Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 20

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to International_Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu_Federation#Federations. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

While I'm sure they are a fine group of people, the Federation fails WP:ORG. Using the entire name "Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" (since all the words in it are common enough) yields a total of 35 ghits. Most of them are mentions in forums, blogs, sites related to the org or mirros of wikipedia. No hits on gnews. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International_Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu_Federation#Federations, where the name appears (and de-link there). JJL (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JJL, definitely fails WP:ORG but a redirect could be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:18, 27 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. Note to Rlendog: The articles you refer to are not under discussion here and would need to be nominated seperately. Sandstein 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Hewitt rivalry

This article is not notable and is part of a recent proliferation of these unnotable rivalry pages. Chidel (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furher information: here's the list of more "rivalries" to come. NVO (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, a list of matches two individuals played against each other! I'm convinced that this makes a notable rivalry!! Wait, no I'm not. Reso lute 02:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with any other article, the question is whether the subject is notable. The Federer–Nadal rivalry is demonstrably notable. On the other hand, Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt is not. According to the article, they've only met in two finals, with the 2004 U.S. Open being the more notable of the two. It's obvious where this project is going; suffice to say that multiple meetings are not a "rivalry". As a comparison, there are 16 individual NFL rivalry articles, 15 for the NBA, 19 for baseball... and 27 so far on this tennis project. Show some restraint, racketfans. Mandsford (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, your last point is an apples to oranges comparison. There are only 32 NFL teams, and 30 MLB, NBA and NHL teams. There are more tennis players in a single minor ATP/WTA event than that, so it is logical that there would be more rivalries. Your first point is where this article falls down, however. I wonder if the tennis project can demonstrate that a rivalry between Federer and Hewitt has recieved non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? Reso lute 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Federer–Hewitt rivalry may not be as notable as a Borg-Conners or a Sampras-Agassi or even a Becker-Edberg rivalry, but there are few sources that discuss Federer–Hewitt rivalry [1], [2], [3]. Salih (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford and others. Multiple matches, especially at the men's Top Ten level where everyone plays everyone else on a regular basis, does not a rivalry make. SpikeJones (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: expanding on NVO's comment above, we may need to consider AfD'ing many (but not all) of these rivalry pages as well. As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Do we need rivalry pages, there has been talk about a mass AfD procedure, but I haven't seen it come to fruition yet. SpikeJones (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed. The suggestion was put forth on the discussion page for quite some time. Some encouragement was given on the basis of much sourcing. I personally think there are enough reliable sources to create a Federer-Hewitt rivalry. They've met 23 times over the span of a decade. More than any other active player right now (correct me if I'm wrong), even more that Roddick. While only playing one final against each other in GrandSlams have played 2 semi-finals and 1 quarter finals. In the 1000 Masters, 1 Finals, 4 Semi-Finals and 2 Quarter Finals. And one Final and semi-finals for the TMC.

However, if those who are more learned than I seem to think that this article is not appropriate I accept its removal. Perhaps keep the pages seperate or unlinked to the Hewitt or Federer main articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTHER PAGES: Those are historic and should not be delete, but if they are I will work on prose in the next six to eight weeks to get the upto par. By the way, which one do you not think is a rivalry page that I created with the exception of one of the Becker-Wilander one because most met 20 something times and in multiple majors! I think you all need to go look at the Boston Globe slide show that I found before deletion of these on WP:Tennis, which I have not seen many of you all work on tennis related articles at all. Leave the rivalry pages upto the ones that know the project best, and activly follow the sport http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/tennis/gallery/08_25_06_greats/ http://us.open-tennis.com/greatest-rivalries-in-tennis! Do your freaking research people before you delete articles, which wikipedia say even you have to do before nominating them for deletion under WP:FAILN! TennisAuthority 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to take a look at WP:OWN. Reso lute 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully know the rule, I have always said that I dont own these and come up with proof before accusing people of things, PLEASE!TennisAuthority 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fight it out when my nicknames were deleted from the Federer page nope! I left it like the other person wanted! Did I keep on the debate long when my icons on pages were disputed for long, NOPE AGAIN! Did I dispute others when they changed the open championship courses navbox nope again three! I never claim to own, I only want to see good stuff added to wikipedia, and help fight ignorance in areas that I care about, which are Tennis, Golf, Politics, USA, and etc.!TennisAuthority 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you would consider introducing an assertion of notability into this article rather than complaining about how non-tennis people should leave the article to those that "know best". I am more than willing to change my position on the article, but not while it stands as nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Reso lute 21:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. TennisAuthority said "Those are historic and should not be deleted". I offer the following observations:

You requested that Borg–Vilas rivalry be speedily deleted.
You created Connors–Lendl rivalry on June 18th. Not exactly "historic" (being a recently created page), and entirely lacking of "rivalry" information.
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Individual_Links you have listed a large number of other rivalry pages you created on June 18th.

As stated above, you need to define what "rivalry" means. Merely playing another player multiple times is not a rivalry. As such, I am going to tag all those June 18th-created rivalry pages for AfD. SpikeJones (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By The Way: It's kind of hard to find sources on the web on many of these rivalries, which makes it hard to add detail like prose, so I will have to invest in time to find some books, encyclopedia's like Bud Collins in order to make these notable! It will cost me money, but I want to fight stupidity one step at a time on here! Federer-Nadal, Agassi-Sampras, and the Williams' Sisters are not the only rivalries because they are current and have easily accessible articles on them!TennisAuthority 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You will be well served by answering the questions that are being raised, rather than accusing other editors of stupidity.SpikeJones (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close the discussion Somebody other than the nominator added seven additional articles for consideration after the discussion started. In my opinion, that's disruptive. If the nominator had wanted to discuss eight articles, the nominator would have nominated eight articles. No wonder TennisAuthority is pissed off. So am I. Mandsford (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate All: I am nominating all of tennis rivalry pages for deletion until an appropriate policy can be achieved to substantiate these and all future rivalry pages!TennisAuthority 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Note: Discussion going on here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#All_RIvalry_Pages_must_be_deleted_or_kept.21 on the validity of all rivalry pages!TennisAuthority 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GO FORTH IN IGNORANCE! I HAVE LEFT WIKIPEDIA FOR GOOD! TENNISAUTHORITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, come back any time. You know, nobody enjoys seeing their article nominated for deletion, but it's happened to all of us. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. It's still one of the best things that ever happened to the Internet. Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. One "authority less", a dozen or so remains (see User_talk:Bluedogtn). NVO (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article tells me nothing about any "rivalry", just a list of results. As tournament seedings are done to keep top ranking players apart it is only inevitable that the top players will end up meeting, and if they are good then they will meet more than once. This list of results , and any like it, give me no insight to any actual rivalry, not do they meet notability standards. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Connors–Lendl rivalry - Not sure about the others, but the Connors-Lendl rivalry was very notable, with multiple Grand Slam finals and semifinal matches and lots of discussion during the 1980s. Rlendog (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
- Keep Evert-Navratilova rivalry
- Keep Lendl-McEnroe rivalry
- Keep Connors-McEnroe rivalry
- For the same reasons noted above for Connors–Lendl rivalry. There are probably other tagged items that link to here that should be kept as being very notable, and much more notable than Federer–Hewitt rivalry, but it is difficult to discuss them appropriately as they are not even listed in this AfD. Rlendog (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate collection of statistics. There is certainly scope for articles of this kind, but they need to establish notability and cited evidence of "rivalry". Tennis players play other tennis players all the time. It doesn't mean they share a rivalry and all we have to support existence of a 'rivalry' here is the opinion of the article creator. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:54, 26 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 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Children of The Law of One and the Lost Teachings of Atlantis

Entry for self-published crank occult/parapsychology book. Prod declined without comment. I can find some references to it through Google, but only from other crank books & sites. Needs either major rewrite or deletion, I prefer the latter. Hairhorn (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comment on the articles discussion page giving my argument, how did you not see it? I'll restate it here:

1) it is not occult or parapsychology, what is your source for this? or is labelling it like this a matter of your opinion?

2) it has ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers, is sold on Amazon and resold on many ebook selling websites, and the author's name gets over a million Google results - clearly many people have read it including Robert Watts the producer of Star Wars and Indiana Jones

3) I don't see how content or publication method are relevant to whether a book desrves a Wikipedia article or not, why is The Satanic Bible allowed an article? Many people have read this book therefore it should have a Wikipedia article

I find your ignoring of the discussion page and the labelling of this book as occult without any source very unprofessional, you have no basis for suggesting deletion of this article and frankly I'm a little offended that an article I put alot of effort into is considered unworthy because of the dislike of the it's content without even having read it.

-Words in sanskrit (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked only in the edit summary, where I would expect to see a de-prodding comment. Sorry for not seeing the talk page. As for your points: having an ISBN and being sold on Amazon establish nothing; it is still a self-published book, not that self-published books are forbidden from having entries. As for "occult", I can only base my opion on the online text, wich is available at http://www.atlantis.to/. Amazon's tags put it into "new age", "reincarnation", "science fiction", etc. I will concede that I am not the most sympathetic person when it comes to this sort of thing, but at a bare minimun the article needs independent sources to establish notability. There is no reason to take this personally (and no one around here is "professional", we are all amateurs). Hairhorn (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking it personally. New Age and Occult are very different, belief in reincarnation, meditation, etc. have nothing to do with black magic, devil worshipping, etc. Other than Amazon or Google I don't think there are any reputable independant sources for this book's notability as it is not sold in any chain bookstores so it can not be tracked by bestseller lists however I am writing a book and have researched the publishing industry and I continuously hear from many sources how incredibly difficult it is to get sold at chain bookstores and even if you do you have to sell the books at 40% of the sale price or less. As far as self publishing goes this book has been extremely succesful. Given that Wikipedia itself has become more popular than any published encyclopedia through being self published (per se) I think it would be fair to cut other succesful self published information mediums some slack. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we need plenty of sources for self-published books (which the Satanic Bible has), and this has no sources at all. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are a handful of GScholar [4] and Gbooks [5] hits, there's a lack of proper independant coverage. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially OR, "underground" NN book publish by a vanity press. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but there is a world of difference between vanity press and independant publishing, for one thing we don't know if it is print on demand or offset printing but even if it was print on demand it is very different from a vanity press. A vanity press is a press that publishes copies that you don't intened on selling or sell very few copies of, print on demand is when you actually intened on selling hundreds or thousands of copies but do not meet the minimum copy requirements of offset printing because you can't afford it. Please research the publishing industry more thoroughly before making such a claim, a vanity press book would never be sold on Amazon. Furthermore isn't "essentially" a weasel word? And how is this book underground if it's sold on Amazon? Your whole comment is "essentially" followed by a bunch of made up acusations with no basis, if anything should be deleted it's your comment. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazon selling it? Fine - but not an indicator of notability. They don't carry large stocks of the lesser known titles. They can advertise anything they can get on call-off. Commercial publishers have to be sure of sales. They can't afford to produce books and place them in countless retailers without being reasonably certain that the books are going to move. Yes, there is a difference between self-publishing and vanity. Vanity publishing is for people who really just want to see themselves in print. Self-publishing is usually for people who can't get commercially published, but think they have written an undiscovered bestseller. Usually, they are wrong. It can be for people who have a book on something of purely localised interest that has a limited market. OK, but that's not notable either. Ah yes, here we are. stores.lulu.com/thegoldenrule (I've taken the http bit off to avoid spam filtering here.) The 'storefront' for Windsor Hill. Definitely self-published via our old friends lulu.com. A sound enough outfit to work with, so far as I am aware, unlike some of the vanity publishers who can be rogues. But not an indicator of Wikipedia required notability. Peridon (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to restate that I am a wannabe author writing a book and I have read several books on independant publishing and I would like to tell you that the publshing process is about as effective at "quality control" as the music business. Just like how most artists and bands on the radio today aren't cream of the crop quality (to say the least) but rather what will sell the best to the most people, the same applies to authors. In christian publishing for example the major christian publishers almost exclusively publish books written by (or ghost written under the name of) already famous clergy, athletes, etc. rather than an unknown author with a good book. 99% of the books in a bookstore I would never want to buy, yes that also has to do with me being out of the intended market for them but it also has to do with the fact that mainstream books, whether fiction or non-fiction, aren't necessarily the best ones, just the ones that will grab peoples attention and sell well - a book cover industry rather and a book industry. Meanwhile the book in question has changed so many peoples lives in ways no book ever has before, other than the bible or equivelant scriptures. Why do user testimonials not count? Why does Google search results of an authors name not count? Why does so many online vendors (including the largest one of all) reselling the book not count? What independant source are you guys looking for exactly? I have yet to hear of an "independant best seller list", the closest things are Google and Amazon. Many thosuands of people have read this book, clearly a large chunk of those people enjoyed it more than most others books they have read, how does that not count as significance? Is Wikipedia just an echo chamber of things you can find anywhere else? The notability requirements page clearly was not wirtten with independant books in mind, yet lots of people read them and would want Wikipedia articles on the more popular ones, perhaps it's that requirement rather than this article that needs adjustment. This book is inarguably one of the most popular independant books, if this book doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article then what independant book does? -Words in sanskrit (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were verifiably one of the most popular independent books, that might help. But "arguably" doesn't cut it. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with testimonials is that they are not considered reliable info, being very easy to fix. Wikipedia doesn't even consider Wikipedia to be a suitable reference for this same reason. Also out are blogs, twitters, Myspace and so on. 'Inarguably'? Sorry, but WE'RE arguing. Independently published material can be notable - but you've got to follow the guidelines and produce the sort of evidence that's acceptable. And I've not seen any so far. Amazon will, so far as I can see, list anything legal so long as they don't have to carry stocks of it beyond a handful of copies - or may even list it on a call-off basis. The same goes for the other online sellers. If the book was on the shelves of Waterstones, I'd be more impressed. If it was actually selling from their shelves, I'd be even more impressed. OK, a lot of the books on their shelves are drivel. They are drivel that sells. If they didn't, they wouldn't be stocked in the first place, or would get remaindered quickly. Incidentally, I've found mentions of these titles (in non-referenceable sites) that conflict. Some refer to science fiction, some to 'spirituality'. As one who has read quite a bit of Atlantean and similar stuff - even wading through Churchward and Blavatsky - the mention of Atlantis suggests fringe occult. Not as large a market as it used to be, and somewhat discredited. However, if sales can be reliably proven, and independEnt sources cited, and the guidelines met, notability could be established nonetheless. Peridon (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the printed version of the book is distributed by a large distributor, whether a store accepts it or not is their individual choice but regardless the book can be sold at chain stores and local bookstores which I think qualifies as notability, it's not easy to get a distributor to accept your book and bookstores rely on the distributor as their first level filter. http://go.newleaf-dist.com/scripts/ps?TEMPLATE_SELLSHEET.PUBLIC~iact~handle=30513~Sid=VS%7CSEARCH.PUBLIC*VS144312*804~Vcs=1467758444849.6252 The book's website says they're also distributed by Ingram but the search function on the Ingram websites doesn't work for me reason for some reason. They also said they were a #7 bestseller in the US on some list I can't seem to find. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your second keep !vote as you only get one. (So do the rest of us.) Anything else has to be a Comment or such. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know, thank you for your help. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Can be'? But is it? 'Can be' does nothing for notability. Nor does a not accessible listing. Ingram's search works for me, but comes up with no result for the first half of the title (without quotes). Nor for the second half. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well now we're entering the realm of subjectivism, if a book is a sold at many respected bookstores - which is a very competitive market - that still doesn't count as it being notable? Is Wikipedia only for books on bestseller lists? The notability standards are vague and meant to be applied across many very different mediums with varying abundances of respected thrid party sources. These were specifics which the writers of the notability guidelines were seemingly not aware of. You can't write the same standards for independant books as you would for independant music even because there's many magazines and respected ezines that review independant music and count as respected thrid party sources, but as far as respected third party sources that review independant books I haven't heard of any, just non notable soruces like Amazon user reviews, personal websites, etc. Can you just cut this book some slack? There is no independant best seller list, there is no magazine for reviewing independant non-fiction books, clearly the notability guidelines can not be applied to independant non-fiction books. I have given you the closest things you will ever find to independant book notability. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on a side note this book was reviewed by "Venture Inward" the magainze of the Assosiation for Research and Enlightenment, the group with the legal rights to Edgar Cayce's readings. How do I give a link to a magazine article though? -Words in sanskrit (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find that the more desperate the promoter gets, and the more he/she tells us how to define notability, the less the article deserves to survive. (Original research, there, OK.) Subjectivism? You couldn't access Ingram. I could - with a negative result. Does that negative result mean the Ingram system isn't working, or does it mean that there is simply no listing there? Is that subjective? Is my comment about 'can be' subjective? 'Cut some slack'? This book may have more going for it than some of the utter drivel that people try to promote here, but so far as I can see it hasn't achieved enough BY WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES AND DEFINITIONS to merit an article. I for one don't regard a review by a Cayce oriented group as independEnt. I wouldn't regard a Donnelly oriented group as independent either. It is hard to establish notability for independent publications. I'm not denying it. The same goes for self-published music. A magazine may be cited by giving title and publication date, but often references not easily accessible may be discounted in these proceedings. I've checked out some that were completely fabricated by the poster. I'm not saying you would do that, but some might. Sorry if this has been thrown together - I've just had a long day at work and am out again early. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 25 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. Most of the keep "votes" fail to establish why it's notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth governments (Star Trek)

With due respect to the editors who developed this article, I don't think it is notable. It's completely unsourced except for one reference I added, and details completely minor in-universe trivia of the Star Trek franchise. Mostly it seems to be based on passing remarks about fictional countries made by the characters. I've placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, and on the talk page of the creator (User:Ritchy). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: If you have some ideas about how backstory details might be entered into Star Trek other than dialogue references, I am sure that the franchise would love to hear them. This is not a real-world argument, ignoring as it does the realities of the series' production. Anarchangel (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Depiction, for starters? These countries are trivial to Star Trek in general, and that's why these pieces of information come only from throwaway comments. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frag This is just trivial. The first section starts out with its supporting evidence two lines from one episode. It's full of synthesis, and I'm having a hard time believing this could ever be verified to secondary sources. If there's really some content people want, I would fold it over to the United Federation of Planets or Starfleet articles. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate summary article. Separate articles on some of these governments could concieivably be justified, but I'm not going to try to do that, because I think combination articles are much much better in cases like this. It's the compromise solution. They can all be sourced to specific places in the primary source. DGG (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With due respect, I don't think individual articles (e.g. United Kingdom (Star Trek)) would have any chance of existing on Wikipedia. The article is not a compromise solution. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a reasonable spin-out of a huge, notable topic. I don't see any evidence of a search for sources being made. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename merge to an Earth in Star Trek / Earth (Star Trek) article, and if such an article does not exist, rename the article. Earth in Star Trek is a topic of several non-fiction books, as such is notable. As it is different from Earth in real life, it should be separate. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I could see a possible merger into Earth in fiction, but~~ it would be better to talk about how Earth is represented within Star Trek, not listing fictional countries, and for that reason I think it should be deleted. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really original research and belongs on a Star Trek fan's blog, etc. not on WP, although everything about Star Trek is fun. Borock (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cruft, duplicated information already hosted at Memory Alpha, plus a lot of this is OR (read the entry on the UK!) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't get why content is "duplicated," affecting what we should cover, by being covered on an unrelated website somewhere else on the Internet. Of course it's somewhere else as well. We could blow up the encyclopedia without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge. --Kiz o r 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to this information being duplicated elsewhere, is an attempt/plea to rationalise this debate to some keepers who may become highly emotional at the prospect of this article being deleted (there's been a lot of Star Trek debates recently, due to the new film) and to show them that this information (for those who care to read it) will not being deleted from human existence, just Wikipedia :) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. --Kiz o r 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:. As the opening of the article states; "Most of these Earth governments are only mentioned in passing once or twice, and little is known of their history, geography, and politics, or of their rise and fall". In other words, an awful lot of trivia. I don't even think there's much to merge into other articles to be honest, it's just some plot reiteration. Alastairward (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable aspect of a long running and influential series. If you don't like it, then don't read it, there is no shortage of server space, and you won't find the article unless you go looking for it. Dream Focus 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOHARM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for a response to that argument. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft, completely unsourced and original research Knowitall (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSCRUFT. 'completely unsourced' is untrue. Show OR, please. Anarchangel (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unreferenced, the only reference is about the real life United States of Africa proposal. There are some external links, but they do not make the topic notable. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — very notable TV series background info. There are plenty of external links that should be references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk)
Delete. Fancruft, trivial, not notable. If Fuchs thinks this sources don't exist to sustain this, then they probably don't given how comprehensively he's slaved to improve various Star Trek articles. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor topic within the fictional universe (the Federation, Starfleet, etc. -- they matter within the series; "Earth governments" are insignificant) and entirely non-notable trivial in the real-world. No citations to third-party sources indicating critical commentary or that they're otherwise even acknowledged by the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Articles about fictional universes are not excluded from Wiki (see Narnia_(world). Not in itself a reason to keep, as per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just an argument against this intentional or unintentional wedge holding open the door to the similar, less equivocal and therefore more erroneous comment by Eusebeus below. Anarchangel (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/Merge Seems like Memory Alpha could make some use of this content, connecting as it does several of their existing articles. A limited merge -- to include items such as the quotation from Ron Moore -- to articles such as Earth in fiction#Star Trek and United Federation of Planets would certainly be in order as well. Powers ^T 12:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Unnotable topic from a purely fictional perspective with no assertion of real world significance. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not purely fictional; it does include references to production information, including a quotation. Powers ^T 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's only one reference, about the real-life proposed United States of Africa, which I added. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's at least one other one which is not a footnote. Powers ^T 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are external links, but only one reference. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, there is at least one other one besides the one you added. [6] is used to reference the statement about a reference to United Earth being deleted from a two-part episode of DS9. Powers ^T 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is such a hugely popular topic that I find it credible that 3rd party sources can be found. With the enormous interest, such spinouts are expected. This doesnt make it a fansite, or fancruft etc. The world is large place, the cyberworld even bigger. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable plotcrap. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:34, 26 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 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Breeding

Non-notable psychologist. One self published book, and 3 published by a very small niche publisher. Article created as anti-psychiatry coatrack. Ridernyc (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable FE college teacher. Suspect that this is an anti-ECT coatrack. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable scientologist who once taught at a community college and is, surprise!, opposed to mainstream psychiatry. Delete this biography and remove the related material from the Anti-psychiatry article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazoovirtuoso (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was originally wondering how everyone can be so sure that the article has been created on the basis of anti-psychiatry, since there are many mainstream people opposed to electroshock therapy these days and the article doesn't have a talk page yet. When looking at the anti-psychiatry article, it describes Breeding this way: "a controversial social critic of psychiatric practices who is closely allied with the Church of Scientology through its Citizens Commission for Human Rights." If he's so controversial, it seems there would be sources discussing these controversies and perhaps he does meet criteria for an article of his own. I suspect that he's not notable on any front since I couldn't find sources saying anything about him other than he received a Scientology award, but if so, the content of the linking article needs to be changed to reflect that.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

was not going to bring this up here but the article was created by a person who has a long history of pro-scientology, anti-psychiatry edits. Ridernyc (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient third-party sources here to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 18:48, 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 redirect to Bill (payment). Despite the...bizarre...nomination, this seems like a valid option. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone bill

I love you. Stevin speaks (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a novel reason for deletion. Huh? Anywhoo, delete or redirect to Bill (payment). Hairhorn (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Silly article, silly nomination. Stevin, are you going to ask her to marry you? There are more romantic places than Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is enough referenced Rirunmot (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre junk tacked on to a dicdef. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill (payment) per above. Nom's reason for deletion is non-existent/completely bizarre and incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean that this NN article should be spared. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill (payment) per Doc Strange and despite nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is WP:ILIKEIT a valid deletion rationale? Has it ever been used as a deletion rationale? I see it used for keep arguments, but not delete arguments. Anyway, merge with bill (payment). Nothing makes phone bills more notable than light bills, power bills, or bills for any other utility. Eauhomme (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ILIKEIT" and "IDONTLIKEIT" are criticisms of a statement made by someone else in favor of keeping or deleting, kind of like "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Essentially, these are a sanitized way of saying "You don't have a good reason, do you." Generally, WP:ILOVEYOU would not be a good reason for deletion, and I don't think there really is an editor named "Stevin speaks". I think there's someone out there having a lot of fun watching the discussion that followed a nonsensical nomination. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here, the nom's only activity has been related to the nomination of this page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect billinghurst (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill (payment) per WP:ILOVEYOU. And it's shameful that that's a redlink. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Absurd nomination. Note that the topic has massive notability as there are numerous books upon the topic such as this and that and so merits serious attention, not offhand dismissal. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 27 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. Keeper | 76 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in the StarCraft series

This article is unencyclopedic, since it consists entirely of in-universe plot summary. I assume the Starcraft Wiki already has this information. I think it qualifies as a list of minutia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had planned to redo this article, as I have with several other StarCraft articles, but I could never find the sources to properly do it up. I suppose we can let it go; any details of note are covered in the other articles, and the StarCraft wikia has this stuff covered more comprehensively than we do. -- Sabre (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the better way of covering things like this is a "World/Universe of [Series name]" a la World of Final Fantasy VIII. This minimizes the in-universe content and creates spaces to include possible conception/reception information. If this isn't possible since sources don't exist, then that's fine, but just to let to you know the possibility exists. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Sabre (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see there has been a good attempt at using citations here, but the sources don't go beyond the novelizations and game manuals. Without significant third-party sources, this subject falls outside of WP:GNG and WP:VGSCOPE. Marasmusine (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the above points and the lack of opportunities for merging/transwikiing, a straightforward delete. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marasmusine. Pretty straightforward failure of WP:VGSCOPE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a quality article. Think I read once Starcraft is the most popular computer game ever? The only point it seems to me to be close to failing on WP:VGSCOPE is point 5, but the individual settings just about seem brief enough. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's WP:V, too: the requirement that a subject has citations from reliable, third-party publications. Marasmusine (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that a different name would be preferable, but avoid at all costs 'World of Starcraft', for reasons I hope are obvious. Suggest 'The universe of the StarCraft series'. Anarchangel (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst these two keep comments are nice sentiments, editors would need secondary sources dealing explicitly locations from a real-world perspective to actually write an article. I never found any when I was doing the rewrites of various other StarCraft topics, nor when I had planned to redo this article. Without secondary sources dealing with the design and reception of this particular aspect of the franchise, any attempt to cleanup would be futile. Otherwise you're just left with the primary source plot repetition, the useful aspects of which are already covered in the articles on characters and species. -- Sabre (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all the relevant plot details are contained in the plot summaries for Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War. Nifboy (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The compromise solution to fictional elements is combination articles like this. It avoids the two extremes: multiple very small fansite-like articles on individual locations, and inadequate coverage by reduction to a bare list or to nothing, which has consistently been the eventual result of attempted merges to the main article. I have for some time now promoted the deletion and merging of former individual articles on location and other fictional elements & i hoped for the response that people would not attempt to delete the combined ones. There is no consensus that notability outside of a game is required for elements of the game. Attempts to say so have consistently failed on a general basis--hence this move to remove some of them by the chances of AfD. Obviously fiction has a fictional perspective, and articles about fiction will be about the fiction, though usually secondary sources can be found (of course, those wishing to delete these article normally reject any sources offered). I wish we could settle it, but this is the way to prevent any settlement and keep us here with these articles indefinitely. DGG (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't throw blanket compromise deals over everything, it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I don't really see why this has to override the core requirement for secondary sources. I've been looking for decent sources for this article for a long time in hopes of redoing it myself with some proper real-world information, as is the case with the other StarCraft fiction articles, but I've not found any. I've little reason to believe there are any out there, and that leaves us with a bunch of poorly written (some of it poorly written by me, I'm not an outside party in this article), in-universe material that doesn't make much sense to the general reader. Its not exactly like the information in this article isn't contained elsewhere in the other fiction articles anyway, as it only reguritates what happens to various factions and characters from the perspective of the locations. -- Sabre (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG has summerized this quite well. The nominator's concerns are best met through WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, do you know of any sources for cleaning it up? I don't, and I've been looking for at least a year. Saying "clean up is preferable to deletion" is all very well, but without the sources is utterly pointless. I'm immensely disappointed if this is the Article Rescue Squadron's idea of "rescuing" articles: all turning up in the same place to say "keep" but not presenting anything of actual use to article writers like myself. If given something to work with, I will be able to rewrite and improve the article myself, but so far this AfD's given nothing. -- Sabre (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as searching for the individual items on the list of Starcraft locations gets numerous hits on Google News and Google Books from which we could easily continue to build this article: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc. (at least one reliable news or book source exists for every item of the A and B locations; even “Starcraft“ and “locations“ gets book hits: see here). As the results demonstrate, these locations have multiple appearances and mentions in numerous reliable sources, which in itself is a sign of notability and absolutely a sign of verifiability. A thorough going through of these sources should be exhausted per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE in this case as no one can legitimately suggest that the subject is neither notable nor verifiable. Anyway, as a result of these sources already present in the article, and those that can still be added, the article clearly meets WP:VGSCOPE, WP:GNG, and WP:V. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably going to fall on deaf ears, but generic searches don't help, no matter how many entries they return. Some of the ones nearer the top are primary sources such as the novels, but most don't bear any relation to the locations, referring instead to boats, a car manufacturer and Emily Bronte. I need actual secondary sources that directly deal with the locations in StarCraft to write an article, not Google search pages with nothing useful on them, where you don't/can't even point to a specific source within those searches. There's not one source in any of those eight pages that I could use to write a proper, real-world perspective article on the fictional StarCraft locations. -- Sabre (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually many of the sources in those results deal directly with the specific locations on this list, which is why the sources are useful and why they can be used to write a proper spinoff or sub-article on this subject that helps illustrate a notable aspect of the game that is relevant to a large segment of our readers. The actual secondary sources found in those results, such as the numerous game reviews and previews are spot on topic, which is why there is no valid reason for deletion. Declaring reliable secondary sources to not be as such does not make that claim accurate just as showing someone a banana and having that person defiantly say, "Well, I don't see a banana" does not mean they are not really looking at one anyway. Clearly these items are covered in reliable secondary source (WP:V) and multiple ones at that (WP:N) and even as is the article is presented in a cohrent and organized and referenced fashion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Get off the idealisic inclusionist horse and come down to where actual article writing is involved. Saying "There's a banana" when there isn't, and when you've not even read that the crate contains pinapples doesn't help either. Nor does posting a bunch of searches and saying "there's plenty of sources" even vaguely help the article writer. Lets take one of those searches—they're pretty much all the same in content: with a few primary sources, a lot of rubbish and nothing useful. Lets take this one since its the longest, and lets go through all nine or so pages of sources:

Page 1:
1. Novel, primary source.
2. Official game guide, primary source. Deals with game strategies, not the fictional locations anyway.
3. Car manufacturer, irrelevant
4. Novel, primary source.
5. Game compilation, primary source
6. Official game guide, primary source
7. Car manufacturer, irrelevant
8. Car manufacturer, irrelevant
9. Novel, primary source
10. Novel, primary source
Page 2
1. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
2. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
3. Biography, irrelevant
4. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
5. Ah hah! Our first potentially useful source. Unfortunately, the only reference to StarCraft is in the context of the fog of war game mechanic, so irrelevant to this topic.
6. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
7. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
8. Something to do with a "Starcraft Corporation" in the energy industry, irrelevant
9. Our second potential source. This one deals with game strategy, not the fictional universe, so is again irrelevant.
10. A science magazine teaching star recognition, irrelevant.
Page 3
1. Article about blockbuster films, irrelvant.
2. Tent trailers, irrelevant.
3. Korean source dealing with StarCraft. The references are to multiplayer, with people playing from physically separate locations. Irrelevant.
4. Trival plug for StarCraft, locations are in this case referring to web locations.
5. Tent trailers, irrelevant.
6. Tent trailers, irrelevant.
7. Tent trailers, irrelevant.
8. Picked up because something on plant hardiness locations is above something on StarCraft custom map settings, irrelevant.
9. Use of StarCraft as an example of a "high-tech game", locations refers to stores. Irrelevant.
10. Car manufacturer and high-street locations, irrelevant
Page 4
1. Locations part of disclaimer for calendar events stating that these are "open to change". Irrelevant
2. Dictionary-esque reference to StarCraft character, no StarCraft locations involved. Irrelevant.
3. Dictionary-esque reference to StarCraft character, no StarCraft locations involved. Irrelevant.
4. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
5. "Buzz Aldrin became president of Starcraft Enterprises". Says it all really. Irrelevant.
6. Credit to a "STARCRAFT SERVICE, INC" in a novel, irrelevant
7. Aside mention of Blizzard's games, nothing concerning locations. Irrelevant.
8. A third potentially useful source. Deals with making of a variety of games. Unfortunately, contains nothing on locations.
9. The Encyclopedia of Cheap Travel. Absolutely nothing relevant to the game.
10. Refers to "Leechdoms, Wortcunning and StarCraft in Early England". Utterly irrelevant.
Page 5
1. Our forth potentially useful source. This one only states that another game had some stuff in common with StarCraft, but nothing on locations.
2. A how-to for playing StarCraft online. Irrelevant.
3. Player response times in StarCraft and music other games in real-time locations. Irrelevant
4. Deals with game strategy, not fictional locations, so irrelevant.
5. A lovely overview of the highways of Minnesota. Ruddy useless for nearly everything on this planet except Minnesota.
6. Science magazine, not related to game. Irrelevant.
7. Science magazine, not related to game. Irrelevant.
8. "A basic book collection for high schools", irrelevant.
9. Starcraft RVs for the countryside. Irrelevant.
10. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
Page 6
1. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
2. Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
3. Cars, irrelevant
4. Cars and highways, irrelevant
5. Dictionary-esque entry on locations in Sweden happens to be on same page as a description of a StarCraft item
6. A Plunkett Research, Inc report on Activision Blizzard. StarCraft only mentioned as product.
7. Starcraft RVs, irrelevant
8. "The Birth of the British B-film", irrelevant
9. Something about the defence of Japan from threat of Korea. Irrelevant
10. More cars, RVs, vehicles and irrelevant rubbish
Page 7
1. Architectural design that includes a Starcraft Boosters, Inc. Irrelevant
2. Starcraft RVs, irrelevant
3. "The IJC Menomonee River Watershed Study". You couldn't get more irrelevant if you tried.
4. Starcraft strategies used as example of teamwork. Irrelevant
5. A "Starcraft Aerospace, Inc", irrelevant
6. A "STARCRAFT RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS LIMITED", irrelevant
7. Something on computer-mediated interaction, but searches for StarCraft come up blank.
8. Fake ad in science magazine, irrelevant.
9. Novel, primary source
10. Win StarCraft in this competition! I'd rather have a decent secondary source.
Page 8
1. Dictionary-esque entries for StarCraft novels, irrelevant.
2. Alternate energy sources, irrelevant
3. Another irrelevant science magazine
4. "Arthurian legends on film and television‎", irrelevant
5. Dictionary-esque entries for StarCraft characters, irrelevant
6. StarCraft listed as one of Blizzard's games, irrelevant
7. "The Virginia Record Magazine", irrelevant
8. Dictionary-esque entry for StarCraft character, irrelevant
9. More Plunkett research material, irrelevant
10. Something on virtual communities, but nothing on StarCraft
Page 9
1. We finish on a fifth potentially useful source. This one only has a few aside references to a few StarCraft characters and some game strategies, not locations, so it too, like the preceding 8 pages, is irrelevant.

