Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 25

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scenic Route

Worthless stub on non-notable band. No sources, no hits, and the only claim to fame is an unsubstantiated claim for an award in Delaware. How this survived the first AFD I don't understand. Calton | Talk 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Local band," no label that I can find, no commerical releases, only self-released recordings. Hairhorn (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can only assume the "no consensus" default keep was down to the fact that it wasn't categorised until a day before closure. Maybe should have been re-listed. Anyway, yes, non-notable. Fails WP:BAND on several counts. – B.hotep •talk• 11:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage about the band is almost non-existent. The award they won is not significant. They may have success in the future, and when that happens, then it may be time for an article about them. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I added the two citations, but it's not enough significant media coverage to pass WP:N. I also searched around trying to find some evidence of notability of the award the band won, but have come up empty. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Goldfingers

Non-notable singer belonging to a non-notable band. All of the google hits among the first couple pages appear to be for an unrelated album. Prod tag removed by original author without explanation. Delete DMG413 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find any sources by searching Google News archives, and also found no sources in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage needed to establish ntoability -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N Rmosler | ● 22:08, 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 delete. Tavix | Talk 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Michael Jackson

No need to have an article on the death of celebrities. We can cover his heart attack on his bio. Damiens.rf 22:48, 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 no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honda GY6 Engine

No sources, not notable. I'm pretty sure the GY6 exists, and it has been used on something [1] but that's about all that can be verified, just barely. The sources who claim it is ubiquitous are all trying to sell you something on the premise that it is ubiquitous [2] i.e. parts are widely available and there is lots of tuning and performance know-how. I have to wonder why all this lore hasn't been printed in any books or magazines.[3][4]. Dbratland (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are enough sources to make it verifiable, but there doesn't seem to be enough to establish notability. Can it be merged somewhere? As there list articles of engines? A Honda engine article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can even verify that Honda really did design an engine called the GY6, only that some companies are making an engine whose design they, um, obtained or acquired somehow, and they tout it as being of Honda lineage because the public respects the brand. Honda seems to be making no effort to lend credibility to these claims. I am one who is willing to set the bar for WP:V and WP:N pretty low sometimes, but not this low.--Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 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) 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep From the article, it seems that this is the origin of a whole class of small engines used very widely. Now all we need is some refs to show it. DGG (talk) 00:07, 22 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 21:42, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G5. The page was created and nominated for AfD by the same banned user. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome (smiley)

Lacking in notability and/or reliability of sources. Bored of the world (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain about this one; both sources are blogs, but this is the sort of thing that's unlikely to turn up in the New York Times. Hairhorn (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just a 4chan image macro and (IMHO forced) meme. It doesn't even mean anything. There are no sources because they don't exist and never will. Bullzeye ^contribs 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You have no clue what you're talking about, this is a commonly used image far outside 4chan. It originated elsewhere but first went mainstream on SomethingAwful, it's made appearances on multiple online clothing stores, etc. Also, saying it is "forced" is absolutely stupid when there are multiple communities that it is used frequently without one or two people shoving it down their throat. Calling it a "4chan image macro" means you clearly don't even understand what 4chan is, which, frankly, I applaud you for, but also gives you no right to comment on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.0.11 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 June 2009 UTC)
  - It is not your article. Once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and may be edited in any way according to guidelines. MuZemike 00:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find lots of references to Awesome smiley in blogs and forums which seems to corroborate the part of the article about "becoming popular across the internet", but there are no reliable sources to verify the information. I also found at least one site that sells Awesome smiley merchandise, but once again no reliable sources. I can not find anything to establish notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't from 4chan, you moron. And it's not a forced meme, either. It's from Something Awful, but it migrated to 4chan. This must be kept 71.178.240.49 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comments IP User can't voting. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/mail) 00:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Fix. 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, yes they are allowed to participate in AFD discussions, and remember that AFD is not a vote. MuZemike 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This smiley is widely known outside of 4chan and Something Awful. Maybe not by name, but the graphic itself is recognized. AJDotNet (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there are plenty places that the smiley is used and it appears to be popular. The problem is that that does not establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. To establish notability we need to have reliable sources that discuss the smiley. I looked at 15 pages of google results and did not find any hits that were reliable sources that discussed the smiley so the information can be verified. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertion of noteability. Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jtrainor (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. It's used here on Wikipedia as well, on my talk page even, but that doesn't make it verifiable or notable. لenna vecia 04:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources containing this picture, it's extremely widespread(with the 4th google image search of awesome being linked to gamespot.com which is a notable source) it is definitley not limited to a single source(4-chan) as some people are incorrectly stating on their delete reasons.(Arvilino (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep This smiley is an essential part of modern internet culture. 87.210.202.129 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ITT: Much bawwing and shedding of cancerous newflag rage-tears. Smells like forced meme and Eau de Butthurt. Bullzeye ^contribs 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add to list on Smiley. It is just one of many. // BL \\ (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Party

I just searched just over 200 Google results, and here's what I found:

Over a dozen sites saying that Victoria Beckham would be guest-starring
Several forum discussions (forums are unreliable sources)
Several articles on wikis (wikis are unreliable sources)

Most of the results revolved around the above items, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, and SpongeBob's House Party, adding up to a near-zero amount of reliable sources (at least within the 210 that I searched) for a special that isn't set to premiere until a year from now. We really shouldn't be relying on a crystal ball, anyway. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diggs Tailwagger for a precedent. → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per CRYSTAL and NOTE, but mostly because the nominator did their homework and checked before the nomination. Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for delete. Too many of the delete votes simply stated the article was a POV fork, yet more of the keep votes had substance. There then becomes the issue of merging - the keep and merge arguments were equally valid and there wasn't a clear consensus to be made out of that. However, since merging can be done outside of the construct of AfD, and because there was no consensus for deletion, I am closing this as no consensus and suggesting those who voted for a merge continue that discussion on the respective talk pages. I am, however, deleting the redirects, as it is clear there was consensus to delete those. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler

Content/POV fork from Chrysler bankruptcy. The main article covers this in the section "Sale to New Chrysler". This was not a SCOTUS case, SCOTUS just issued per curiam denial, so it doesn't fall under a SCOTUS case notability aspect. Most of the content within this page is actually related to the bankruptcy of Chrysler and the sale and not to this particular case. Also, there are 29 redirects for this page including absurd ones - "Mourdock v. Obama" (which has seen been the redirect for another case before becoming one for this, edit summary note: "The lawsuit is real. It's the name that is unknown"). If this article is a keep, the redirects will have to be taken to RfD. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable event and lawsuit filed by the Indiana Secretary of the Treasury regarding the state of Indiana and worthy of inclusion. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps I was not clear orginally, I think this is worthy of inclusion as a prominent event and historical article in Indiana, not because of its status in the courts, or its merits as a case. It recieved significant coverage in local media, and was a high-profile and important state event. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Delete the bad redirects. I started this article before the case was assigned a name, which explains the bad redirects. This subject is notable because it's the first time in U.S. history that a secured creditor was treated worse than an unsecured creditor. It's also notable because the U.S. President has been accused of violating U.S. bankruptcy law. U.S. bankruptcy law is very clear that secured creditors get precedence over unsecured creditors. Also, the article is more than 25K in length, has 34 references, and has been edited by more than 20 different users. The article was also linked to on the wikipedia homepage in the section in the news. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that the case was filed, but it was not heard by the court. Which is why, the place to address it is the Chrysler bankruptcy page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SCOTUS throw out thousands of cases a year. A case thriwn out is not notable. PhGustaf (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the name of the article should be changed. My concern is with secured creditors being treated worse than unsecured creditors, which is noteworthy in and of itself, as is explained in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If using Wikipedia for some personal crusade is your intent, you're going to wind up sadly disappointed. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a personal crusade. I think it's noteworthy because of the precedent it sets. In the future, how will companies in positions such as Chrysler be able to get secured loans, now that they really don't exist anymore? What about contracts? What about the idea that the President is not supposed to be above the law? These are huge issues, as is described in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You say that it's not a personal crusade and then immediately contradict yourself: not a good strategy. All that stuff about the future importance is YOUR future crusade, not an actual objective conclusion. --Calton | Talk 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unimportant legal case, and any coverage is purely in the context of Chrysler bankruptcy, not the case itself. Unfork this. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. The coverage is not "purely in the context of Chrysler bankruptcy," because the article also discusses other things, such as the fifth amendment, property rights, and due process, as well as the kinds of effects it is predicted to have in future scenarios where companies in a condition such as Chrysler's try to get a secured loan. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encrusting it with your own spin/interpretation doesn't help you left it out of its sole context. --Calton | Talk 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable case with very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. It has not been thrown out, but a request to stop to the deal with fiat from going forward refused. The issue of how bondholders are treated is very significant and important. If there are content issues they should be addressed through editing. It should also be noted that there is a campaign against articles created by user:Grundle2600 who's being hounded by many of the editors identified as the worst POV pushers during the Obama arbcom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merits maybe a sentence or two somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. This lawsuit was only in the news for a few days, and only because there was anticipation about the stay would affect the larger Fiat sale. As mentioned above, all the Supreme Court did was refuse a stay, which is its usual reaction to a petition to stay — it didn't even grant certiorari (agreeing to hear the actual case) as far as I know, let alone decide anything. In other words, this hasn't been a Supreme Court case yet. This lawsuit is still alive, and yet it's not really in the news anymore. Maybe if it is accepted and ruled on by the Supreme Court, a decision would be notable; but it hasn't been accepted — it's just an appellate case, not reversing the original court, that the Supreme Court hasn't even taken up (yet if at all). Whether the disposition of bondholders in bankruptcy is notable is something for reliable sources to determine &mdash and the vast majority of this suit's news coverage was about whether it was holding up the Fiat date, not about its merits. The possibility of the Fiat sale falling through was the notable event, not the court case. I realize there was also some coverage of the actual issues in the case — as cited in the article — but it was mostly political pundits on both sides; it wasn't the main thrust of the coverage from reliable sources. That all said, I'm reluctant to recommend deleting an article that had some work put into it — but it did start out as a strong POV pushing article, and hasn't gotten much better. If something that shouldn't have been a separate article has turned into a long, neutral article, maybe it should stay — but when one starts out non-neutral and would still require quite a large amount of research to become neutral, it's probably easier to merge the neutral parts and delete the lengthy one-sided detail that should have never happened in the first place. And until there are WP:RS that this court case actually is a landmark case in financial law, not just a disputed aberration that is part of some other important subject, this subject isn't notable enough for its own article. --Closeapple (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poor content/POV fork that simply is not needed. Moving on... seicer | talk | contribs 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really is just a POV fork which can be covered in the primary article. Skinny87 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of News-related deletions and Social science-related deletions. --Closeapple (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost every U.S. Supreme Court case is cited, discussed, and otherwise part of for decades after closure. This isn't (yet?) a case accepted for a hearing, merely one for which the court took the unusual step of writing an opinion denying of stay. I think this was the only such denial of stay issued as an opinion of the court during the current term.[5] There is more than enough evidence that this was of short run notability. The article will be better off once our WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases gets to it and brings the write-up more in line with the rest of the series. (I've flagged the project that the article needs work.) Since the court issued the denial of stay as an opinion per curium, that denial is precedent and will be cited and analyzed in the future. So I expect this also to have long run significance meriting an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is actually Nken v. Holder. The only ruling here was that a stay was not justified, and the petitioners have to go back through the normal system, and that would mean that the case becomes a SCOTUS case not earlier than the October 2010. Therefore my contention that the case has not yet achieved notability, it's Chrysler bankruptcy that has any notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chrysler bankruptcy (2009) and redirect. Although this could still become a Supreme Court case in the future, it is still an appellate case at the present time, and will be until the Court agrees to hear the case, if ever. Thus, I agree wholeheartedly with Closeapple. I suggest merging rather than deleting because several users have worked hard on this article, and their work may be valuable if the Court ever agrees to hear the case. However, as noted above, the article started out as a POV page for Grundle2600. There are definitely anti-Obama overtones remaining in the article, and when information is merged into the Chrysler bankruptcy article I would recommend removal of such bias. Ultimately, there are only a couple of lines on this subject in the Chrysler bankruptcy article, and if someone started a subsection in that article about this case I would not be unopposed. But until the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler does not merit its own article. Also, delete all the absurd redirects. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support of merge because this wasn't really a full U.S. Supreme Court opinion, but rather a procedural action (denial of stay). So long as the facts surrounding the legal action pursued by Chrysler's creditors are preserved in the Chrysler bankruptcy (2009) article, then I have no problem merging it. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis

Per WP:ORG, does not appear to be the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The few reliable sources that mention this group usually do so in a single sentence. Appears to be best known for a letter to the editor published in the 1990s. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: On the one hand, this is perhaps a relevant sidenote to the already-fringe area of AIDS denialism. On the other hand, though, coverage in independent, reliable sources is extremely thin and verges on the trivial. I don't have my copy of Impure Science in front of me, but my recollection is that even this source, which deal specifically and at length with the "causation debate", barely mentions the Group. I don't see how this article can ever be more than its current, tiny, stubby self, given the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. It would probably be better off as a redirect to AIDS denialism, or as a brief mention in the biographies of notable group members (e.g. Peter Duesberg, Philip E. Johnson), where the Group can be discussed as part of the larger and more notable phenomenon of AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even a source that explicitly discusses the shifting sets of alliances between these people link only mentions this group in passing. The group has no independent notability from its members. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete/Possibly salt. Anything useful can be housed at AIDS denialism, the rest becomes a fringe POV coatrack nightmare. Salting may be needed to keep wikilink abuse to a minimum as well. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete. Either that or prove it's noteworthy. If it's noteworthy, then it needs to be re-written. Charonn0 (talk) 04:02, 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 as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion - including the IP nominator, who suggested editing or merging but not deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CB radio in the United Kingdom

Nominated by unregistered user 82.152.193.148 who placed the following reason on the talk page:

"Almost completely original research. Few references, full of opinions and plain rubbish (talk about "swearing in", for example). Better off reduced and merged into the main CB article."

I wish to abstain, as I am only completing the AfD nomination for the aforementioned unregistered user. --tgheretford (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references multiple reliable third-party sources like this this one show it meets the notability test. That said, the article is in serious need of an overhaul and after the AfD it needs in-depth attention but AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sources, even if not specific citations to those sources, and it's no less encyclopedic than CB usage in the United States. Actually, it covers the CB phenomenon of the mid-70s better than the other articles. There's surprisingly little about the fad, which I blame on (a) Most Wikipedians were born after 1976 and (b) Anyone who used phrases like "10-4 good buddy" probably thinks Wikipedia is a venereal disease. In any event, I don't know why we should assist an unregistered user in getting an article deleted, since an unregistered user isn't allowed to create an article. Mandsford (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. It definitely needs to be reduced and footnoted, but not merged in with the main article on CB which is very long; as noted above even the U.S. where CB has a much longer history is split to a separate article. Perhaps if there was an article for "CB radio in Europe" it could go there but it isn't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and sourceable. Needs work though.--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 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 delete. Note: Googlism (web application) has been moved to Googlism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googlism

Yet another parody religion. No sources other than their own website, and nothing I can find on, well, Google, to suggest that anyone other than a few blogs has paid this the slightest notice. Flying Spaghetti Monster or Anton LaVay, this isn't. – iride scent 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this has any real adherents. Sources asserted in first AfD are not specific enough for me to find, and the article certainly doesn't have any independent RS's itself. Fails V, N, and NFT. Jclemens (talk)
- Comment That "2nd nomination" is misleading. The first AFD seems to have been on Googlism (web application). – iride scent 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, per nom. Bullzeye ^contribs 22:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy selective deletion as a copyright violations. All versions since this one from yesterday are copyright violations of [6]. The version before that one was a redirect to Googlism (web application). GRBerry 22:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 per GRBerry. Tavix | Talk 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Note that there have been prior discussions about this topic with other titles. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per copyvio and non-notability. Brian Reading (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy, snow, whatever. An active railway station is not going to be deleted. StarM 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Street railway station

I fail to see what makes this station notable. What happens, or has happened at this station to make it notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article? Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Precedent is that all railway stations (and many former railways stations) are notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: mentioned in at least 40 books going back to as early as 1878. A longstanding notable local landmark, used for navigation by cyclists and entomologists in particular it seems. Qwfp (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (1) Precedent says that all current railway stations in the United Kingdom are sufficiently notable for their own articles. (2) this is a historic station not least because the Victoria Line was due to terminate here. (3) per Qwfp, this is a local landmark. (4) it is covered in many reliable sources. (5) it was teh site of an accident in 1939 that led to questions in parliament about the safety of railways in foggy conditions during the blackout[7]. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. --DMG413 (talk) 00:32, 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 speedy delete (no substantial content). ... discospinster _talk 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Back (tv series)

This article was just created but the tv show appears to have just been made up. A search on Google for "Jordan Winstanley" "fighting back" yields no results at all, and the article doesn't provide any hint of how the series is notable (through a tv channel for example). Them From Space 19:12, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neda Behnam

Delete fails WP:BIO and written more as a vanity piece or advertising than a biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a google news archive search, and found two hits. One is a press release from her company, and is thus not an independent source, and the other only mentions her in passing, as a cancer survivor. There's nowhere near the level of coverage here needed to establish notability. Cazort (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN vanity BLP. Almost promotional enough to qualify for speedy. Bullzeye ^contribs 22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 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 Speedy delete both NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apostolic Reformation

Agreed with the tagger that db-spam is warranted, but I'm making a judgment call that the end result will be better if I take this through AfD. That might help to get the message across, and if not, it gives us G4 in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete - blatant violation of neutral point of view guidelines. No indication of notability or sufficient context to create a stub from the content of this article. At the very least it would require a full rewrite. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd support speedy deletion per db-spam or snowy deletion as soon as consensus is clear. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonnotable, NPOV, gets one more !vote of support. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, John, could I ask a question? I added this to the "list of Religion-related deletion discussions" instead of "Christianity" on the theory that some Xians might be offended by the association ... good call or bad? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason not to list them under Christianity that I can see. The author is clearly attempting to write about Christianity. GRBerry 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Unencyclopedic, and - far worse - barely coherent. Hairhorn (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete both, now. Smell test says these two articles are a very unkind parody or satire of Christianity rather than a serious attempt to write an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete of both articles. Wholly unencyclopedic, unsourced, spammy. No need for discussion here. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we have any use for these, even assuming that they are intended to be articles compliant with our policies. The phrase "New Apostolic Reformation" is used by a few charismatics. Thus, I think that our existing unsourced article New Apostolic Reformation should be reviewed but not included herein. On the other hand, I can't see anything to make me believe that the phrase "Apostolic Reformation" by itself has any meaning as a noun and thus that it can't be the subject of an encyclopedia article. The phrase "Kingdom Dominion" is used in many different uses by Christians, from financial activity to dance!?!?[8] I don't know if there is an article that could exist at such a title, but what is there is not helpful. GRBerry 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now speedied both per db-spam. I can't close this AfD since I opened it, but I can make the db-spam call since I was the one who temporarily declined the tag. Someone uninvolved should close, please (or not, if you disagree). - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply regarding "No need for discussion here" above: occasionally, an article feels like an attempt to communicate "the truth" ... about religion, multi-level marketing, whatever. In these cases, my feeble db-spam deletion is unlikely to have any impact on the future choices of the article creator, so I'd rather do AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Rotation (song)

Yet another unsourced and unsourceable article about an Anastascia single. Seems to be a plague. WP:CRYSTAL violation, violates WP:NSONGS as well. —Kww(talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single fails WP:CRYSTAL, as well as the general notability guideline. A Google News search found no reliable sources confirming the song as a single or even covering the song in general. Tim meh 22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Couldn't have said it better myself, fails both standards with flying colors. Bullzeye ^contribs 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetinguniverse

Nonnotable hotel review website, given references don't support notability per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-Notable, References look fake, I do not find any of those referred source mentioning the subject under consideration. The editor might be trying to use ad banners as reference. Hitro 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following:

"It’s about peers sharing information with peers. Current examples of the planner review sites that I like are meetinguniverse.com, meetingscollaborative.com and meetingsintel.com. Elitemeetings.com also has a peer review capability." themeetingsmagazines.com

"Several user-review sites have recently emerged designed specifically with the meeting planner in mind. MeetingUniverse (www.meetinguniverse.com), Meetings Intelligence Exchange (www.meetingsintel.com), MeetingsCollaborative (http://meetingscollaborative.com), and Elite Meetings (www.elitemeetings.com) are review sites for meeting planners with planner reviews of meeting venues and hotels. One of these sites may become the next “Trip Advisor” for the meetings industry. One thing is certain, however. If you are providing a service or a product to meeting planners, they will be reviewed at user-review sites and these will become increasingly important tools for meeting planners to make buying decisions." Corbinball.com

"This site's reviews are extremely detailed, based on the completion of about 70 questions. The ratings are compiled into a total score, and the scores are averaged in with scores from other reviews.

Overall property ratings are based on a compilation of planner reviews as well as supplier answers to a questionnaire. Properties are awarded 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being best, as well as a numerical score of 1 to 100.

No property receives an overall rating unless at least 10 reviews and the completed supplier questionnaire have been submitted, says Web site founder Russell Ridge, who also operates a ground transportation company in Salt Lake City. A disclaimer is posted next to listings that have fewer than 10 reviews. As of late October, only one hotel had received up to 10 reviews.

Only people registered as planners can submit reviews, and then only about properties where they have held meetings of at least 50 participants in the previous 12 months, says Ridge. Management looks at each review before posting it. Property search results show the highest-rated hotels first. Suppliers pay to run ads on the site and must also pay to be rated.

MeetingUniverse.com has a discussion forum, although it was virtually inactive as of late October.

When launched? Originally launched in spring 2006 as hotfireratings.com; relaunched February 2008

How many registrants? About 1,500

How many reviews? 200 reviews on 65 properties, 110 reviews on 100 other suppliers; 165 suppliers listed" Meetingsnet.com

Delete or complete rewrite. Most of the article is irrelevant fluff. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything stated in the article is verifiable fact. I fail to see how facts are "irrelevant fluff". Please also refer to the article about TripAdvisor. If the MeetingUniverse article should be deleted then so should that. I would also appreciate it if you would check my references before calling them fake as they are legitimate and can be verified by a very simple and quick search in all of the articles. Use control and "F" to bring up the search box then type in "MeetingUniverse" to show all the places the business is mentioned. No where will you find them mentioned in banner ads or any other type of advertisement but rather as a topic discussed in the article itself.

Delete, likely speedy delete as obvious advertising: "It's about peers sharing information with peers." States Corbin Ball, a meetings industry expert on emerging technologies. .... Thus MeetingUniverse was born to signify the move into a full service analytics company serving the meetings and events industry. .... In this volatile economic climate the status quo is no longer a viable option. An article this slanted and promotional in tone can't be allowed to remain; and if it's obvious advertising, notability is a side issue at best. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed what you called as "slanted" Do you feel that it is better now? Also, if you look at the link to the quote you will see that it mentions not only MeetingUniverse but also their competitors in conjunction with that quote.

I also fixed the inline citations as well as separated it into sections. Is there anything else I need to do to get those alerts removed?

That is somewhat better. Notability remains a problem; the third party sources all appear to relate to websites for the meeting planner industry, which suggests they have limited readership and do not make a case for notability outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make it so that the "Divide into Sections" alert as well as the "inline citations" are removed? What else do I have to do? Also, as for notability I added another reference to an E-Book that encompasses an industry larger than the meetings and events industry. Does this satisfy the "notability" requirement? Mfetzer3 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyman Park, Baltimore

~~This does not seem to be a notable neighborhood. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merge All real (so long as they can be verified) municipalities are notable, as there are no third party sources, merging with Baltimore or a larger neighborhood would be appropriate. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was prodded for deletion by the nom within one day of its creation [9] and nominated for AfD less than a day later. [10]. A few seconds google book search brought up several books with substantial coverage. [11][12][13]. Another example of a rush to deletion whilst violating WP:BEFORE.--Oakshade (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Recommend Withdrawing Nomination I agree with Oakshade that this article was nominated much too quickly, without doing much of a background search. Such nominations do not contribute to a constructive and positive attitude on wikipedia. It was also very easy for me to find sources, like Oakshade found. Some of the articles are written in detail about this neighborhood, i.e.: [14]. Cazort (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per sources. Strikehold (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the above sources discovered. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:19, 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 G4 Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Magicians' Guild

AfDs for this article:

Was AfD'd in May 2008, reposted a few days ago, speedily deleted, nominated again for speedy deletion, but the creator keeps insisting, so let's bring it here again. Multiple, independent sources establishing notability are still lacking, so we should delete (hopefully for good this time). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Repost, still self promoting, sources are all first party. Salt? - 2 ... says you, says me 16:46, 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 no consensus, default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Batemans Bay

Contested prod. Seems to fail notability via the lack of reliable sources establishing its real world significance. Izno (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major mall it is notable to its region. I removed an NPOV tag from it, FYI. It didn't seem to have that problem.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 16:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find coverage in non-trivial third-party sources showing notability. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NOTE -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a major centre and an article is needed. I have now fixed the article, added references, added information and moved the article to Village Centre Batemans Bay per the centre's new name. --Whats new? (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable regional centre, has sufficient third-party sources. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nom, early admin closure per WP:SNOW. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walpin

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing which resulted in deletion, but which the closing admin specifically excluded this article from his assessment. This article is about a marginally notable attorney who was fired by Obama. The issue here is that there is so little source material on this person that it is almost ENTIRELY related to his firing, per WP:BLP1E and especially WP:COATRACK the article seems to exist solely as a place to put politically-themed commentary related to that firing, as there is little else here besides that. Since there does not appear to be enough source material to actually write a neutral and WP:BLP-compliant article about this person, it should probably be deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability & documentation for it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use a wider variety of sourcing, and a bit less of recent history, but that's not a reason to delete the article, even with the COATRACKing problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is longer than what I expected it to come to, but its awfully stretched, and I really don't think it has satisfied notability concerns. Ask yourself; if Walpin had never been fired, would there be an article for him? I don't think an honest case can be made for a "yes" to that. He was an Inspector General, one of 64, for the Corporation for National and Community Service, with a mission to "support the American culture of citizenship, service, and responsibility". This is a somewhat minor agency, and Walpin was the watchdog/auditor assigned there. I generally hate "other stuff" arguments, but where's the article for the acting IG who took Walpin's place? As for his earlier career, I don't see the inherent notability in being a JAG, a regional prosecutor, or the president of the Federal Bar Council, essentially the bar association of the New York area. This boils down to WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - If this is viewed as too political I suggest it be made into a likeness or match of the Attorney's fired by Bush Wiki thus making it as impartial as that Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.215.7 (talk)

Keep. The main coatracker, IMHO, was recently topic-banned from US political articles here for several months. With that easement this article should be more stable. The subject is certainly notable enough and numerous sources exist. The only issue was coatracking of a recent issue violating WP:Soap. I've hacked away at it again and think it's fine now. Many, most?, BLPs are lopsided in exactly this way because until someone dies we often don't have a comprehansive biography on them thus recent events are well documented whereas early life bits, earlier scandals and nortable events have to be unearthed to balance out the more recent events. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Walpin had an appointment requiring Senate confirmation; was the subject of a controversial firing; and was Chief of Prosecutions in one of the most important jurisdictions in the country. Taken as a whole, there's sufficient notability to justify an article here. Notability should not be determined by deconstructing a biography into a list of characteristics and requiring that there be one particular characteristic that, standing alone, conveys notability. We should look at the big picture. Yes, we should be on guard against this becoming a coatrack. Nonetheless, the guy is encyclopedic. There are readers looking to know who he was and what his role was, beyond the latest item in the news. That's exactly the sort of reference that Wikipedia provides as its mission. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough for there to be some refs; and I remember reading about it at one point. Just because page needs work isn't reason to delete it, nor is its political nature. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 5 minutes of fame is NOT notability, regardless of how many gossip columns carry it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gossip columns"? You are mistaken. