subliminable (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) — Subliminable (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak delete The only mention in reliable sources I could find is this, and I do not think it is significant. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if only to stop somebody from dragging it out again - Pthag (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- it's clear that the people voting to delete, such as Fences and windows, haven't actually read the article. As the keeper pointed out, I have 3 independent, reliable sources, plus Rosenfelder's website, which while not independent is still reliable and authoritative. Granted, one of the sources is fiction, but even authors of fiction are expected to get their facts right. How many conlangs are notable enough to get mentioned in a novel written by someone other than the conlang's creator? As a matter of fact, a lot of conlangs for which somebody claimed there were no independent sources and put them up for AfD have since had independent sources, often from books, found -- Toki Pona, Lingua Franca Nova, Kēlen, etc. If the conlang is well-known enough, there will almost certainly be independent sources published somewhere. I've also seen Verdurian mentioned in some newspaper articles about Internet-based conlanging, much as Teonaht is often mentioned, although I can't find any in a search. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I did read it. Try to WP:AGF. I'm missing your independent, reliable sources. For the slow ones in the class, please spell out what they are and what they say about Verdurian. Oh, one of them is a minor reference in a fiction book. What are the other two? Fences&Windows 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other two:
  • [Inhabitants: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, Icon Group International, Inc., (C) 2008, p. 561.]
  • [Ethnoslavica: Johannes Reinhart, Tilmann Reuther, Gerhard Neweklowsky, (C) 2006, p. 213.] Wiwaxia (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icon Group International chucks together computer generated books; it's not a reliable source. What does the Ethnoslavica book actually say about Verdurian? Is it more than a passing reference? I also note the reference provided by PeteBleackley below, but there's still not substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fences&Windows 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reinhart et al. say: "Andere gelagert ist der Fall in der Grammatik des Verdurianishen und seiner Dialekte von Mark Rosenfelder aus Oak Park Illinois (www.zompist.com). Auch er benützt das Graphem (ř) in seiner Conlang lediglich als exotisch anmutende Wiedergabemöglichkeit von uvularem [R] wie." My German is not great, but I make that, "Another use [of the letter (r) with a diacritic] is in the language Verdurian and its dialects, created my Mark Rosenfelder of Oak Park Illinois. The grapheme (ř) is used in the conlang as an exotic-seeming rendition of the uvular [R]." As far as I can see, that is the only mention of Verdurian in the book. Cnilep (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. That Verdurian is one of the oldest and most significant internet-based conlangs is a fact that everybody with a remote interest in the subject knows. As for additional sources, here is a Polish article about constructed languages, in which an entire paragraph is dedicated to Verdurian. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zompist.com, with merger if necessary. Cnilep (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zompist.com. When it gets enough mention in reliable sources, it'll be put back up, if necessary. Until then a redirect is best.Drydic guy (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in the appendix to In the Land of Invented Languages by Arika Okrent here —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBleackley (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Okrent's inclusion criteria: I have only listed the projects that I mention in the text, along with a few other especially noteworthy or well-developed ones – languages that most of the highly regarded conlangers will have heard of. PeteBleackley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I take Okrent to mean that she lists on her web page the conlangs she discusses in her book. That book sounds like a better source. Does anyone have it, so that you may cite it on the Verdurian page? Cnilep (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I haven't posted here before, but I watch Verdurian and Wikipedia from www.spinnoff.com/zbb and want to vote Keep. There are enough reliable sources on Verdurian to write a short article, plus AfD is not cleanup. Also, has anyone checked the new book In the Land of Invented Languages for references to Verdurian? From what I hear the author is really in the know about conlangs. Xeroderma Pigmentosum (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable, made up language. Unlike Tolkien, this guy has not millions of his books sold. Kitty555 (talk) 08:03, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acmetal[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP with no reason given (and somehow stupidly re-prodded again one month later. I need a vacation or something). My reasoning stands: Per WP:NOT#NEWS, appears to be a one-time event, no significant coverage in reliable sources indicating otherwise, Google News doesn't indicate any further and recent usage for this neologism. MLauba (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of this article is not an event. There are a good few reliable articles covering this [59][60][61] --neon white talk 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The coining of the term and its usage is, however, a one-time event. MLauba (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a encyclopaedia article about a subject, in this case a proposed new currency, not about a "term and its usage". The subject is, as Neon white stated, not an event. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 16 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 00:18, 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 no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion besides the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. Article has been tagged for context, sourcing, and expantion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African music machine[edit]

African music machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete apparently non-notable product ? Hard to tell by context what this is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think they're a band from the 70s. Quantpole (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, indeed. And the band's AllMusic entry, written by Steve Huey, can be found here. An article by Dan Phillips, former presenter of the radio show New Orleans: Under The Influence, about the AMM can be found here. I've no preference on deleting or keeping, since this article, as it stands right now, lacks context for even identifying the subject. (I only identified it using additional context supplied by Quantpole above, which isn't in the article.) Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never Wanted to Dance[edit]

Never Wanted to Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only charted on sales charts, never entered singles charts. Permanent stub, minimal sources at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reaching #1 on the sales chart is good enough for notability, even if radio play was limited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 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 00:16, 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. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Zlotowitz[edit]