- - Grand total of useful secondary, reliable sources that meet requirements of WP:V for this particular topic? Zero. Nothing. Bugger all. Conclusion? Stop wasting people's time by posting generic search results without even going through them; simply typing something into a search engine and claiming that "this search contains plenty of reliable secondary sources that attest to notability!" just because it returns results—the fact that they're all false positives seemingly irrelevant—is most unproductive behaviour. The other searches fall foul of the same flaws; for that reason I'm not going to bother to list what's exactly wrong with each result here as well. If you have sources, post the sources directly, otherwise don't try to invent them with these ridiculous Google searches. In those eighty odd sources, only five might come in handy for writing game articles here, and none of them are remotely useful for writing about the fictional locations featured in the StarCraft series from a real-world perspective. I would like this article to stay. I would like to improve this article myself and push it towards GA (you may note that as such I've not registered a !vote in this discussion). But that is all dependent on the sources being there to do so. Only post sources that are actually workable to the article editors like myself, not these pitiful searches with diddly-squat in them. -- Sabre (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which just goes to show that we have clearly enough sources to justify inclusion and future improvement of this article and that this AfD is an unproductive waste of the community's time. Incivilly badgering everyone who wants to keep it is not going to persuade us otherwise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ....81 books of your search, only a minority of which are secondary sources actually dealing with StarCraft, with these few dealing with elements completely detached from the fictional locations. Which one of these sources from your search is actually a valid, reliable secondary source in your eyes to improve this article? The one on Minnesota highways? The one discussing Buzz Aldrin as the president of an unrelated company? The river watershed study? The encyclopedia of cheap travel? No secondary sources dealing with the topic under discussion is a very far cry from "clearly enough to justify inclusion and future improvement" unless you want to turn this into an article on the locations a Starcraft yacht is capable of sailing to. -- Sabre (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The published novels and strategy guides serve as reliable primary sources from the book search and the previews and reviews that verify these locations from the news searches serve as reliable secondary sources. Encyclopedias traditionally use a mixture of primary and secondary sources and for our purposes locations that appear in multiple games, novels, graphic novels, etc. and that are confirmed by secondary sources not to be hoaxes, libelous, etc. and are organized in a discriminate and coherent list are suitable per WP:LISTS. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have an insanely popular series, which features these locations in the games and well as the novels. Dream Focus 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. In reading the ininitial nomination, I was struck by the phrase "I assume the Starcraft Wiki already has this information". This is not Starcraft Wiki. This is Wikipedia. No assumption here. Then reading "I think it qualifies as a list of minutia", I'd have to opine that rather than "minutae", it is relevent information that in this format, is exactly as recommended by guideline. Wondering why such energy is spent to delete, I did a look over at WP:SAL which specifically states that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.". Further, WP:LSC states "list definitions should be based on reliable sources" (my emphsis). WP:LIST does not mandate that a list should prove itself with sources to be of equal notability than the parent... only that it should be based on the reliable sources (as found in the parent). That PARENT article has the notability and guideline allows the list as a type of Spinout... an offshoot of the parent. Guideline recognizes that notability for a list is not because of inheritance, as it is THE SAME as for the parent and acquired WITH the parent. The existing list follows the relevent guidelines very well. The parent meets WP:GNG, WP:N. THAT is the notability of the child list. List are an extension of the parent. If one wishes to re-interpret WP:LIST, it might be best to actually change it first. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where you're getting this idea of lists not requiring sources from; WP:LIST#Listed items states that lists are "encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." This is much more encyclopedic prose arranged in list format than a true list; it therefore very much needs to establish notability on its own to justify the significance of the locations of StarCraft, and not just rely on sources elsewhere which are likely mostly relevant to other aspects on the series. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All articles should indeed be referenced; fortunately, most of this list is indeed referenced. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary, game guide, non-notable. Sources above are not sufficient. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article concenrs a notable subject presented in a non-guide like fashion and with sufficient sourcing. Please be honest in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Way to big to fit into the main article. We break out portions of large articles all the time. For example The Simpsons is split in almost 25 articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of this sort are accepted practise as appendices for coverage of notable topics which are too large to easily cover in one article per WP:SIZE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 27 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) 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop folk

Not even sure what this article is trying to be. It looks like it started out being some sort of sub-genre of folk music. It then starts talking about Balkan music. Then there is a huge section on Muzika Mizrahit. Then a really long list of artists divided by country. The only section that has any sources is the Muzika Mizrahit which never mentions the term "pop folk" and already is covered in Mizrahi music Many of these regional forms of music already have there own articles for Laïka. Ridernyc (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long, rambling article that barely even addresses its subject, nothing relevant to merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no rationale for deletion. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Incomprehensibly written and poorly sourced synthesis and coatracking"? That's what I read from the rationale. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, poorly written is a reason for copyediting, not deletion. Poorly sourced is a reason to improve the sourcing, not delete. Over-empahsis on the Balkans is a reason for expansion, not deletion. Coatrack in this context seems to mean just that the article is mainly about the Balkans, which is fixable. "Synthesis" seems to mean lack of general sources--but the phrase is not all that easy a search term, so it might take manual searching in likely sources. DGG (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lost Fugitive.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-genre. I did some reference digging, but the use of this term is inconsistent and never explained. It'd explain why this was a semi-nonsensical ramble, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: It is a genre. Read the intro: "Pop folk is a music genre consisting of both pop music and folk music". And how is it never explained. It clearly states it consists of both pop music and folk music. And how is it a sem-nonsensical ramble? The article does need improvement but there is no reason to delete it yet.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at all those performers from all around the world.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

needs sources I can not find one that clearly describes this as a genre most articles also mention a form of music called Chalga, I'm trying to figure out if the are synonymous with each other. I'm sure there is a more appropriate term for this music which we probably already have an article on. Ridernyc (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also starting to realize that trying to describe any one thing as Balkan is a mistake since the Balkans incorporate so many different cultures. Seems this article would be way more appropriate if it was something like "Modern folk music in the Balkans" rather then trying to create an umbrella term for 20 different types of folk music. Ridernyc (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only copyediting that could be done on this longwinded piece of OR would be to cut it down to a stub. However, this is not a widely used term, even by subgenre standards, and who or what counts as pop folk is not well established (further, to the extent that it even exists as a subgenre, the preferred term seems to be "folk pop"). Hairhorn (talk) 21:35, 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. While a reasonable argument can be made that some sort of useful page could be created here, consensus seems to hold that this particular page is not it. It appears to be unsalvageable promotional text, and any encyclopedic article created here would be unlikely to use any part of it. ~ mazca ^talk 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ODAT

This page is a neologism I'm not familiar with, and neither is Google apparently. ODAT = One Deal At a Time. Brief history of which website coined the term, and then the entire article is filled with links to shopping sites. I cleaned up a little, and then realized it doesn't make sense. I would have suggested G-11, but it isn't exactly spam, it's more like a link directory, so I'm bringing it here. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious ODAT Edit required==

I agree with spaceman7. It is a disappointing page that should be deleted. I friend has contacted me from Backcountry.com and asked me for help. I believe that an intern at backcountry.com created the page as an honest effort to conform to Wikipedia guidelines while under the direction of backcountry.com employees who were sincere about making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do to help? Should the user who created the page delete it ans ask a wikipedia editor for help? --Petebertine (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Note I removed title formatting for the above post as it tends to cause problems with daily log pages. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest getting the page userfied to your space and bring it up to the required standards before getting the article out to main space with the necessary references etc. I'm not sure that I consider this notable enough since I haven't been able to find major primary references, but if you're able to get good primary refs/sources, I'm open to changing my opinion. Alternately, if you think you can do that on main space before the AfD closes, that's appropriate too. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-MaritFischer 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spaceman7 and Pete. Spaceman7, for introduction's sake, I am the Communications Manager at Backcountry.com.

I am truly sorry that the page has been deemed disappointing. Pete is correct, the intern that he mentioned, username Cmw0830, spent hours on this entry with an honest desire to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. She was a very diligent student, concerned with the rules, and meticulous in her effort to find sources and create links to outside sites wherever possible, (including to other ODAT sites that are completely unrelated in any way to Backcountry.com). Before she posted the entry, we did run it by Pete for his thoughts. We are all Wikipedia novices, and the rules really do run quite deep. We did not want to post something that would be inappropriate. Unfortunately, we obviously did not meet standards. Please accept our humble apology.

The term ODAT is relatively new (2006), and it was, in fact, coined by Dustin Robertson, the CMO of Backcountry.com, at the creation of SteepandCheap.com. It is also a business model for online sales on online stores, the links to which we, perhaps wrongly, thought a good idea to share. Our goal was to be as "encyclopedic" as possible (despite the recency of the coined term and the lack of tomes of external references aside from trade and consumer magazine articles and blog mentions), including the genesis of the acronym and the evolution of the business model. It seems to me, in reading the complaints against the page, that because the acronym is retail related, the information is not acceptable. I welcome any clarification on this point, as obviously, we are not experts here.

Out of curiosity, I checked the entry for BOGO, another marketing-related retail acronym. I've always wondered where this term originated. Interesting that when I Googled the term to find the origination, (since that information was not on Wikipedia), I found many more people like me who wanted to know, but no answers. It also seemed that a lot of them turned to Wikipedia for that exact information to no avail. Perhaps there is a non-saleslike way to relay this information about ODAT that would meet the community's standards? I welcome suggestions.

I have no emotional attachment to the entry as it appeared originally, or as it is now. If the edited version works for you and other members of the community, I would suggest that we leave it up and leave it at that. I would characterize this edited version as a stub, however. It would be a shame, and ironic, for it to be deleted now because it now is lacking enough information. If that is the consensus, however, we totally understand and we accept the decision.

One more thing. I am not sure why Cmw0830's page was deleted. Perhaps because of inactivity? That breaks my heart. She is a great girl, who worked really hard to do what she was advised as the "right thing" in terms of communicating on Wikipedia. She also just graduated from college and has been in Africa for two months on a service project, a great reason for not replying to comments or even visiting her page. I would hate for her to blacklisted for any reason, since she really was only trying to do good work and be of service.

The bottom line, Spaceman7, is we are totally willing to work with you or anyone else to make small edits to or change the very basic current (edited) entry for ODAT to allow for it to stay up. If that is not possible, we have no problem taking the post down. I just ask that you please recognize a willingness to learn and a desire to present valid information, and refrain from taking any further action on Wikipedia against Backcountry.com as a whole.

Thank you.

   -MaritFischer 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and edit I was asked to comment by the nom. This seems to be the abbreviation for two different things, "One Day at a Time", a well-established phrase in use in multiple therapeutic contexts, [www.geocities.com/theodatgroup/index.html ] , [www.odatonline.com], and which m should be dealt elsewhere with under the full title. (there is also a show and several songs with that title--the sitcom & one of the songs do have articles: One Day at a Time, One Day at a Time (song). This separate phrase, "One Deal at a Time" may also be important, but the term is used in other business-related contexts also, including some long before 2004 [15] --I don't think they could possible have gotten a valid trademark on either the phrase or the abbreviation & this article is therefore neither correct nor appropriate under this title--it should probably be moved to Backcountry.com and edited accordingly. The phrase might justify an article, but it would not be this one--it is mentioned as early as 1921 as being a common term. [16] When moved, the article needs to be de-spammed and some better refs looked for. Another editor decided to truncate the article to 1/0 its length to remove the spam , but I think that's inappropriate awhile it's at AfD, especially since he also removed the refs, inadequate though some of them were. I restored it. DGG (talk)
Keep but move per DGG. Perhaps dab? Bearian (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it a dab, wouldn't you think a delete and recreate would be better, just to get the history out? Based on the comments so far, my suggestion is to delete this page, create a dab in its place and any well-sourced content on this page be added to Backcountry.com until the topic becomes notable enough for its own page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be both a non-notable neologism and spam. Hairhorn (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's obvious (and the fluff refs confirm it) that ODAT is a neologism and a marketing gimmick. A web site sells stuff, and they do it one deal at a time. Sorry, but that is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for free promotions. There is no analysis comparing ODAT with anything, there is no review, it's just a buzzword. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 26 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. Notability is not inherited; and no sources were found to demonstrate any notability of his own. ~ mazca ^talk 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mothersbaugh, Sr.

Barely any content and no prospect for more. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless he's done something noteworthy not mentioned in the article, this is a classic case of notability not being inherited. Hairhorn (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find a single source verifying that this guy is real. Amusingly, google turns up mostly failed/empty searches. He seems nowhere near notability. Cazort (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters in Devo music videos#General Boy if the information in this article can be verified (the only claim to fame stated in the article is that the subject played General Boy in Devo music videos). If not, then delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be notable only for parenting Devo members. Notability isn't inherited. And as a bit part as General Boy....still non-notable to me. Not even sure the article on that character is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Zbar

DeleteReason. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Zbar is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicineDroliver (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are various websites that describe the skills and professionalism of Dr Zbar. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I found some sources; I would be curious as to your opinion based on the knowledge of these new sources, as I am still undecided. Cazort (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that article, Cazort. From WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable...". However the Metroactive News article is actually about the activities of Interplast, not about Dr Zbar. Part of the article includes an interview with Dr Zbar. This isn't enough to demonstrate notability of Dr Zbar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is only really one solid paragraph in that article about Zbar's actions himself; but he is being referenced as an expert in the rest of the interview, which I think counts for something. Overall though, it's not that one source but rather, the combination of all the sources. I still think this case is marginal, though. But the main point is, I haven't tried very hard to locate these sources. Are there more that others could find? Cazort (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning towards Weak Keep. I actually have found one pretty good source: [17]. He also seems to have authored some articles related to plastic surgery: [18]. Some of the articles have a relatively high volume of citations. Middle initial is I; many articles are under "R I Zbar". I recognize that this may not be enough to establish notability but I found this with little effort and I think there's a substantial possibility that this article could be salvageable with more effort. Not all plastic surgeons publish and certainly not all who do are cited as frequently, so this guy seems at a brief glance to stand out to me. Cazort (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some reliable and independent sources Rirunmot (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are? Please either add them to the article itself or drop a link here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He has an impressive publication record, but no more impressive than any academic physician. Hairhorn (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny as I actually was Ross' medical student in 1997 when he was a resident. He was a great guy, but he just isn't a figure of any particular standing in the field. People confuse being one of a number of authors on some paper with being an authority or figure of note. I feel strongly that inclusion of non-notables in my profession dilutes the relavence and standing of wikipediaDroliver (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia is only hurt when it includes material that is not verifiable in reliable sources. In my opinion, this is the whole point of WP:N. I think the fact that wikipedia includes people, including professors, who may not be viewed as the most important or influential in their field, is actually an asset and strength, giving it, in my eyes, greater credibility. But I agree that this case is marginal, I still haven't found quite enough sources--I just thought that others might be able to chip in and find a few sources because it was so easy for me to find the ones that I did. Cazort (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not notable as a plastic surgeon, but did fairly important work in genetics of hearing: 24 peer-reviewed papers in WebofScience, citations 51, 43, 42 , h-index 12. However, he was not the leading author in the work, the people responsible was the much more notable RJH SMITH and the very much more notable K FUKUSHIMA. It is difficult to evaluate basic research done in the early years of a career of this sort as notable unless the person goes on to establish an independent career as a researcher in the field. On the other hand, if the earlier work is independent and very important, then the subsequent career being less notable does not matter--but it would take much more important early work than this. DGG (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While perhaps slightly notable in his area it doesn't sound like he is notable in the field. Also, the page contains some patently false information (like he is the first to do outcome studies on medical humanitarian trips) and that makes me worried that its purpose is self promotional. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging by the article, subject is the most likable of the plastic surgeons recently listed for AFD, and the article does not have a promotional link to the subject's web site. However, with no secondary source analysis of contributions, the subject fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty adding a citation and so the subject is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single source is not sufficient to establish notability. It's basically only information regarding his work with the company presenting the information. No apparent coverage in reliable, third-party sources. لenna vecia 17:03, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Corporation

Reason Psikxas (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for deletion. I've left a message on the nominator's talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a real corporation named "TYRELL CORPORATION LIMITED": [19]. See also some of these hits: [20]. Even if the fictional corporation is more notable, I think it is a bit problematic for the main article to refer to a fictional corporation with the main name "Tyrell Corporation"; I would support a Move to Tyrell Corporation (Blade Runner) or something similar, if we decide to keep this page. Cazort (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero references which meet all of the following requirements:
1. Are independent of the company itself
2. Are reliable
3. Which substantially focus on this.
Please read WP:N. Something is only worthy of an article if it can be demonstrated that people outside of Wikipedia, and independent of the subject itself, have written extensively about it in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psikxas (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WHAAAA? This an an entry about a fictional corporation in a film. How do you expect to get sources "independent of the company itself"?? Or any kind of source beyond the film? Hairhorn (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there are quite a number of sources beyond the film. Put "Tyrell Corporation" into Google Books and discover the field of literary and film criticism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the lesson, but criticism can add little information about the company, since all information about the company is in the damn film, unless you're looking for something like "meaning" or "significance" of the company in the story, which is another matter entirely. Hairhorn (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - … but which is still "sources beyond the film". Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think both of us are waaay off topic. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, the existences, provenances, and depths of sources is very much on topic for AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reported by me but was my mistake from the beggining, please withdraw the nomination. Sorry Psikxas (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont support moving the article, keep it as it is till something new comes up here. We dont know if the "real" corporation Cazort found is notable enough and could be on wikipedia one day. 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the "real" corporation is not notable, I think it is problematic--people likely will type its name into the search box. If they arrive at a minimally-notable page on a fictional corporation where the title of the page doesn't make clear that it's fictional and/or associated with bladerunner...I dunno? I don't like that result. Cazort (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not listed correctly on the affected page. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because it's been withdrawn. Can someone close this, please? Hairhorn (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though this article does not provide any evidence that its subject matter is notable. There are a few essays out there such as the one written by Rodrigo Garcia Alvarado which suggest a good article could be written. This is probably one for the Article Rescue Squadron. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This makes no sense. The nominator withdrew his nomination for AfD. Why has this not been closed? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:51, 24 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. لenna vecia 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Steinbrech

Reason. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Steinbrech is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategies Droliver (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sigh Another plastic surgeon with no reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First two goolge hits are his office website and this wikipedia page. Does not pass notability standard.Fuzbaby (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary source analysis of contributions; fails WP:BIO. Cannot verify claim about "Consumers' Research Council of America" (it does not appear on the doctor's home web site, conveniently linked in the first sentence of the article). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 27 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. لenna vecia 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles K. Herman

Delete. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Herman is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the national research prize he won in 1998? If it's a notable prize, I would say he qualifies based on that.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well considering he was a medical student at the time, I call B.S. Honestly, those kind of descriptors are part & parcel of physicians bios to kind of self inflate for marketing to prospective patients. Droliver (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to back up his claims of accomplishment on his page. The medical center where he is chair of plastic surgery isn't even large enough to have its own wikipage, either. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS for author:"Charles K. Herman" gives 42 hits max cites 5. Does not make WP:Prof notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Some local stories in refs, but no secondary source analysis of contributions. There are thousands of surgeons with similar publications and promotional web sites, but they don't use Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 27 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. لenna vecia 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gentile

Non Notable. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Gentile is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategiesDroliver (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find an assertion of notability that met our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mention in Vogue and a cameo on tv doesn't get it. I'm sure he's very qualified, but that's his job. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything to back claims on page, and its only a cameo if you're famous in the first place. Second, article contains patently wrong promotional material (the part about being one of only 13 dual board certified surgeons). Fuzbaby (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Biophys (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just a promotion. No WP:RS mentions the subject; fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 27 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. Keepers point to his contribution to a frequently cited paper as evidence of notability, but there appears to be no reliable coverage about this guy, necessary for writing a biography. Flowerparty^☀ 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Charles Edwards

Deletenon notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Edwards is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicineDroliver (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In this case, his 7 publications from the basic science years are associated with some spectacular work: His most important publication "P57(kip2), a structurally distinct member of the p21(cip1) cdk inhibitor family, is a candidate tumor-suppressor gene" by Martsuka S, Edwards MC, BAI C, Parker S, Zhang PM, Baldini A, Harper JW, Ellledge SJ, in Genes and Development 9(6) 650-662 (1995) has been cited the remarkable number of 682 times according to Web of Science. The other papers of his have been cited 216, 154, 107, 75, 44, 41 times. DGG (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs more research. In the current state, the article documents the work of a professional whose work product results in publication in journals. This may or may not mean that the person mets the inclusion criteria. Need to look for other indications of the person having significant impact in their field. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Dr. Edwards is not first author (usually the one who does the work) or last author (the researcher who is the boss) on any of the publications. This MD's record is very thin to suggest notability of any sort.Droliver (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. His accomplishments seem pretty significant and can be verified. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps weak delete As noted, he is a co author on those papers, meaning anything from moderate to almost no contribution, yet the text attributes great discoveries to him. Right now it reads as a self promotion article, but that can be fixed if there is more evidence of notability. Also, is he the same person mentioned here [[21]] ?Fuzbaby (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work is clearly notable, as DGG has stated. Dream Focus 08:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea that all those cites were due to his work is certainly not true, Stephen J Elledge[22] is the one with the notability here, he was the corresponding author, senior author, lab head. Edwards is not a notable geneticist, or there'd be secondary sources to show. The article puffs up his work in the Elledge lab. He is definitely not notable as a plastic surgeon. Fences&Windows 23:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... is this the same Michael Charles Edwards, a surgeon also based in Texas and California who also studied Medicine at Baylor:[23]. He seems to have run into some trouble as of last month: "Restrictions: prohibited from engaging in the solo practice of medicine; shall abstain completely from alcohol & possession of controlled substances, this prohibition does not apply to medications lawfully prescribed to Dr. Edwards by another practitioner for a bona fide illness or condition; submit to biological fluid testing & continue with his psychotherapy treatment during the pendency of this order." Fences&Windows 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checking some of the refs shows that the subject has written some papers, but there is no available secondary source asserting the subject is notable. Some of the links appear to not mention the subject (instead, they discuss the topic allegedly associated with the subject). We read "working in a laboratory of a geneticist Stephen J. Elledge", and Elledge is notable, but notability is not inherited so there is no evidence that the subject is notable. Given the "cited...682 times" and the "discoveries and innovations" I find it remarkable that no secondary source is available, and I infer that the claims of the subject's involvement are not sustained. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 27 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. لenna vecia 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darrick E. Antell

Non notable Droliver (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) No disrespect intended, but Dr. Antell is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I determined that sun smoking and stress are harmful and cause premature aging long before this doctor did. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Droliver (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCitations for his 4 published scientific papers: 4, 3, 0, 0. Not notable, DGG (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that Dr. Antell meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. The published articles are the work product of his chosen career and not necessarily an indication that he is a significant presence in his field of work. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His "groundbreaking" article is hardly cited by anyone else, and two articles total hardly makes one noteworthy (I published twice in medical school!). Fuzbaby (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference for "ground-breaking work" is the paper itself (that is, no WP:RS mentions the paper, so fails WP:BIO). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Axelsson

Non notable author, has 3 books published by vanity presses. the single reference given in the article is to a photo caption of her appearing in a fashion show LuvGoldStar (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How on earth did this pass the last AFD? Absolutely no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Phil Bridger and DGG made up reasons to keep it, her relationship with somebody famous and the fact that one of her books was translated so the author of any book translated is inherently notable. In other words, the usual suspects. Drawn Some (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that no one bothered to add the citations identified in the last AfD. Just because the article isn't cited doesn't mean the subject isn't notable and that there aren't citations to sources with substantial coverage available. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They were added. Then they were removed again, not because they were unreliable (being, as they were, articles in DerWesten and Augsburger Allgemeine) but because they "not translated" into English. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Phil Bridger's so-called "made up reason" was that multiple independent sources documenting this person in depth existed. That's far from a made up reason. That's Wikipedia:Notability. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm very flattered to be credited with making up the general notability guideline, but I think, in fact, that that honour goes to Uncle G rather than me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Extremely non-notableDroliver (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...now waiting for the rescue squad to appear. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR (claim of fame) and whatever else it is someone is trying to claim notability for her for. Previous AFD's "keep" result was at odds with the actual votes, poor decision on closing admin's part. DreamGuy (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . That a Danish children's book isnt held in the US & Canada is not an sign on non-notability--a low worldCat result is irrelevant here. She also seems to be notable in other respects, though that was removed as poorly sourced. While removing the questionable sources, 3 good published articles in German on her were removed as well, so I re-added them as reviews of what seems to be her best known book. It is possible that they may source the removed material also--I need to read them more carefully. That they are not in English does not detract from them.

We see this sequence from time to time: Kept at AfD. Then someone deletes the references, and then deletes the text as unreferenced, and the stripped article is nominated again for deletion. I quote the edit summary from the person--not the nominator --who removed them "Remove articles which are not translated" [24] !! That a children's book book is translated into two languages is indeed reason to think it notable, since very few of them are, though it is not one of the formal criteria. And I see no evidence that the publisher is a vanity press. We don't need the rescue squad, we just need someone to keep away the vandals. I use that word deliberately for those who remove sourced information because the sources are not in English--it's among the more polite of the terms that come to mind I'm delighted that someone tries to denigrate me & Phil by calling us "usual suspects" for catching this sort of thing, that's just what we try to do. They missed UncleG, whom I claim as a comrade in such deeds.DGG (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that were referenced in the last AfD and, before the references were deleted, in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR despite what is said above. She may deserve a mention in Danish wikipedia but definitely not in English--AssegaiAli (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems there are quite a few non-English sources, although many don't appear to be online. That said, the online sources are reliable and non-trivial in their coverage, and seem sufficient to establish notability, both through her children's books and relationship with Prince Gustav. Plus she seems interesting in her own right. (Not a notability issue, but made researching her more fun). In regard to the nom's comments on her books, they don't seem to be vanity press at all, and her first book has been listed on the NSW Premier's Reading Challenge. - Bilby (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines as well as the specific guidelines for authors:

Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

   * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
   * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
   * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
   * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

We can try to make up all kinds of reasons to declare someone who is not notable (relationship with a famous person, having a children's book translated from Dutch to another language) but they are either notable or not. An occasional waiver of the notability guidelines is fine but it shouldn't become routine or they become meaningless. Drawn Some (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no need to have any waiver of notability guidelines when a subject has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Rather than selectively copy and paste stuff here from the guidelines please explain how the sources that I offered in the previous AfD and were deleted from the article do not amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I have made no claim that this person's relationship with a famous person, or that the translation of one of her books, makes her notable, only that (in case you didn't hear the first two times) significant coverage in independent reliable sources makes her notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the so-called "reviews" were removed because they aren't actually reviews. I firmly believe misrepresenting sources (whether through ignorance or not) is not something to take lightly. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have made no claim that the sources are "reviews". They are significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the article subject, which is what is needed for notability, whether reviews or other types of coverage. I would ask you to withdraw any accusation of misrepresentation unless you can provide evidence for it. The only misrepresentation I can see in this discussion is the assertion that I "made up" reasons to keep the article in the last AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where you talk about her relationship with someone gets "lots of coverage in the gossip columns" and here's the diff where DGG characterizes articles as "reviews" when they aren't and here's where DGG says it's notable because it's been translated even though libraries don't hold it. For general notability you need significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources for the topic of the article. The end. Drawn Some (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fair enough. However, she does have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, so all should be good. A few are used in the article, but I gather there are some really good (and extensive) offline ones as well, and I know of a few more not currently being used. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, someone needs to actually demonstrate significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources rather than just talking about it. Writing a book that gets translated doesn't make someone notable and neither does being mentioned in articles about children's reading programs or dating nobility. etc. Gossip columns by their nature aren't the sort of sources we should be using to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. Drawn Some (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's there, Drawn Some. That's the point--the coverage you ask for -- it is actually there. Read the article, read the uncensored earlier versions, read the 3 supporting articles in German reliable sources. Being discussed at length as the major topic of multiple articles in RSs is notability. General newspaper articles about authors are exactly the sort of thing we do most prefer to use for notability about people in general. I do not know why anyone would think otherwise. incidentally, I put them in reviews for convenience, but you are welcome to move them to references where they really go, and to add all the information from them. I should add to my previous list of ways to destroy an article, the method of asking for references, and then denying their importance or their relevance on whatever excuse will offer, including the most feeble of all, that they're in the wrong place in the article. They are even more than reviews, they are general articles about the individual and her work. Personally, I don't hold much by the General notability guideline if we can find something better, but for the majority of Wikipeidians here, who do go by it, sources are sources, and when there are RSs, Wikipedia keeps the article. DGG (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there significant in-depth coverage? I notice you won't actually say that. Did you read the articles? What do you assess them to be about? Are you seriously claiming that they discuss Carina Axelsson in-depth? Drawn Some (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and yes, they are sufficient to establish notability. This is specifically about her, talking about her background, this is about her and the award she instituted, and this one relates to her possible marriage. She's not horribly notable, and this is never going to be one of the more important entries in Wikipedia, but there's enough in the article now to meet WP:NOTE, (there wasn't when it was nom'ed), which is the primary concern, and it would seem that there is quite a bit of good material in RS's not currently used in the article. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those questions were directed at DGG who claims that trivial mentions in those supposed review articles somehow constitutes significant in-depth coverage. If you have in-depth coverage, Bilby, please add it to the article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hassles - they've been added. I agree that some of the other material was less valuable in terms of content, though. I supect there's a good destinction to be made between non-trivial coverage and useful coverage. But that's probably not a discussion for here. :) - 15:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources is now in the article - there is no requirement that this coverage must be in English. Significant is not "in depth" but as the notability guideline says "directly in detail" and I am confident that the foreign language sources do meet that requirement. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In detail" and "significant" mean and require "in depth". Trivial coverage doesn't establish notability. DreamGuy (talk)

DreamGuy is correct, the notability guidelines are quite clear, it must be both significant and in-depth. Drawn Some (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably just a semantic point but neither WP:N or WP:BIO talk about "in depth" and I have always taken "in depth" to mean there must be pages and pages of material on the subject of the article. "In detail" and significant I believe can be met by having several paragraphs as long as that content is specifically focused on the subject of the article which in this case I believe is met. Trivial coverage would be a sentence of two mentioning the article subject in passing. Tnis may be why we reach a different conclusion regarding this article. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider several paragraphs focused on the subject in detail in-depth, although it may lack breadth. Several reliable sources are needed. The problem here is the articles presented and labeled as reviews were not reviews and did not focus on the subject, they were only trivial mentions in articles with other subjects as the topic. The gossip columns are not reliable sources by their very nature--being gossip. Verifiability becomes an issue as well, a subject may have several sources providing significant in-depth coverage but much of the article may still be unverifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm seeing this similarly to Davewild, I believe. While the sourcing may not yet be enough to write a lengthy, comprehensive article about her, there is enough non-trivial coverage—for example, the multiple articles about her in Expressen; the articles Bilby points out above—to pass the general notability guideline. A gossip column in a major newspaper need not be dismissed out-of-hand as unreliable; there may be uncontentious material verifed (such as her career changes), and it's usually pretty clear what is merely a rumour. And I'm not seen any major breaches of WP:V or WP:BLP with the article as it currently stands. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The numerous sources demonstrate ample notability in several respects. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 27 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G3. In addition, ManiacalManatee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, as his only contributions have been to this article and the current deletion discussion. +An gr 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indecent verbal prostitute

This looks like a hoax, and a previous incarnation of it was speedily deleted under the G3 criterion because of it. The article creator says it is not a hoax; however, I have not been able to find anything on the sole reference in Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon.com, or WorldCat. I think someone is probably just playing with us. Instead of re-deleting speedily this time, I bring it to AfD to seek consensus. Ladyof Shalott 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsensical twaddle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify any of this. Cliff smith ^talk 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; not a hoax. ManiacalManatee (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the real references? Where is the full publication info for the book you say discusses this? It sounds like nonsense, and nobody else can verify this citation. Ladyof Shalott 17:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's references section. ManiacalManatee (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said full information. That's not there. Ladyof Shalott 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the references section again. As I have said, this is far from nonsense. ManiacalManatee (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've added a publisher, I have searched Columbia University Press. They return zero results for randall butts, ecks, and indecent verbal prostitute. Ladyof Shalott 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is very strange; when I search Columbia University Press, it works perfectly fine. ManiacalManatee (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 18:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and something somebody made up one day. Don't engage the author in discussion or you've been successfully trolled. Drawn Some (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take umbrage to your characterization of me as a "troll". These sorts of personal attacks reveal far more about the attacker than the attackee. ManiacalManatee (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax article with hoax reference. Hairhorn (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-hoax. Salih (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Steel Panther. Flowerparty^☀ 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Rocket

NN album, no significant charting history that I can find. roux 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart, no sources, band's own notability is thin. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Of course it didn't chart, it was a promotional free give-away. If you want a source check their deleted site on the internet archive - http://web.archive.org/web/20010411114456/www.dangerkittytheband.com/story/. The band's notability is "thin", yet these people are viewing the page, so clearly having their debut release (from 2 years prior to having any other recordings with a song that never appeared anywhere else) that led to the future of their career as a promoted recording artist is of viable use. Wikipedia's meant to be a massive archive or information and yet people want to delete useful content, it boggles the mind. NapalmFrost 03:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapalmFrost (talk • contribs)
Delete, per WP:NSONG. This is a borderline notable group, so it would be questionable whether their albums deserve articles or not. However our our notability guideline on this kind of release is clear: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis added). This is admittedly promotional, and apparently was not really covered in secondary sources, so it seems a pretty clear delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Steel Panther. This is certainly a plausible search term, and there is no reason not to include information on the song on the band's page. Cool3 (talk) 20:26, 27 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. Unanimously agreed to not meet the notability guidelines at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Woodall

Author doesn't appear to be notable. roux 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodall's works have been published by Jeremiah Press; whether this is a plus or a minus, I'm not deciding. DS (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's essentially a vanity press. They charge the authors for proofreading each page. I found one of his books available on Amazon.....ranks 1,639,688. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very nice man and a true Christian, but just not notable. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:N. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:52, 27 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 author's article was also deleted for a similarly-terminal complete lack of notability. With no merge target and no independent sources, the consensus is clearly to delete this too. ~ mazca ^talk 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet of Rain

Doesn't appear to be notable in any way. roux 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget William A. Woodall, the author. It's all about whether that company counts as a vanity press or what, I think. DS (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed him for deletion too. //roux 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable book by a non-notable author put out by a vanity press. Book isn't on Amazon. One of his other ones is, at #1,639,688. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on author. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a notable book. Merge is not necessary as the author's own page is likely headed for deletion per this AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:54, 27 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. لenna vecia 17:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Waltrip

Article is self promoting of someones plans, does not exactly following WP policies. //Melonite (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible A7 speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be notable someday, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not come close to meeting WP:BIO or anything else--AssegaiAli (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:02, 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. Whether or not Pravda is reliable, insufficient sources have been presented about this blogger to establish notability, as several !voters indicated. Cool3 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Mishin

Not WP:Notable. No reliable sources. Pravda is far from a reliable source. Borock (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm not convinced Pravda is any less reliable than any American big-city newspaper, particularly these days. However, the Pravda reference establishes his existence but not necessarilty his notability, so it may be moot. Hairhorn (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ORLY? See [25]. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, that article is not really presented as fact. You don't remember when every big-city US paper backed the Iraq war on flimsy fake evidence? Hairhorn (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable enough, or what he said is, that the Boston Herald posted his blog. Pravda may print all the crap we want to hear on its front page and be run by the little big man, but to establish its non-notability as a source, don't you have to provide some evidence from reliable sources that it is not reliable? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trusting the NY Times or the BBC is wise but trusting Pravda or the National Enquirer is foolish. That's the difference. Drawn Some (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Pravda.ru, which is what is quoted, not Pravda. I do know they're 2 different things, though. Which are you talking about? I looked online for information about Pravda.ru, and could not find much, but I did find it is used as a source in scholarly books on diverse subjects.[26] Again, how have you established that pravda is not reliable, if you are discussing the pravda used in the article. I did not think wikipedia allowed, "It's not reliable because I say so," any more than "It's reliable because I say so." Is the source reliable? Is the entire afd about this point only? If so, a requirement for evidence of unreliability is in order. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just read Pravda? The first couple of paragraphs explain the situation and pravda.ru speaks for itself (as well as for aliens from different planets). Drawn Some (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This not how reliable sources are decided on wikipedia, so your comment remains without value or point. Ditto continuing this exchange. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It isn't Pravda that is the question, it is the fact that all citations are opinions and therefore not reliable. Pravda may speak for itself and in the situation of claiming the subject to be a person "calimed by Pravda to have some attribute" Pravda would be a reliable source. Even absent that, Pravda may or may not be as "reliable" as CNN or "The Plain Truth" or a Marxist news letter but the point is not material. Delete in absence of even prima facia notability.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I have heard of this man; I cannot see that there are sufficient sources to establish his notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no good sources about this blogger. A coatrack for a NN fringe theory.Bearian (talk) 18:55, 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 G4 and salt by Golbez, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Warady Group

Recreated YET AGAIN as per last nominations. TheLastStandOfPie (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Joel Warady Group is the chief marketing company for several notable brands including Enjoy Life Foods (the market leader for Gluten and Allergen-Free foods), Mirage Oral Care (UK brand) and is the chief strategist for Tula Foods (an emerging market leader for whey-protein based yogurt). The company is fairly small and PRIVATELY HELD, which would explain why there are few articles written soley about the Joel Warady Group. Joel Warady, the owner, is the brand itself. He is an extension of the company!!!! K.duan2010 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an unusual spam bot if it automaticly enters the page during creation but it will have little effect on the discision of its fate. TheLastStandOfPie (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Speedy Delete G11, G4, A7 and Salt. We just had an AfD close less than ten hours ago and the page has been recreated pretty much a replica of that, which itself was a replica of the page AfDed in February. Unusual number of SPAs, both directions, creation and nomination of this page too. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone needs to simply report this as abuse as AN/I. It has been through AFD twice now, there is no reason for it to vet the same process ad infinitum when these SPAs keep recreating the article. I will do so. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:33, 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 no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAS syndrome

Tagged for RS sources (ha ha, I'm so funny) since November 2007, but the only sources are from newsgroups and other unreliable sources. I think it's time for this to be listed at the AFD deletion list of articles that are to be deleted. Only sources that turned up in the last AFD were New Scientist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the New Scientist an unreliable source or something? I'm inclined to keep. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's just only one source. The rest of the "sources" I've found are unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you haven't looked hard enough. Bryan A. Garner's The Oxford dictionary of American usage and style (ISBN 9780195135084) documents redundant acronyms such as "UPC code", "ATM machine", and "HIV virus" on page 2. Yes, that's Bryan A. Garner. David Salomon, Giovanni Motta, and David Bryant have something to say on this subject on page 18 of ISBN 9781846286025. Jacques Vallée certainly buys into the notion of a "Redundant Acronym Syndrome", accusing Doug Engelbart of being afflicted with it on page 50 of ISBN 9781571743695. Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, documents "PIN number", "VIN number", and "UPC code" as common errors in English usage on page 158 of his book, Common errors in English usage (ISBN 9781887902892). Michael Sheehan (this one), in Words to the Wise (ISBN 9780966531688), adds "SAT test" and "CPI index" to the list of redundant acronyms. Yes, people outside of Usenet have noticed that some acronyms and initialisms are used redundantly, and have written about it. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The expression is not notable enough to be in the WP encyclopedia. However the general information (it was an interesting read) could be merged with articles on related topics.Borock (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is a rationale for merger, for which the correct boldfaced word is "Merge". Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A common mistake in English, but this is just a jokey term for it that has not caught on. Hairhorn (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, of course, that it has, as can be seen above. And even if Jacques Vallée didn't exist, your argument is about the title, which is a problem fixable with the page move tool, not the article. It doesn't take all that much imagination to think of redundant acronym as an alternative title, for a world lacking Jacques Vallée. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that this entry is both about both the name and the phenomenon (also, the phenomenon isn't that noteworthy,.... and "redundant acronym" isn't an entirely accurate term for it, it's not the acronym that's redundant it's the usage. Anywhooo....) Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read the point made again. You haven't grasped it. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources, found through this Google News search, include at least a little discussion of the term in The York Dispatch, the Windsor Star, and Electronics Weekly. In my library database, I also found a brief discussion about it in The Times (Dec 6, 2002, p. 41). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. Although usenet and email groups are not reliable sources, the New Scientist and other news media are. The article currently cites the Windsor Star; additional sources such as those mentioned by Paul Erik and Uncle G, above, should be added. Cnilep (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Cnilep (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge, most likely to tautology, as suggested by Chris Cunningham (below). The phenomenon is certainly talked about, but the term "RAS Syndrome" isn't, at least beyond the New Scientist (who created it) and Windsor Star (who report that the New Scientist created it). If the other sources (such as Electronics Weekly, cited above) are added with something more concrete using the term RAS Syndrome to talk about the phenomenon then I'll change to a Keep, but if the RfD goes in that direction then I hope the article would get Userfied or Merged rather than actually deleted, as the phenomenon is undoubtedly notable. ClickRick (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: With the exception of Garner, the LINGUIST List, and uk.games.video.dreamcast, all of the current references use the phrase "RAS syndrome". (That last source seems problematic as a RS, by the way.) Cnilep (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Names can be fixed by ordinary application of the page move tool, that you yourself, like every other editor with an account, have. This discussion is an AFD discussion, and Articles for deletion is, as the name states, about whether an administrator should use the deletion tool, and the application of deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I had been aware of an alternative name for the phenomenon and had reliable sources to back it up then I would have suggested it. As it is, I only knew of the name PIN Number syndrome and that was only through usenet, so that failed the WP:RS test. I note that other sources have now been added but will need to verify them before I can change my reply. ClickRick (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable phenomenon, with no more common name than that proposed by New Scientist. Powers ^T 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should improve sourcing and expand notable subjects, not delete them. For proof of notability, see Uncle G's comments above. If the article's title "RAS Syndrome" is not the most widespread term used to describe this phenomenon, then that should be discussed on the talk page, and the article moved, not deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What I am saying is that the phenomenon is well-enough known, but that there is not yet a commonly-used term for it. RAS Syndrome was invented by New Scientist, and PNS (PIN Number Syndrome) has been used informally for a while (e.g. backbytes, Computing, 26 April 2006), but there just aren't enough references to support either of those terms, or any other, unless the ones added by Cnilep check out. ClickRick (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are issues that happen often. A possible solution is to spell that out in the lede, there is not a widely accepted term for this but __ and __ are commonly used. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Endorse everything LinguistAtLarge says. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourcable, the issue of renaming does not need to be solved here. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to tautology; this is a mere instance of that subject and there's little more to be said. Simply saying "this is notable" isn't an argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed my vote (above) in line with this. The term RAS Syndrome is a neologism, and there is (as yet) no better-known term for it, meaning that there was no simple page move which would be any better. ClickRick (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entirely agree with LinguistAtLarge. DaveChild (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Horselover Frost (talk) 19:09, 26 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) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Alt (American musician)

No real notability asserted. Sources are allmusic directory listings and trivial mentions. Deprodded with assertation that he's released several albums, but none of them are major. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PRODder. I was unable to find anything beyond the two snippets already included in the article, the rest were music sites. There are apparently a couple of other people with the same name so that clouds the search numbers. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, and I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to prove notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with irony. Full disclosure: I actually own a CD by the subject of the article. But it seems a good guess that the original author[27] "GaryNWS" is actually Gary Alt himself... I guess that's a no no.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:30, 24 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 Move to Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape). No consensus to delete. Flowerparty^☀ 07:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beam me up Scotty

Mixtape with very little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; and besides, and certainly not as notable as the other use of "beam me up scotty". Fuzbaby (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article on the artist should be enough. Not one on every "mixtape" she does. I was also expecting it to be on the expression from Star Trek. Borock (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Beam me up, Scotty. DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DreamGuy, not notable, and I'll take the author's word that she is a "sexy vixen". Drawn Some (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
beam it up and spread its atoms over space (Delete)- I seriously wonder how people think mixtapes are so notable. If I put a bunch of songs together as a mixtape, can I create a wiki article about it? /end snark Umbralcorax (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell this old guy the difference between a mixtape and an album. (I read Mixtape and that clears it up a little. I guess a mixtape is an album where you don't pay the original artists.) Borock (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete history and redirect to Beam me up, Scotty per Dreamguy. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beam me up, Scotty per above. Doesn't appear to be a notable mixtape. Cliff smith ^talk 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - 99% of the time, mixtapes are non-notable. As stated on WP:NALBUMS, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This is probably the first case that I have run into a mixtape that actually does have coverage, I was surprised to see two references from MTV as well as two magazines. Especially for a mixtape that's pretty impressive. I'm calling this a "weak" keep because I don't feel that mixtapes really belong on Wikipedia at all, but this article does barely meet the stated requirements. -- Atama ^chat 22:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two MTV links are basically the same thing, it's just that one is video and the other is the written version. Datpiff.com is an unreliable source that basically just catalogs mixtapes. The allmusic link is to Minaj's biography—they haven't reviewed the mixtape, nor is it mentioned in the bio. The hiphopmusic.com link is to a blog post that consists of one paragraph about the release and a link to download it. No magazines are linked from the article. For an example of a mixtape that does pass WP:NALBUMS, see Mixtape Messiah 3. (Note the review in the New York Times.) TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beam me up, Scotty even if kept. If kept, move this article to Beam me up Scotty (mixtape). I have no opinion on whether or not article should be kept or not Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Beam me up, Scotty. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The mixtape has some reliable sources but they are good sources. Str8cash (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced ≠ Notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a weird AfD, because I'm certain most people thought they were coming here for something about Star Trek, not hip-hop. First off I would agree that, if kept, this should be moved to Beam me up Scotty (mixtape) and this should be a redirect to the famous phrase. I'm a major hip-hop head in addition to being a trekkie so let me weigh in here. First of all there's a problem with our guideline on albums, I would argue, in that by giving less weight to mixtapes it fails to recognize that they can often be quite important in hip-hop, at times more so than albums. I'd not heard of Minaj before, but she is a protege of the person who is undoubtedly, for better or for worse, the biggest rap star alive right now, Lil Wayne, and this was released on his quite notable Young Money Entertainment label. It includes guest appearances by extremely well-know people such as Lil Wayne, Busta Rhymes, Gucci Mane and Ron Browz. In addition to the couple of sources in the article, this mixtape has been mentioned (albeit briefly) by The Source and, unbelievably, the notoriously unhip New York Times (in a blog entry). There are a a ton of blog hits when one does an exact search on the album title and the artist's name, including full reviews like this. I understand the prejudice against blogs as sources, but we're really going to have to start getting over that, especially for pop culture items. So what I see here is an album (in hip-hop a mixtape often just means you rap over already-used beats and the production values are not nearly as good - for some artists, including Lil Wayne, their mixtapes are as eagerly awaited and well received as their studio albums) by a clearly notable up and coming artist, released on the label of the biggest star in the rap industry, and with some reasonable coverage in the blogosphere. I think that makes it notable enough to warrant an article, and I would hope the closing admin would consider relisting this since I'm bringing some new info to the table here toward the very end of the AfD period. I would also note that the many of the delete and redirect !votes above provide no rationale, and a couple are either admittedly snarky about mixtapes in general or confused about what they are. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Beam me up Scotty (mixtape) (or Beam me up Scotty (Nicki Minaj) - I have no particular preference), then redirect Beam me up Scotty to Beam me up, Scotty - Agree with what's been written above. --Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 27 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. Can be re-created once sufficient info is found and added. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the American Hamburger

Article is duplicate of Hamburger, with so limited differentiation between European/Australian/Canadian/etc and American burgers that page split is unnecessary. Content resides in original article, so no need for merge. SpikeJones (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a page to list the history of the American hamburger restaurant Tomticker5 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is the article's creator and main editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dull-witted duplicate with no potential to be anything more than that. It's as if I went to a restaurant and got served a burger with two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, and onion on a sesame seed bun. "Isn't this a Big Mac?" I'd ask. "No, although we bought it at McDonald's, there is one key difference-- it does NOT have pickles." Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia needs a separate page dedicated just to the U.S. origins of the hamburger and the restaurant Tomticker5 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why? Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Hamburger, though I do not think there will be much to merge, as the two appear to be identical. Splitting mike this is only appropriate where the original article is a long one. Does the Hamburger ultimately have a Hamburg origin (as the name implies)? If so something needs to be added to the target as to that. As far as I am aware, Hamburgers in UK are dervived from the American ones, so that anything on their history would properly be dealt with in a second history section in the main article, such as "spread beyond United States". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worth merging back into hamburger--RadioFan (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many pages on wikipedia that are lists of subjects with articles. There should be a page listing U.S. hamburger restaurants Tomticker5 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is a duplicate vote. Please only vote once. It would also be good to provide an explanation, rather than just a bold assertion that this is the case. You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The 'there are other pages' argument is not recommended. Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate info. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nothing worth merging to Hamburger. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tomticker5 did a yeoman's job on this article (that's a good thing!), but I must note in support of my delete comment that this new article does not add significantly to the encyclopedia. I hope the editor will add her/his efforts to improving the main article, Hamburger, which is in need of assistance. Geoff ^T ^C 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple entire books upon this topic such as The Hamburger: a history and The complete hamburger: The History of America's Favorite Sandwich which deal with the topic in a specifically American context. There is therefore not the slightest reason to delete this well-sourced article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 27 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 Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D. Flowerparty^☀ 00:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo C. Graphic

Unremarkable character that could easily be merged into the Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D article. magnius (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is for nominations to delete an article. The consensus at an AfD discussion can be to merge an article but the debate should originally focus on whether the article itself belongs here. Anyhow, I concur with your idea to merge even if this isn't how its normally discussed. (IAR) Them From Space 18:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to movie Best to try merging or redirecting before putting an article through AfD. But no harm no foul. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Sommer

Fails WP:AUTHOR (lacks recognition and wide citation by peers, recognized work or body of work, no indication of some new concept or theory), WP:PROFESSOR (No indication of any significant awards or significant society elections. There is some impact outside of academia with his fiction book but not what I'd call significant.), and WP:BIO (lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources). Google Scholar search brings up only 2 citations not authored by Sommer. Google news brings up a single hit, surprisingly low for an author. Not finding many reviews for the fiction book either. RadioFan (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The academic book is just a reprint of the theses--only 76 p. long; the papers are cited 6 times total--not nearly a notable academic yet; the single fiction book is held in zero libraries according to WorldCat, and I do not see any reviews. The Tower books sales rank is an unexplained anomaly. DGG (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His novel appears to be published through a vanity press: searching the internet reveals that there are two companies known as Tate Publishing. The one described in our Tate Publishing article is a reputable art publisher, but does not publish fiction. The other one requires authors to pay for their books to be published, not the model for any reputable publisher. So I don't think his writing passes WP:CREATIVE. Additionally, there is no evidence (citations etc) that his academic work has achieved any impact let alone enough of one to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the publisher is not exactly a vanity publisher in the same way as the worst of them, but claims to actually be selective. [28] I still have my strong doubts about anything they publish, but there does some to be a slight difference from the usual. The number of staff indicates they must actually be doing some work vbesides printing the books. [29]. DGG (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From their general information: "most unknown authors who fall into the single-digit percentage of authors receiving contracts from Tate Publishing will have a refundable, author-investment contract". This is a nice way of saying that authors pay to publish, which is the very definition of a vanity press. And they have been called out by name as a vanity press e.g. here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - adjuncts almost always fail WP:PROF. Publication of a thesis, by itself, is not enough; otherwise every grad student would be notable. I'd like to see a lot more to pass WP:CREATE. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To all of the above substantive reasons we can add: (1) Some of the notability claim here is actually WP:CRYSTAL "It is anticipated that the release of the prequel to The Manufactured Identity, The Grand Delusion, will be released in 2010". (2) Claims of notability with respect to science/medicine do not hold up. In particular, parts of his personal website (linked from article) imply he's an expert on Angelman syndrome, but he has evidently not authored a single peer-reviewed paper on this subject. Other areas of his notability claim may have similar problems. The layout of his website suggests it's primarily a vehicle to sell his novel. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 12:15, 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 List of parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Content will still be in the page histories if anyone wants to preform a merger. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic churches in Hawaii

(View AfD)

All of these church articles are microstubs with no sources and altogether without indications of notability. I would suggest a merge for these articles to the diocese article, but without any sources on any of these, there's nothing to merge. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. A "hide in plain sight" award to the author of all these articles, who avoided deletion for almost four years. This all seems to be part of a pet project in 2005 by an editor of longstanding. Apparently, it didn't open the door for thousands of articles about every church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc. in the world, but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about these individual Hawaiian church parishes. If any of them support a high school, then merge the detailed information to the school article and keep the redirecting entry on the parish list. Mandsford (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as Mandsford. This could be done as a tabular list, which would enable the information of the patron saints etc to be preserved. If any of them are particularly notable, an article can be re-created, but this must be as a substanive article, not a mere stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - information deserves to be included in Wikipedia, but most (all?) of these are not notable for their own articles. If any prove notable enough, they can always have their own articles if someone ever decides to write one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? None of these articles have any sources — there are other likely nonnotables in the same group, but I intentionally did not nominate them here — and there is nothing about high schools in any of them. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of merger, it seems like the obvious solution to me. We have an article about the Diocese of Honolulu; each of these articles is about a parish within that diocese. Our rule about communities does not extend to church parishes, any more so than it would to districts for Rotary International, so the parishes aren't entitled to their own individual article. I recognize that a merger would also result in 20 redirects, while a deletion would not. Ultimately, the end result is the same-- the 20 articles would be removed, and whatever information is worth salvaging can be mentioned in the article about the diocese. What goes in the diocese article is up to the last person who edits it. Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Changing my vote on further reconsideration. There is no reason that a non-notable church should have its own entry on Wikipedia, if it is serving only as a redirect. If they aren't already mentioned in the article about the diocese, there's time to do that before these are all deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Relevant information can be merged into the article on the diocese, if needed. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:IAR. The only issue here is copyright and the original G12 tagger says that's no longer a problem. This is almost the same as a withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Cattanach

Nominator is creator of the page. Page was tagged for copyright violations at 23:55, 19 June 2009. Page rewritten and edited to ensure compliance. However the speedy delete tag remains. Request for assistance at WP:ANI produced no response or result whatever, although User:Gwen Gale questioned the page in re WP:BIO. So page is submitted for review re both copyright compliance and notability as per "CSD section (A7) cited and it states that the criterion of importance (not even notability) "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." Respectfully submitted, [email protected] (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding notability, she is the subject of a portrait at the National Portrait Gallery [30]. Other than that, cannot find anything beyond the article. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost certainly notable, per rank/position, awards, and portrait at National Portrait Gallery. Don't see any significant copyright problems in current version, and any residual concerns should be easily fixable. Hqb (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable based on status from career and rank. Internet searches are not a good way to judge her significance do to the timing of her service. More information will be available with more in depth research. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Companion of the Order of the Bath, picture in the National Portrait Gallery and a senior position in British Army nursing. OK she didn't guest star in the Simpsons or play baseball but she's notable all the same. Nick mallory (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's highly unusual to nominate your own page, particularly with the goal of avoiding deletion. AfD means articles for deletion, not articles for discussion.... copyright issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is already a discussion there, admins will check the discussion before deleting. Hairhorn (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per FloNight. No opinion on whether there are any copyright issues which I have not had the time to look into. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyvio should be ok now. That aside, I'm not sure why the creator chose to nominate it here. - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like author is trying to head off another editor doing this. This debate about copyvio should be elsewhere. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was tagged for Speedy deletion, so the user brought the article here for discussion. In addition to copyright concerns, concerns about notability were raised. An Afd seems appropriate under these circumstances. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources can surely be found, for example a QARANC history by Juliet Piggott, published as a book at ISBN 0850521939, Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (Famous Regiments Series). The book came out in 1975 and can still be ordered from UK Amazon. I checked whether, as a WWII brigadier, she would qualify under WP:MILHIST's notability guide, but I don't think it's automatic. I could not find an obituary in the Times of London but it could still exist. A search for QARANC at the British Library gets five hits, including two books that might mention her. The Library had no relevant hits on 'Helen Cattanach' as such. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, her rank surely proves notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as the copyright problems have been taken care of and I assume they have. She is notable and the article should be kept. WTucker (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as nominator of original speedy). Looks like the copyvio problems have been dealt with. It would probably have been better to start the article off as a stub and then improve, rather than start as a copy and try and change it from there (it would also avoid the attentions of new pages patrollers)! Quantpole (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight sided scoreboard

Fails WP:SYNTH, there may be discussion of individual 8-sided scoreboards, but no independent sources cover the topic as a whole Citius Altius (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article content covered by article title. This would just turn into a list of eight-sided scoreboards, which serves no encyclopedia purpose. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't see how octagonal scoreboards are really that significant, completely aside from their nonnotability. Perhaps a one-line or two-line mention at scoreboard would be reasonable, but nothing here needs to be merged there. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable differentiation. SpikeJones (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At first glance, a particular variation in a scoreboard would probably not be worthy of its own article. On the other hand, there is some indication "eight+sided+scoreboard"&cf=all that the 8-sided board is a must-have for new arenas and for those that are upgrading, because, as the article notes, it allows a view from any seat in the house. Although these devices are personalized to fit the venue, there aren't that many variations in the boards. They either hang from the center of the ceiling with 4 or 8 sides, or there are one-sided boards that are placed at various locations. All the rest comes down to the amount of electronics used in the display. I don't see much difference between an article about a particular scoreboard or an article about a particular type of artificial turf in a stadium (i.e., Poly-Turf, Astroturf, FieldTurf etc. "Weak" keep because this is a weak article. Anyway, I recognize that this is a new contributor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on electronic scoreboards. Unless a reliable source discusses the eight-sided type in an in-depth way, which could happen. Borock (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Feinbaum

Appears to be hoax or non-notable, as the references are fake and I am unable to find reliable sources. One book cited as a source doesn't seem to exist, and of those that do exist there is at least one – Renegade: The Lives and Tales of Mark E. Smith – in which Feinbaum is not mentioned. snigbrook (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is definitely not a hoax. A Google search shows that there is such a person as Susanne Feibaum. Notability, however, is a different matter. Given claims that she is an "influential" "pioneer", the lack of web coverage is surprisingly sparse. Or not so surprisingly. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search found the video to the techno song she recorded ([31]), and there were website mentions to exhibitions of her work, so there is some notability there. The question appears more to be the validity of the sources (and can we be sure that one source "doesn't exist", as opposed to having just been published in such a limited number that it is unavailable?) Either way, I see the article clearly as not a hoax. Eauhomme (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything about exhibitions (where were the exhibitions?), also it's unlikely that a Google search finds no information about two of the books, or about their authors, particularly as one was published by a major publisher, and also that a search of the publisher's website also returns no results. A possible explanation is that the song and video were created, and that a Wikipedia article was created with a false assertion of notability so that it would avoid speedy deletion. snigbrook (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax Bullshit meter at 100. Check refs, the MIT Press book doesn't exist and neither does its author. Drawn Some (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a real person, just not a notable one for purposes of an encyclopedia. Nothing but passing references in the sources we can all verify, and the text of the article itself doesn't assert notability, rather merely existence. OfficeGirl (talk) 19:42, 25 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 rename to ACO Intercontinental Trophy, or somesuch. Keeper | 76 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Le Mans Series

The article is entirely speculative. The two news sources mention that an "Intercontinental Trophy" will be held next year, but that it will simply use existing races from the American Le Mans Series, Le Mans Series, and Asian Le Mans Series. The entire existance of a World Le Mans Series is speculated only by the author based on the fact that a trademark for "World Le Mans Series" exists, but there is no evidence of an actual series. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new championship will simply use existing races, as the article states. But it's no speculation that the ACO actually wants to launch a worldwide sports car racing series next year. That's why I created the article, and therefore I believe that it shouldn't be deleted.

One of the sources quoted "international trophy" with lower case, i.e. it used the phrase as a description of the championship rather than its official name. That's why I used "World Le Mans Series" as the article's name instead. If you prefer to change the name to "(ACO) International Trophy", then let's do it. But unless the ACO regrets and cancells the championship, I believe that we have enough facts now to keep the article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a massive difference between a "series", as in a full championship season, and a trophy for optional entries. The Citation Cup within the FIA GT Championship is a good example. There is no proof of a series, and as of yet, especially given the economic concerns and the fact that there's been almost no participation by teams in multiple series (Peugeot only) there's not even a guarentee that anyone will even take up the ACO's challenge. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as stands is OR - as far as I can see none of the sources link the proposed 'International Trophy' with the name 'World Le Mans Series'. Companies often trademark names just so they have them to hand if they need them, or to prevent others using them - their existence proves nothing. The article is also (necessarily) highly speculative, since nothing has actually happened yet. It's not exactly unusual for such ideas to fall through before they ever materialise. Russian Grand Prix (post-1914), anyone? Suggest delete until we are closer to the time, or if not, at least rename to 'ACO International Trophy'. 4u1e (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rename, as I said. But since the ACO may succeed in doing this trophy/championship/series/whatever, please move it to User:NaBUru38/World Le Mans Series or something like that if you end up wanting to remove the article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is clear that it is a proposed series, which is a critical distinction at this time. These are solid reliable sources that have reasonable quality to use in a featured article. When they print it's not original research. Royal broil 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, deletion would really only be because I question whether we really need an article on things that don't actually exist yet (and yes I would apply that to future seasons etc). However, that's my personal view, not a policy or guideline issue. I'm not contesting keeping it in the mainspace if others want to (and I guess NaBUry does, for one!). The name does need to change though, as none of the sources used connect that name to this series. 4u1e (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let's move the article to ACO International Trophy, ok? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 12:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@NaBUru: My mistake earlier: it needs to be ACO Intercontinental Trophy, since that is the title used in the sources. I've removed a couple of things that are OR from the article, but I'd be content with that, yes. 4u1e (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's fine with me- --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:55, 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The seven sorcerers

Contested WP:PROD. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (books), which says a book must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and the article should therefore be deleted. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL because multiple independent sources must have provided strong evidence that the book will be published. TheLeft orium 12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per additions made to the article by 121.216.221.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after nomination. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Otherwise, it is still a delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about shooting someone in the foot?

Who said anything about it being a book? It could be a movie script for all you know. And luxford already has a contract being written up for the first one :*It says specifically in the lead section. Please sign your post using ~~~~. Zoo Fari 12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that changing book for text and script changes nothing to the deletion rationale. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Shannon Luxford, the writer of the texts, I Currently have a deal written up and is currently being signed. This page will be back up soon as I annonce who is going to be the publisher (if boook) or director (if Moive). So It would be useless to delete since it will be back up in the coming months.Luxlow (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. We are not fortune tellers, so until then, it is a nono. Zoo Fari 13:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So roughly all the page would need is more ref's? is that it? i'll try and find some more on it but I dont think I'll fund any cause this has been under very confidentiality and only a few have seen the actual script for it. of an d by the way, it will become a book most likely due to it will be published in 2012 on the 13th of January.Luxlow (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability and failing the crystalball test. Assuming that User:Luxlow really is the author, her words only give more reason for deletion as a crystalball. No reason not to recreate if this is published and gains necessary sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am a Male, Nyttend and if it is through crystal ball, due to the fact it already has a release date, it would be coming out in consumers hands, though I might be independantly publishing rather than getting a large company toLuxlow (talk) 13:50, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (novel)

An article on a non notable self published book. Already contested at prod. A search on author and tile returns 19 unique GHits, including Wikipedia. None of these are in depth or reliable, hence notability cannot be established. Nuttah (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources suggest notability. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even though it does actaully come up with hits when you use and engine search, I think the best way is to upgrade or renew the site so it is a more reliable source.Though since it actual is for sale and in consumer hands, it should be kept up.Luxlow (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author does not yet meet our notability guidelines, but I respect his passion for his work and hope he has great satisfaction and success. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 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 no consensus. 2 deletes, 3 keeps, no strong evidence either way thus overall no consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Biggs

Mostly promotion (created by public relations company of which Biggs is a client). His most notable achievement seems to be winning a category in Wildlife photographer of the year. All winning, runner up and highly commended images in this competition are displayed in the Natural History Museum. Considering that only three of the overall winners of the 45 competitions have Wikipedia articles, this hardly makes the photographers of all of these noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia page. Similarly, having images used in an advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable. God Emperor (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Firstly, his success in the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year awards, his image displayed in the Natural History Museum and his work used by Banana Republic all point towards notability. Secondly, he has had press coverage, including in the Daily Mirror and the Independent. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) But there's some coverage so including it doesn't hurt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the claims made in the article mostly lack evidence or are unimpressive, but this article at the Independent does have some value. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Appears to be for advertisement, not encyclopedic. rmosler (talk) 06:23, 25 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) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Jamet

Non-notable. A few interviews on TV and contributions to collective books are a staple for a schloar. Delated of fr: by speedy deletion. Bokken | 木刀 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionnal remark : the article has been restored and re-deleted on fr: following a request by Jean-François himself. I happen to know him and told him what was happening. It seems the article was made by a relative who misinterpreted the notability guildelines on fr. I wonder if it could be grounds for a speedy deletion here. Here his him asking for the deletion. He also requested the debate being blanked out in order to avoid referencing by search engines. Bokken | 木刀 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteAccording to the full CV at [32], only 6 actual papers in journals, none covered by WoS, but it does a really lousy job on European social science in non-english journals. Scopus should do better, but it's down. I'll check later. The significance of the Schuman policy papers is unclear. They are not in WoS. DGG (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have not found enough notabilty. Also, I give weight to the subject's wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Seems to be of extremely marginal notability per our guidelines, and given that the subject requested deletion on the French Wiki (I'm in favor of generally honoring requests from marginally notable figures to delete their BLPs) I think this should be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 27 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) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Suck

No signs of notability. This search yielded some unreliable sources, 38 of which are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Alexius08 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WWW is not the only place to look for documentation of an 18th century composer.
Reliable sources for this person include Evelyn Rothwell's notes for this composer's Trio for oboe in C major, when she edited it in the 1960s; the entry for "Suck, Charles J." in The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians, which is on page 162 in the 1954 edition; and Bruce Haynes' Music for oboe, 1650-1800: a bibliography‎, which lists Suck's other trios (2 for oboe, 2 for flute, and 2 for violin, in total) in Suck's entry on page 313. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entry in Grove's is sufficient for notability . We are a superset of other selective encyclopedias, and they are certainly a RS. I accept their authority for what's worth covering, though we normally do less detail. DGG (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its entry in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Note also that when dealing with topics like these, it's a good idea to seek the advice of relevant WikiProjects such as Composers or Classical music. Many of their members have access to specialist literature as well as expertise on the subject. Google hits are not the way to go. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established. EZStrider (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has now been significantly improved and referenced. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 24 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) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihail Ivanov

Contested WP:PROD, article about a young footballer with no appearances at all in a senior team, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure; youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails criteria at WP:ATH and WP:N. Recreate if and when he makes an appearance in a fully-professional competition. --Jimbo^[online] 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 12:13, 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 per WP:CSD#G11. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email Systems Ltd

This article is a blatant advert for the company, it cites no notable sources, in fact the only source is that of Companies House showing the company is registered. //Melonite (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as I concur with the nominator that this just an advert and fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toa (Bionicle)

AfDs for this article:

Written totally in universe except for the intro and the controversy. section. Uses nothing but primary sources. Totally incomprehensible to anyone who is not a fan. Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bionicle encylopedia a primary source? Citius Altius (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolastic who published the encycolopedia also publishes the Bionicle book series so yes, it's a primary source. [33] Ridernyc (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if one thinks the "in-universe" rule has general consensus, it is about totally in-universe articles, and even the nominator admits that this is not the case. This is actually a combination article about a great number of characters who probably do not really merit separate articles. I will at any rate not defend such separate articles, even if they are capable of some defense, but that's on the basis of assuming agreement in the practical compromise to accept combination articles. Any hope of compromise in fiction requires this. Otherwise we'll be fighting these for years and years. . It does need some trimming and rewriting for clarity, but I leave it to those who know the game to know what to trim. DGG (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "in-universe" problem can be fixed from primary sources, but it wouldn't help the lack of notability. The "controversy" section just says "toa is among the controversial names" and merely repeats material that belongs in the main article. Citius Altius (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section was tacked on the end of almost every Bionicle article when they were going through AFD 1-2 years ago. Ridernyc (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is fine, well written, with plenty of good content. And if you aren't a fan, why would you be reading more than the top part, which clearly explains what a Toa is right away? If that is all you wanted to know, as a non-fan, you'd pick that up right away. Dream Focus 11:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is how you justify its being incomprehensible to a non-fan? Citius Altius (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both preceding. IIRC is a summary from previous merged articles and has secondary references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only secondary references are a couple of trivial mentions which I added myself + the redundant, tacked-on "controversy" section. Citius Altius (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to List of Bionicle characters in the absence of any real sign of notability. Citius Altius (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moira Dolan

Non-notable physician. Ridernyc (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Dolan is notable for her stances on informed consent, medical ethics and truth in pharmaceutical advertising, and her testimony before courts and legislatures on health related matters. She is consultant to various patient advocacy groups as well. She was interviewed about the Andrea Yates murder case, and I've provided a link to her comments in her article. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … none of which have anything to do with notability, which involves in depth documentation of this person's life and works in multiple independent published works that are by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Show that such works exist. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. What you've provided makes me think something more like "might be mentioned in passing in the Andrea Yates article" (and perhaps others), not "should have an entire article dedicated to this person's life." Do you see the difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail notability criteria; it takes more than board certification and trivial coverage on low-profile local websites. Additionally, I'm a bit concerned by the content; the article suggests that this physician is notable for an assocation with groups affiliated with the anti-psychiatry movement and the Church of Scientology, which means that in the absence of true notability this is likely to turn into a WP:COATRACK. (As a side note, the controversial nature of these groups should probably be more evident in the article, should it be kept). MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot notable, not even as spokesman. DGG (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources about her. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability insufficiently established. Strong secondary sources are needed. JFW | T@lk 10:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. Nevard (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very non notableDroliver (talk) 04:27, 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) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira's Forthcoming English Album (2009)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shakira's Forthcoming English Album (2009)

Article can be easily merged with Shakira. Article has very little content. Title is incorrect ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:HAMMER? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smash with my WP:HAMMER, of course. If you don't know the title, why are you still so eager to get the information out? Slobbering fanboys again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:HAMMER time.--RadioFan (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's WP:HAMMERTIME. Cliff smith ^talk 16:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To (almost) quote Voodoo Child, "so here it comes, the sound of hammers". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:54, 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) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willy De Vliegher

Mayor of a town in the Netherlands. Article makes no other claim of notability. Google news hits in Dutch reveal day-to-day business of the town, upon machine translation. Deprodded by a new user with the edit summary "he's a mayor". Abductive (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Town of less than 7,000 people. Being mayor of it is therefore no presumption of notability DGG (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a mayor is not alone sufficient to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and no other assertions of notiability have bene made here. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:45, 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) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S4 The Movie

May as well add them all correctly:

Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant local film that fails WP:NOTFILM. I have not been able to find any reviews of the film, nor have I seen it discussed on any major websites. Also, the article reads like an advertisement. Another article by the same user, Devotion (2009 film), fails under the same guidelines. –Merqurial (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also consider if Chris Gabriel is notable (another article created by user) as they all seem to be related.Calaka (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, one user seems to adding this un-notable spam. Nip it in the bud. I doubt very much that they have reached the bar for notability, and an imdb entry is not the standard. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three, utterly non-notable, IMDB is NOT a reliable source. Drawn Some (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harper's Island. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Charlie Mills

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable fictional characters from a canceled short-run TV series with no real-world information, likely none available to support their own article. Ejfetters (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the show's article, which is does a far better job of listing the characters as they get bumped off. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is no justificiation given in the nomination to argue why a redirect is unsuitable, so it is not a question for AfD. DGG (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per DGG. Trout to the nominator for excessive use of mostly-irrelevant tags on the articles themselves. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of tags, but IMO they all are valid for the articles in their current state.Ejfetters (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per DGG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 74.204.40.46 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is sufficient. The information is already there and I planned on doing a redirect if they were deleted, so this seems acceptable. The articles are pure fancruft and nothing of notability that needs to be merged. Ejfetters (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine for most of these, but the article Chloe Carter should be about the actual Ziegfield Follies girl who became the lesbian partner of Rudolf Valentino's first wife, Jean Acker, rather than a redirect to a fictional character. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 25 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) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Vol. 3

Future album without any reliable sources or claims to notability. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Release date and tracklist are yet to be verified. Cliff smith ^talk 16:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zimmer

Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of his career. I don't think the GQ and Eagle Eye contributions are enough for WP:PROF #7, and he clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Abductive (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. DGG (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:ACADEMIC and barely even makes an attempt to argue for any sort of notability. This is yet another article that was prodded and then deprodded by one of the many socks of a banned user -- should never even have gotten as far as AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 26 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.

Chicken Little Skylab

The result was Speedily deleted as a contribution as well as a hoax by hard-banned user Bambifan101. PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability not proven, no information found to support group existed at all, possible hoax and/or COI SpikeJones (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skylab. They can sort it out, but I found mentions of "chicken little" related to Skylab's reentry and this source [34] discusses it a bit a little more than halfway down the page stating "In Washington, two computer specialists established a firm called Chicken Little Associates, offering to provide up-tothe-minute estimates of the danger to any specific person, for a fee. With the implication that NASA's predictions were unreliable, Chicken Little drew publicity-especially abroad. Then, just a month before reentry, a group from the Brookline (Mass.) Psychoenergetics Institute attempted to increase Skylab's altitude by telekinesis. They staged a "coordinated meditation" session in several eastern states, but produced no effect detectable on NORAD's radars.[23]" ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the frequent references to Chicken Little during the runup to Skylab's demise, and if one does a Book search for "Chicken Little Associates" there are some sources. These same sources say to me that this article should be moved to Chicken Little Associates, and then merged to Skylab, and Chicken Little Skylab should then be deleted. I don't buy the grandiose conclusions of this article. Abductive (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, the group itself isn't a hoax [35], but there were so many T-shirts and buttons and jokes at the time that Skylab was falling apart, the Chicken Little Society and Chicken Little Associates were part of a fad. It was a natural, really-- "The Skylab is falling!" and "The sky is falling!" -- and not really notable. Even at that, I find zero to support the claim by the "Daily Kos" website that a "chicken little skylab" was responsible for making the public aware that Skylab was falling. A blog that cites a source as "Washington Post, 1979" can't be taken seriously. In fact, a blog that calls the Post the "WaPo" can't be taken seriously. I'll believe it if I read it in Newsweek. 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge to skylab. Its fringy at best and doesn't warrant its own article.--RadioFan (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G5 - creation by banned sockpuppet (User:Bambifan101) and likely hoax/BS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted per AnmaFinotera's concern. This was in fact created by a hard-banned user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:09, 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 under G11. This was a word for word identical recreation of the previous version, and unfortunately Multixfer's improvements were only cosmetic in nature. lifebaka++ 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Warady Group

AfDs for this article:

This company is not notable in anyway. A search brings up nothing but press releases or non-notable industry coverage related to Warady and is just a recreated article. TheLastStandOfPie (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Joel Warady Group is the chief marketing company for several notable brands including Enjoy Life Foods (the market leader for Gluten and Allergen-Free foods), Mirage Oral Care (UK brand) and is the chief strategist for Tula Foods (an emerging market leader for whey-protein based yogurt). The company is fairly small and PRIVATELY HELD, which would explain why there are few articles written soley about the Joel Warady Group. Joel Warady, the owner, is the brand itself. He is an extension of the company. TrioRuleYou (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve and Comment The nominators first edit was to AFD this article. I have no comment on the article but I think this appears to be a bad-faith nomination. Also, it does look like the comany is marginally notable... there are a couple of independent third party sources, I've found. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last bullet point of WP:BEFORE specifically recommends that IP users create accounts if they wish to nominate articles for deletion. Was your suspicion of bad faith based solely on this being TheLastStandOfPie's first edit, or is there other evidence? Olaf Davis (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this page any different from the one deleted before? It still reads like an advert/brochure and is primarily self referenced. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it looks like the article creator, TrioRuleYou (talk · contribs) asked at WP:AN for the previous (deleted) version of the article (which was attributed in the first AfD discussion to K.duan2009 (talk · contribs)). There was some possible sockpuppetry involving K.duan2009 and 72.54.210.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). And now, TrioRuleYou is using the same (rather ineffective) statement as did K.duan2009, to justify a speedy keep. All of that seems suspicious. TheFeds 06:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Spammy article with little indication of notability. I hope the closer reads the above keep votes and weighs them appropriately. See also the previous deletion discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I sense either sockpuppetry or some sort of off-wiki collusion to get this subject placed here. My spider sense simply doesn't feel right on this one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I was probably somewhere in the 4,000s of non-automated edits when I nominated this article for AfD in Feb 2009, so whether 1 or 8,000, sockpuppet or COI, SPA or admin, or whatever other acronym or statistics can be attributed to editors, the article itself still has to stand on its own. And this one still does not. The Seth Godin book and WOMMA are directory entries, expertclick is a link to a brochure, spoke/twitter/facebook etc. links are obviously not useful, and the reuters article is just two paragraphs in a larger article about something else. A variety of searches on the company, principal and clients didn't bring up anything more helpful for establishing notability. "Brochure copy" and "bad faith" can be easily overcome, but no way, no how are these poor links going to save this article this time around, or the next time this article is retrieved and recreated. Nominator did the article a favor by forcing another AfD discussion, but it probably did not need or deserve one. Flowanda | Talk 05:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, Both A7 and G4 apply too, so it could be speedied. I held off on commenting earlier as I wanted to see the book, but it's just an ebook that anyone can get listed on by clicking a link! No references to prove notability and my Gnews search doesn't show anything either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and G4. The language of the article is wholly promotional, and the references are insubstantial and self-sourced. The user who created this already has a copy of the previously-deleted article in user space at User:TrioRuleYou/JOEL, and I would advise them to perform a complete rewrite there, before attempting to reintroduce it into article space. TheFeds 06:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Reuters reference is the only reason I didn't tag this a speedy G11 when I saw this on newpage patrol. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Just another snake oil outfit. NVO (talk) 12:34, 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. This seems an appropriate article on which to implement WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aestheticization as propaganda

Contested prod; reads and presents like an essay. The overall tone, and indeed the topic, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Moreover, the article is laden with original research and unverified claims. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom. I encountered this article as a prod that was almost expired, at WP:PRODSUM. It is entirely an opinion piece guised as an encyclopedia article (although less discreetly towards the bottom of the article) – frankly, the article should have run its course through prod, due to its tone and obvious crossing the line of what Wikipedia is not. Jamie^☆S93 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could alternatively be redirected to the one book used as source if it's discussed there substantially. But this subject is not appropriate or notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely reads like an essay on the topic—but is this phrase even an appropriate term of art in the philosophy community? It appears to be original research. TheFeds 06:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drivel. Nick mallory (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it as a prod first off and still believe it should be deleted. Unsourced, plenty of OR, I suspect this is the distillation of someone's undergrad thesis. It really says very little although in a nice wooly way. For good measure it is stuffed full of POV. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The prod tag was removed by a user who has been removing prod tags for little to no reason. In this case his only reason for contesting the prod was the fact that the article is 5 years old. Delete per all the previous reasons, and per WP:SNOW. -- Atama ^chat 19:50, 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. per WP:SNOW. Discounting all the votes by new users, who are clearly being canvassed from somewhere, there is very clearly no chance of this being closed as keep if it were left open for the full seven days J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crabcore

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

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

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

Non-notable musical style. Fails WP:NOTE. No GHits or GNEWS associated with style. Article states only one band "is currently playing crabcore." ttonyb1 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am one course away from a minor in Music from Northeastern University, and enjoy a wide array of musical styles AND experimental sounds. I have an interest in dance and motion and am intrigued by this web of artistic interpetations. I say keep this entry, as this albeit small section of musical folklore exists in the Boston area, and as noted, other locales from around the world in one form or another. Please do not judge a subject based on your personal tastes people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.71.163 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRESERVE The article needs to stay if it is going to grow, deleting it doesnt help anyone learn.
PRESERVE - Crabcore is not only the genre ever but it encorporates all the genres there are. keep this page for continuation of knowledge
PRESERVE - Crabcore is being used on music ezines and is currently accepted 118.208.25.132 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) — 118.208.25.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - The article statement that only one band "is currently playing crabcore" was removed by author after the AfD started. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no ghits, no news - not notable. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Screamo; appears to exist per gsearch, but no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of merging, far too few mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i don't think this could meet WP:N... it seems like a joke that someone just made up? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. BJAODN it. Wait, do we still have BJAODN? Grue 20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I almost want to say WP:NFT, but I'll go with the above. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, too bad we don't have BJAODN anymore. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)PRE[reply]
PRESERVE this article. Music blogs and fansites are now beginning to use the term as shorthand for the music several bands are playing. Just google it to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.82.147 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 20:15:00
crabcore is the future. no delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.238.97 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 22:00:39
PRESERVE Music communities including several very large private trackers are discussing this and it should be given time to receive mainstream acceptance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.142.211 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 22:27:02
Delete This is just the next internet meme. 85.113.245.37 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And we don't cover those? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ever been to 4chan's music board? They have stuff like this every day. Rickrolling is one of the biggest memes on the net. 85.113.245.37 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Preserve:~~ A hard rock band from the Balkans called Shibo has released an EP titled 'Crabcore'. Shibo themselves play crabcore style shows. This fact alone should vindicate the article. Unsurprisingly for a band playing such unfriendly music from a country other than the USA or the UK, they are still very underground. But please google them, where you will find videos articles etc. or go here to their last.fm page: http://www.last.fm/music/shibo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.82.147 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 23:26:55
- Comment - Removed duplicate "vote" from single IP Address. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE I turned to wikipedia when I saw it mentioned in the comments on a youtube-video. Without this article I would still not have a clue about crabcore. --EzelMannen (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are enough ghits to justify a rd, IMO--what's the best target? JJL (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added {{Not a ballot}} because of entry at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-crabcore.html. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or overactive imagination. Hairhorn (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty obvious taking-of-piss. Since we don't have BJAODN though, would anyone object to me userfying it for posterity, or are there potential GFDL problems to come if I do? TheLetterM (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication by renaming preserves edit history. Userfication by copying and pasting does not. The latter was part of the problem with BJAODN. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article is really just a load of bullshit someone made up for fun. Please pardon my French. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.196.80 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE Recent phenomenon in music, little cataloguing outside of underground fanzines. Good luck finding a better compilation of info on the genre anywhere online. Article has some flaws though. 216.221.76.184 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE Despite certain flaws in the article its description of this new 'musical fad' is fairly accurate--71.248.157.71 (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.248.157.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
PRESERVE Despite clear flaws in the article, a quick Google search justifies the preservation of this article. At the very least, there's nothing to lose by such, but a possible loss of information if deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandelphiki42 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-23 06:39:15
PRESERVE Crabcore is an emerging genre rapidly gaining popularity, it's still underground but it is gaining momentum so it makes sense that wikipedia be current with such a trend for those who will wish to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.43.113 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-23 06:43:27 — 70.50.43.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP - Crabcore is the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.64.72 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-23 06:57:17
PRESERVE It really helped me with an essay, others may lose this tool if close-mindedness deletes! 67.185.227.184 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) — 67.185.227.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete without long-term prejudice against re-creation if the term catches on in reliable, independent sources. This appears to be a joke about certain dance moves (GIF) mostly from one video of one band. guardian.co.uk Music blog is the clostest thing to a source, and considering its date (23 June 2009), it may be taken entirely from this Wikipedia article. The term is not currently notable, and this article as written is not meant to be either encyclopedic or seriously informative. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve The Guardian article has further embedded this term into cultural parlance. It's here to stay.
- Based on contributions, I think this is the same as 86.135.82.147 above. Rnb (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE This is legit. People trying to shut down Crabcore is the same as when they were trying to shut down "Rock N Roll" back in the day. Deathwish124 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE If Wikipedia is going to stay on the cutting edge of information and knowledge, we need to be ready to document new movements in all fields including music. Preserve! 68.248.233.69 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not "on the cutting edge of information and knowledge". It is a tertiary source of verifiable information already confirmed by reliable sources. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The drummer from Attack Attack! sent me a message on Myspace after I 'congratulated' him on inventing this new genre. He says he wants this page to stay up and for some reason he's proud of inventing a style of 'music' called 'crabcore'. Takes all kinds I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.216.37 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-23 16:28:00
Delete. Clear WP:MADEUP, note the keep/"preserve" sources are all likely trolls from 4chan. tedder (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe one day it will be notable enough to be included, but at this point it doesn't appear to have enough credible external sources to merit the backing for an article. HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Crabcore is not a real genre. It's not a real ANYTHING. Fact of the matter is, detractors of -core music will label ANYTHING as core. For example, one time my buddy's band went onstage in their exercise clothes because they didn't have time to change and people started calling them 'gymcore.' That doesn't make it a real genre. This crabcore page is just a joke gone too far. It started in YouTube comments on the band Attack Attack!'s Stick Stickly video. Then people took it everywhere. It's not serious. May as well make any stupid variation of metal a Wiki page if we're going to keep this. Progressive neoclassical avant-garde proto-death power-thrash metal here we come. (PowerGamer6 (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment once you have a "people took it everywhere" situation, it may well become notable even if it's a notable joke. I'm still inclined to look for a rd target for it, but that it's a joke isn't reason enough to delete it. There's an album with that title (Shipa, was it?) and a Guardian page addresses it...even if it's only an Intenet meme, many of those have their own pages now. JJL (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though hilarious, this is a 4chan hoax. Chubbles (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crabcore is gaining momentum, and is starting to appear in mainstream publications. I say copy all this to Uncyclopedia or something, and then create a proper wikified version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.239.227 (talk • contribs) — 124.169.239.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete No reliable sources, no coverage and, to top it all off, it is played by one band? Not notable. DDDtriple3 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eye Weekly and The Guardian are very popular websites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.76.184 (talk • contribs)
Delete Completely non-notable and no reliable sources. Pretty obvious Meatpuppetry also. ReformatMe (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP" This is the best thing I've ever read and the sources do check out maybe Those who want to delete this don't understand the extremity and importance of this style to its fans 25 June 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.75.150 (talk • contribs)

PRESERVE The article is serious and is informative about a new fledgling genre that should be recognized by Wikipedia. Hideaki02 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)— Hideaki02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, a merger can continue to be discussed at the talk page. Sandstein 06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic controversy and criticism

AfDs for this article:

It has been suggested that this article fails WP:POVFORK, and WP:Criticism says "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork", as well as "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article.". In addition, the creator was told by an admin NOT to create an article entitled 'Critical views of chiropractic' as it would be a "classic pov-fork".[36] - procedural nomination for Ip 70.71.22.45 --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is not a POV work. It's extensively written about and covered in reliable sources. So it meets our notability guidelines. The recent push to get rid of all criticism has provided a field day for POV pushers. NPOV indicates we include notable perspectives. If a subject related to criticism or controversy has a lot of notability it should have its own article. The rename of the Bush criticism article and the crusade against any content that isn't flattering towards OBama is doing a great disservice to our readers. Criticism of chiropractic is a very notable subject that cannot be covered adequately in the main article without violating undue weight. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the criticism article wasn't created as an end run around the editors of the original article (i.e. the point of a POV fork). Rather, it's a very thoroughly referenced and substantial article in its own right. If we're uncomfortable with criticism articles in general, even when apparently justified (by size and complexity), then the next best solution would be to merge in its entirety into the chiropractic article. On a related note, I think the article could stand a bit of improvement (especially to the lead section), but that's a minor issue that doesn't contribute anything to the AfD decision. TheFeds 06:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chiropractic as this is clearly a POV fork or attempt to remove criticism from the primary article. This is not so much information that it needs to be removed from the primary article. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Most of this article is a copy and paste from related Chiropractic articles such as the Vertebral subluxation and Innate Intelligence articles. As such it just becomes a collection of critisms and is thus a POV fork.--Hughgr (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not POV, not a POV fork, and meets WP:GNG easily. As noted in above keeps it is a valid and well sourced article. Verbal chat 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable aspect of a topic that is covered extensively enough that multiple linked articles are in order. Move to Public reception of chiropractic or something like that might help with the general issues with Criticism of ... articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that might be a good idea... that way it could at least have the potential to be a NPOV article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something more NPOV (like Chiropractic kudos and criticism) since the article must be NPOV and include the 'agreement and praise' that chiropractic receives from R and VS sources. It is something that people want to know - both sides of the story. If there is no intention of adding the "agreement and praise" then it's likely just a POV Fork and should be Delete. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hughgr or Rename per Dematt. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are similar pages like Chiropractic controversy and criticism. For example, see Aspartame controversy, Criticism of Wikipedia, or Vaccine controversy. The main chiropractic page is too large to cover the notable topic of chiropractic controversy and criticism This article obviously meets WP:GNG easily with numerous sources covering the WP:NPOV title. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other crap exists... two of those pages have neutrality tags on them and the criticism of wikipedia one also says "This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject."... see also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or rename per ChildofMidnight and Dēmatt. It's a very obvious and notable subject that documents what has always characterized the profession. This article will now have the opportunity for growth which the subject has been denied by some of the chiropractic editors who have always cried "undue weight" as an excuse to minimize and hide the subject. The option of a rename mentioned by Dēmatt is definitely preferable to deletion. We aren't forced to choose between "keep" or "delete". Merging is not a good option as this subject has enough notability in its own right to be a large article. The profession has always been characterized by criticism and controversy from both inside and outside the profession, and that story is not and cannot be told properly in the main chiropractic article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, just a collection of criticisms, plus, like Hughgr said, this is just a repeat of criticisms from Vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, and Chiropractic_history articles. Enough already. --stmrlbs|talk 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chiropractic. It may be a rather challenging merge, but at the moment this is a bit POV forky. There's simply no need for a fork. Chiropractic currently is at 4760 words of readable prose (according to Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck) and Chiropractic controversy and criticism is at 1522 words. Thus, even if every single word were preserved, the merged page would be 6282 words, well within the acceptable range specified at Wikipedia:Article size. Cool3 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the actual size of the article isn't yet a problem, but so far the objection from chiropractic supporters is "undue weight". They don't realize (or don't want it described) just how much criticism and controversy has characterized the history of this profession, and it's growing right now because of the latest screwup by the profession in England - their attempt to sue Simon Singh for libel.[37] This article is just beginning and will grow much larger, and then even I would consider it undue weight to include so much material in the main article. As it is now, the chiropractic supporters would never allow all this in the article. Certain of them are pretty good at wikilawyering and stonewalling to keep out such things, no matter how well sourced. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:09, 28 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, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mortensen

No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE and notability doesn't transfer from generation to generation. Giants27 (c|s) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the link you provided, the first six of eight hits are all articles specifically about this guy. Passes WP:GNG. In fact, I would have been surprised if a quarterback at a major college program like Arkansas didn't pass general notability guidelines. Here are some articles: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Scout, USA Today, ESPN, The Morning News, ESPN, Scout, Scout... That's a quarter of the way through the 400+ Google News hits, the rest are here if more are needed.
- Yeah I noticed and looked at those but most of them are from his Arkansas days, pre-2006 and nothing came out of his days at Samford.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. I fail to see whether "nothing came out of" it has to do with notability. We shouldn't place our own subjective opinions about their worth in order to determine notability. That's why we have more objective measures like the general notability guideline to help us. Strikehold (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was at Arkansas, left for Samford, then returned to Arkansas, so be careful how you read those articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until we see if he makes the team. Insufficient notability at this time and it seems like a longshot to make the squad, but an opportunity to establish notability in the future shouldn't be precluded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His NFL career or potential has no bearing on his current notability. Passing or failing WP:ATHLETE is as relevant as his passing or failing WP:POLITICIAN. As an additional criteria, if he fails one of those, we then fall back to the more general criteria of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. To me, it's pretty clear Mortensen passes those. Therefore, he's notable. Strikehold (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share which ones? Strikehold (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going with it because his college career passes notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Or userfy RF23 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability standards per coverage cited by Strikehold. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG, which is enough to establish notability regardless of what WP:ATHLETE says. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poorly written article though. Needs improvement, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 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. Anyone who wishes to request userification may contact me on my talk page. Cool3 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Bacher

Undrafted quarterback recently joined UFL New York but no substantial coverage], fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (c|s) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can sometimes buy off on a guy who is on a pro team, but hasn't actually played. But in this case, the entire league hasn't played a down yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. After searching both Newsbank and google, I find no sign of any non-trivial coverage of Bacher in the mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until notability is established RF23 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy guy's gotta have lots of college credits in the news somewhere, but at some point the burden has to be placed on the person who created the article to actually have some references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 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 00:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Hagan

No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (c|s) 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of notability sufficient to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, this is a professional league that hasn't even played a single down yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Morgan Heit

Declined speedy on this one and send it to AFD. The main concerns is the notability of the individual JForget 01:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created by Benstiller22222 who is currently suspected of (and quite likely to be) a sockpuppet of Alexcas11. This and other edits by Benstiller22222 have included the addition of blatantly false information. The information currently in the article is false. Portions are taken from the Joseph Castanon article and if you compare the filmography with the one on IMDb, you can see that the filmography is fake as well. The actor himself, I believe is not notable enough to warrant an article. - kollision (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) a.k.a. Juror #7[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closing as delete after discussion with closer. Wizardman 16:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mendenhall

Non-notable football player, no substantial coverage except for reports about his transfer from a bigger school to a smaller school, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (c|s) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines.--Yankees10 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of Newsbank and google shows extensive non-trivial coverage of this individual in the mainstream media, including major papers like the Chicago Tribune. Even if he never plays a game in the NFL, such substantial media coverage of his collegiate football career satisfied general notability requirements. There are numberous feature articles focusing specifically on Mendenhall. Examples include the following: (1) "Brotherly love first - Mendenhall chosen Big Ten MVP but prefers watching brother Walter take a backfield turn," Chicago Tribune, December 7, 2007,[38] (2) "Two-getherness - How a family of 4 decided to stay as 1, relocating to Champaign this summer because 'this was going to be the year'," Chicago Tribune, October 17, 2007,[39] (3) "Ex-Redbirds Mendenhall, Nelson eye late rounds," The Pantagraph, (Bloomington, IL), April 24, 2009,[40] (4) "ISU's Mendenhall, Nelson sign free agent deals," The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), April 27, 2009,[41] (6) "Walter Mendenhall hopes for rebirth after leaving Illini for ISU," State Journal-Register, Aug 05, 2008,[42] and (7) "Walter Mendenhall anxious for 'change of scenery' with ISU," The Pantagraph, June 26, 2008,[43]. Cbl62 (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs improvement, but the obvious sources listed here show notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:42, 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 Userfy. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontifex (British family)

Submitted for AFD by article's creator as I am not sure if the article qualifies as WP:NOTABLE, but I would like to have it voted by my fellow Wikipedians rather than worry about a possible speedy deletion. Thank you for your attention. [email protected] (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly the article should be moved to User space for the moment and then the individual members of the family might be considered for articles. I suppose a useful rule of thumb on whether to have an article on a family rather than (or in addition to) individual articles on the individual members of a family would be to consider if there is a need to refer to the family as a unit, rather than to individual members; more often than not there isn't a need for family-based articles. I (and this is just my opinion) don't see a need in this case as there isn't any obvious way that the family could be seen to be acting as a unit, rather than as individuals, from what I could find. That said, some of the members of the family might be notable. In particular, Roy Mark Pontifex, more often referred to as Dom Mark Pontifex was, from what I can gather from a quick search, a theologian of note with a Thomist bent. That comment should have the obvious proviso that Googling early-to-mid 20th Century theologians isn't going to be the most profitable of exercises. There might be a case for other members of the family, again with the proviso that relying on Google rather than paper sources isn't necessarily going to be the best way of approaching the subject. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, at least. May need to fork into separate articles, but a quick search suggsts that several of the Pontifexes are notable, maybe more than several (does one say pontifexes? I fear the plural may be Pontifeces, but that's rather troubling...) - Vartanza (talk) 03:51, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the plural would be pontifices...which is better. TheFeds 01:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with TheFeds on this point, but must point out that "Pontifeces" would not be troubling in British English - for that to be the case it would have to be "Pontifaeces". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split into articles about the individuals who meet the notability rules on their own. Then consider a rewrite into an article on the name Pontifex (but not necessarily this particular family, see Smith (surname), or Clinton), or alternatively, if the family is appropriately notable, rewrite into an article on the family acting as a unit (per Flowerpotman). TheFeds 01:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced. Should be userfied upon request, but this material isn't encyclopedic and doesn't meet our notability criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreating individual articles should individual members be notable. I don't like the idea of increasing people's claims to notability based on who their relatives are. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and if the individual articles do meet notability, there's no reason why you couldn't add a single-line entry per person to Pontifex (disambiguation).
Convert to a user page (if creator so wishes). A few of the people listed probably qualify as notable (eg the one with a Times Obituary), but they need separate articles and Pontifex (surname), which should give the origon of the name and list notable persons bearing it, that is those with articles or notable enough to require them. Abbots, and Brigadiers should qualify. Pontifex (surname) will need to be listed on Pontifex (disambiguation). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 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 no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Power Technologies

This brief article reads like an advert. It's two sources do little to provide evidence of notability, if having your company mentioned in a mainstream newspaper equals notability then my local corner shop could have a wikipedia page. magnius (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How does this read like an advert? It simply says what the company does and where it is based. There's nothing claiming that it's better than its competitors or urging people to buy its products or services. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP, one source is the company founder, so their could be a problem with sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:48, 19 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) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is very substantial coverage of the company in the Crain's article already sourced and many additional sources [44]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not convince that raising money is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Cleaner

Declining db-spam; article isn't promoting anything, but any article by a brand-new contributor that talks about warez is potentially dangerous, so taking to AfD. Maybe it's fine, but if it's not, we want to delete it sooner than 7 days, so make sure you mention "speedy" if your vote is for speedy deletion. Note that the previous version of this article by the same editor contained code and a link to their myspace page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on WP:N basis. Wikipedia is not a malware database. Non-notable malware that neither Mcafee nor Symantec could be bothered to create more than a paragraph on. Paleking (talk) 17:50, 19 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) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because this software doesn't seem to be notable (as malware or otherwise). Also unsourced. TheFeds 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Malware of this type tends to be highly polymorphic, containing hooks for distributors to give it a new name and appearance at a moment's notice - as such, individual variants aren't notable, although the family might be. See Rogue security software for details. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:18, 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. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John McElhenney

Notability not established through reliable sources. Self-published author. This found through google certainly doesn't establish much notability.[45] Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established. Being an autobiography does not matter; there's just no independent evidence of notability. Frank | talk 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 15 June 2009 (UTC)

These items found through Google will help establish notability.
- Using the New Digital Social Media to Accelerate Sustainability, presentation at SXSW Interactive 2009. podcast of Sustainability and Social Media panel.
- SXSW Interactive Speaker Bio

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Notability not established through reliable sources. لenna vecia 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe material cited is not enough to show notability. DGG (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited material doesn't establish notability to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Homberg

This article is poorly constructed, and no effort has been made to improve it since its creation in December 2008. It has few references, and the ones that do exist don't seem to provide much evidence of notability or importance. magnius (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not a reason to delete. See WP:RUBBISH. Jafeluv (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inadequate evidence of notability - that IS a reason to delete. HeartofaDog (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a quite bad AfD rationale, and did anybody care to look for references? I added two refs from the New York Times, Gbooks also returns some theater listings with her name, only snippet views though. She seems to be a marginally notable actress, perhaps digging for more refs will find some. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:50, 18 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) 00:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Working actress that has not reached the notability threshold of our guidelines (substantial coverage in independent reliable sources). ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley Road Race

No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep come on TPH, at least hit google. [46] [47] [48] (the Oldest 10K in New England) Gigs (talk) 19:25, 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 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily sourced. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury Cake

No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources to verify the existence and nature of Shrewsbury cakes. I can't verify the claim about Louisa Catherine Adams, but that is not a reason for the deletion of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 18 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 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there do indeed appear to be plenty of sources. Citius Altius (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shrewsbury Cakes have been around since the 1500s, which is rather longer than wikipedia. Just because the nominator hasn't heard of them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Restoration playwright William Congreve used Shrewsbury cakes as a metaphor (“as short as a Shrewsbury cake”) in ‘The Way of the World’ in 1700 and according to "The Taste of Britain” (Mason & Brown) there's a recipe for the cakes is in Eliza Smith’s ‘The Compleat Housewife’ in 1728. In the "The Compleat Cook", dating from 1658, there is a recipe for them with the standard ingredients including rosewater and ginger. If TPH had actually spent five seconds looking for sources he'd know this. Nick mallory (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are verifiable. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a poundcake flavored with rosewater but what do I know? Multiple recipes available in books provides significant in-depth coverage. There was even at least one bakery devoted to them: http://mview.museum.vic.gov.au/paimages/mm/041/041726.htm Drawn Some (talk) 18:10, 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. Content appears to be a copyright violation. Redirected to 2009 Canadian federal budget as a possible search term. Flowerparty^☀ 07:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community Adjustment Fund

Political propaganda. It is unclear why this fund/program should warrant an article - it's just a part of the budget of the Government of Canada. PK T(alk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate article on budget of Canada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - large Government program for the size of its budget. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this appears to be copied from here. (That's a government website, so Crown copyright applies, per this.) TheFeds 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a large expenditure, but the Canadian federal budget is huge and contains lots of large expenditures. Nothing in this article suggests why this fund is of any more interest than any other government expenditures (or even that it is notable). Right now the article reads like propaganda, and absent any evidence of real notability, I'm not sure it could ever be more than a series of talking points of the government of the day. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:49, 27 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. Consensus seems broadly in favour of keeping this content in some form - a merge to Joomla or elsewhere should not be discounted, though, and can be decided on the talk page if desired. ~ mazca ^talk 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoomlaLMS

Originally speedily deleted, but that deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_29 in favor of a full discussion here. I am personally neutral on whether the article should be deleted or not. Aervanath (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not-notable software - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be notable, but the references aren't great. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elearningforce is well known joomla cms developers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrain7 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy merge~~ to Joomla Web content management system. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To where? A suggestion to merge to a red link does not make much sense to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just to Joomla? dramatic (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please - do not merge- that will be wrong decision. Joomla and JoomlaLMS is not the same. Joomla is a Content Management System for web sites managing. JoomlaLMS is a commercial component (add-on) for Joomla. JoomlaLMS is a popular eLearning environment. Joomla has nothing to do with eLearning.Interkrok (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Content management system where it's mentioned. Insufficient independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Have added some additional external references proving the software notability. In fact one of the references demonstrates JoomlaLMS standing next to such popular brands like WebCT, Moodle, etc. and was submitted into the catalogue long ago... Know that it is not a reason to keep it but eLearningForce is a well-known eLearning provider and one of the top 10 largest commercial developers for Joomla. Interkrok (talk) 16:52, 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, DGG (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am an educational technologist and LMS administrator (not JoomlaLMS, but several others) and find that this article is useful. --Steve Foerster (talk) 23:56, 26 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 keep !votes to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MorphThing

Makes no claims to notability, and a search for sources from Google News show only trivial mentions in USAtoday, or 'puff pieces' written by the company themselves. Has no reliable sources, reads like a HOWTO piece. It is, however, a well-written article - just not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sourcible as the nominator says. Could use a cleanup (WP:YOU issues was one that popped out). the "million morphs" created is arguably a somewhat weak assertion of notability. –xeno^talk 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:09, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. Hariri

Fails WP:BIO. There is some coverage but only from one source (The GW Hatchet) and probably not enough; the other sources I can find, either cited in the article or found via Google, are associated with the subject, trivial or appear to fail the reliable sources guideline. snigbrook (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I initially thought he would be notable when I saw a number of wikipedias in different languages have an article of him (clarify: More wikipedia articles in different languages doesn't = notability but it would seem to lead to more chances of finding reliable sources). But then I noticed that all except the French wikipedia have deleted it (with one also seeming to be in the deletion process). Calaka (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:09, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The article is clearly straining to find notability, but references include NPR and a university which published his work. He seems to have some importance. Borock (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not significant, the sources on his poetry and University job are not reliable or questionable. He's not there yet with notability, it seems, may change in the future. Hekerui (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability test; this is a pretty clear vanity page. Noble-savage (talk) 05:54, 27 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. The comment "is inexpensive enough and widely available enough to be reviewed in many places" is in itself a statement of notability, provided by the nominator as a reason why it's not notable? Add the refs, weed out the bad refs. If it's "just a product description", but reactions/reviews/criticisms/popularity can be verified, add it. Cleanup, reference, take out any spam. Keeper | 76 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphone Valve Junior

Non-notable product. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a very popular amp series, as evidenced by a quick Google search. It is a certainty that it has been reviewed by many audio publications. Examples (not all of these are super reliable by themselves, but do indicate that the product is widely reviewed): [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Here's an article from a magazine that starts "By now, you’re probably familiar with the Epiphone Valve Jr..." showing it is quite popular:[55]. There are hundreds more source out there, these are just the first few I found. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Such lists of reviews on non-RS sources indicate only that the amp (as with countless others) is inexpensive enough and widely available enough to be reviewed in many places; it's not an indicator of notability and the article has nothing to suggest notability. It's just a product description, as would any article on a non-notable product would be. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: all that is required for notability is coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this product has. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a product listing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against products having pages. If you are saying that the article is SPAMish, then that can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a policy stating if a product is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope. In the absence of actual RS coverage, assertions of popularity backed up by favorably interpreting a Google search listing and the number of non-RS reviews available are not real indications of notability. It's also worth noting the Article Rescue Squadron has not made any changes to the article since being flagged. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a distortion of what I actually said. All the sources I provided are from serious publications, not just random people. Not being an expert on guitars, I can't be sure which sources have actually earned a reputation for fact checking, but I am sure that at least some of them are, in fact, reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North-wing politics

This is a long term orphaned article. It is poorly referenced and there is no demonstration of notability for the term "north wing" in this political sense. Googling shows it used by a few bloggers but not to a great extent. I did not find any RS use of it on the first few pages. There is background material of possible merit here but it duplicates that of Political Compass and I hesitate to suggest a merge of unreferenced material.. DanielRigal (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef, neologism, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Article is contingent on a particular interpretation of a political compass chart, and proposes terminology that appears to be an endorsement of the contents of the (dead) link quoted at length in the article. No reliable sources. TheFeds 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just checked archive.org, and the northwing.org site was a personal political blog—that's not an appropriate reference, in the slightest. It's probably a neologism, possibly spawned from that site. TheFeds 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above - 2 ... says you, says me 03:00, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Fletcher

An article about a non-notable author whose two books were self-published via the Lulu.com vanity press operation. Runs afoul of WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was tempted to {{speedy}} delete it, as is appears seriously non-notable. But as it has got this far, I will wait for community decision. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:33, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Souza

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. She has had a pedestrian career working as a weatherperson for local affiliate stations. Nothing notable about her career other than simply doing her job on a daily basis. Article tagged for having no sources since Nov. 2007. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being part of the only duo of siblings to forecast weather on American television is notable. Article could use cleanup. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been significant, non-trivial coverage of this "notablility"? Or is it all mainly mentioned as a side note in a "welcome to (insert city here)" article? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Niteshift36. This person does not reach the threshold for inclusion do to lack of independent reliable sources. As a BLP the inclusuion criteria should be strictly enforced. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:29, 19 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) 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. She's a meteorologist and we can verfiy that, but there no evidence of substantial coverage or significance beyond that fact. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intuitions may not match everyone elses, but "only duo of siblings to forecast weather on American television" doesn't strike me as notable at all. Hairhorn (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we know that career interests often are repeated in families, I agree that siblings being forecasters does not seem unusual. And since it is self reported on a profile page, I don't think that we should consider it a reliable source. I don't think that the information is deliberately a misrepresentation, but I also don't think we can know that it is a well researched and accurate fact. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's true or not, but even if true, that seems more like a novelty to me than notability. Siblings having the same kind of job isn't an achievement. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethe coincidence of sisters is not noteworthy, just as Flo says, even if it were well documented. No conceivable notability otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It needs cleanup and referencing, however it's not a directory, it's a list, which by precedent (and argument below), is fine. If it were a "directory" it would have showtimes and scheduling like a movie guide. Keeper | 76 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Disney Cinemagic

WP:NOT an arbitrary list. WP not a place to list a network's lineup. SpikeJones (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sourced, which shouldn't be hard. There is a precedent of listing shows on a network's lineup, and I fail to see how it's indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WIkipedia is not a directory. And someone check TPH and make sure he's okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the TV shows to Disney Cinemagic, delete the rest. The channel seems to mostly just be a movie channel. TJ Spyke 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As per the rest of UK tv channel article any where the show list is very huge has been split out as per what was discussed a logn time ago on Wikiproject British TV Channels. The list themself if merged into the articles about the channels then mean the articles break policy on size for being over 100KB, the list jsut now is advertising the network lineup but the other list merely show the shows and how they airing over time.--Andy (talk - contrib) 21:12, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baghcheye Minoo

Does not cite any references or evidence of notability. A google search yields few results, certainly nothing that justifies this articles existence. magnius (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable per [56], [57], and [58]... all of which come right back to Wikipedia. If an Iranian Wikipedian can otherwise offer sources, that'd be terrific. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:48, 18 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, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible hoax. I can't find anything about the show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modemhead

This article does not provide any evidence of importance or notability. Article does not provide any references and only two external links, neither of which provide the necessary evidence of the subjects notability. magnius (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to warrant inclusion per our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student-made film. Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Magazine political team

This is basically a masthead of Time Magazine's political writers, most of whom are not notable via WP:BIO standards. The article never explains why these writers are superior to those at, say, Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report. There doesn't appear to be much, if anything, to merge into the article about Time, hence its appearance here. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Transwiki* Honestly I would imagine it would be easy to provide notability for this group, if nothing else because news teams at the level of Time Magazine are guaranteed to have coverage in, well, news sources at the level of Time Magazine. But at the moment this is a) a stub and b) an unrefernced stub (the only footnote is in reference to an individual who is no longer with Time). Deleting is a questionable point but since there's no question this article does not currently belong in the main namespace, transwiki it to the creator's sandbox until there's an actual article to be presented. -Markeer 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:04, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TIME magazine. JJL (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a proper lead this article would not have much use.
Delete Misguided attempt to invent a new topic. Should be covered in Time article with wikilink's to writers. No need for this redundant article with an unlikely search term title. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A publication masthead at best, a made-up category at worst. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Havana

No indication of notability that I can see. AFD instead of CSD in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still dont' see good evidence of notability and am sticking with my deleted vote. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND. (see below) JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this band reaches the notability guidelines for the following reason:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]"

I have several full page articles published in monthly National UK Music magazines, Metal Hammer, Kerrang!, incoming band sections and live reviews I have now edited the article to reference these sources. Will this be sufficient to ensure this article is not deleted?

I also plan to add references to the following when I have time: I have album reviews in from publications Rock Sound Big Cheese which I believe adds weight to notability. I believe they have participated in a session on Kerrang Radio, as well as Kings Lynn FM although I need to find a reference to these.

There album is also available in Major record outlets HMV, available on itunes and on websites like Amazon.com External link amazon.co.uk As far as mongolia (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above user has yet to prove that said sources exist, and without them we've got nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Keep per refs 1 and 2, and Mongolia's promise to add more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the best way to prove these sources exist? I have hard copies of the Magazines which I have referenced fully on the page including issue and page numbers. What steps do I need to take to prove these sources exist, I believed a reference was sufficient? As far as mongolia (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep - references 3 and 4 look as if they come under the "merely trivial coverage... performance dates, release information" clause, but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of refs 1 and 2. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pot mod

Simply put, orphaned article on a hardware modification that has no notability in third party sources, and a quick online sweep confirms that much. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:24, 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 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Shea (singer-songwriter)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark O'Shea (singer-songwriter)

No reliable sources found. I have been unable to verify that the band Zinc had a chart single, as it doesn't show up in the ARIA archives, and the Music Network Radio charts are not a reputable chart. There are a lot of names dropped, and a couple claims to notability that keep it just outside A7, but absolutely no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment There seem to be a couple sources here [59] bu tI couldn't access them. I dunno. Weird. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC--AssegaiAli (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 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 since no target was suggested for the merge. I don't feel that Pink Floyd is an appropriate target; if someone finds a better target, I will be glad to restore and merge the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Bricks Webzine

Non-notable web site —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 6 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, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate target (can be trimmed considerably). I have become comfotably numb. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable site. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriately 216.221.76.184 (talk) 17:27, 24 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.