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

Ira Zlotowitz is not notable. The article seems to be an advert for his real estate software Joe407 (talk) 07:38, 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 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I dislike the wording of the nomination, none of the claims to notability within the article (being the son of a not-particularly-well-known rabbi, running a real estate web site, or having authored a real estate software program) rise to the level that really merits an article. The lack of substantial sources doesn't help, either. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. The version I read was apparently different than the version nommed, so no advertising now, but definitely not notable. لennavecia 15:47, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hamilton[edit]

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

I know this has only just been created, but I am uncomfortable with an unsourced BLP about someone who has served in the military. I had a quick look for sources but couldn't find anything about this particular person (it's a popular names so searching is hard but "Alan Hamilton" comacchio didn't some up with anything [62]). I would have put this as a speedy but I don't think any apply. Quantpole (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability; can be recreated if a book is truly forthcoming and is eventually printed. JJL (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no searches turned up anything useful. Only assertion of notability is a rumor of a book. Until the book comes out and the information is verified the article does not belong. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:BIO or WP:RS. Cheers, Abraham (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications that WP:BIO is met, and I agree with the nominators BLP concerns - either this is a hoax or someone is naming a member of the British special forces, which is legally problematic Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the arguments made above. The article has no references whatsoever, which violates the rules regarding biographies of living people. Also the article only vaguely points to the subject's notability, largely relying upon a book that may be published in the future. To me that seems like the article may be being used to promote the book. There are also the possibilities of a legal issue, as raised by Nick above. Therefore I think that the safest bet is to delete. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article reminds me very much of Alan Macwraith... Fail Deadly (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Even the promise of an upcoming book falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 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. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-enterprise[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage of one of their products is not the same as coverage of the company, and even if it was there are not enough third-party refs to pass. Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 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 00:21, 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 00:04, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BDK Movie Show[edit]

BDK Movie Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio show. The only information I can find on it are blogs and self promotion. I also can not confirm that host listed in the same as the person we already have an article on. Ridernyc (talk) 09:03, 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) 00:01, 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Panati[edit]

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

Author wrote a self-agrandizing page about himself and his work. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discuss : I guess if he could get references for any of his claims it

may make notability and be an interesting story but as written it is hard to know which of the factual claims are accurate. Encyclopedic is another issue as many claims seem to be trivial or gossip oriented- these could add interest to an otherwise good article but that may be all there is once verification is required. And, sure there is a lot of puffery.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:06, 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) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability definitely met. Article needs trimming of puffery, but not deletion. Keep. DS (talk) 23:34, 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 no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough "keep" !votes to establish a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 Ball Aitken[edit]

8 Ball Aitken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims a couple chart singles, but according to discussion at Talk:2009 in country music and WP:BADCHARTS, the Aussie country charts don't count. The sources are either primary or trivial mentions, and no non-trivial mentions were found. Claims notability with a couple awards which do not appear to be from major associations (almost no hits for either association!); claims a couple albums but they're on non notable labels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:16, 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, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Mixon[edit]

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

No non-trivial sources found besides the one Orlando Sentinel article. I refuse to believe that x number of roles = notability when there're no sources. Best I could find was one-line mentions of her. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I found a mention (granted still a one-line sort) of another performance role and added it, and therefore I believe that while this article is certainly still a stub, she meets the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" --Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 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, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant role in Eastbound & Down. JJL (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability guidelines with significant roles in several movies.  The Steve  05:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight/OOIOO[edit]

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

I believe that under the albums guideline, this could have the soundtrack merged into the main OOIOO article and be deleted without loss of content. That article is short, and no indication is given that this album is notable on its own (a search for the album's name yields nothing on GNews and almost exclusively download links or entries in lists of what the band has produced). It does not appear to have charted in any way, or even generated English-language reviews. Tyrenon (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now has allmusic review in article. Why is this article at Eight/OOIOO instead of something like OOIOO (album)? KRS release has nothing on the cd or packaging to suggest "Eight" has anything to do with the title (Where does soundtrack come into it? Reviews do not need to be in English. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When creating the article, I used the name Eight/OOIOO from the main OOIOO page. After further research, it appears that "Eight" is the Japanese title, and "OOIOO" is the US title. Source:Amazon.com Maybe just a title change is required? If so, I am unsure how to do that. (Sorry for any improper etiquette, this is my first "Articles for deletion" submission.) kgarr (talk) 14:37, 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) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added references confirming that the album has a was titled "Eight" in Japan and retitled as a self-titled album in the US. As for the mentioning of the soundtrack, I am unaware of any relationship between this album and a soundtrack. kgarr (ARTICLE CREATOR) (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, asserts notability quite nicely with added sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename because it's a subpage at the moment and I'm pretty sure there's a rule against that in the main article space. (The slash makes it a subpage.) Ought to be called Eight (OOIOO).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with slashes in article titles. Nip/Tuck uses one, and it's clearly not a subpage of Nip. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem is that the album is not titled "Eight/OOIOO," but rather the album has two different names. I think the title of the article should be changed to "Eight (OOIOO Album)", since that was the title at the original Japanese release. The US title, "OOIOO," could then be mentioned in the article. kgarr (ARTICLE CREATOR) (talk) 20:02, 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 - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ocker[edit]

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

Dicdef already included in wikipedia. The concept itself isn't particularly encyclopedic —Felix the Cassowary 12:07, 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) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Mattinbgn. JJL (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it mate ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given above. The article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete it in and of itself. Ohms law (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_16&oldid=1142644496"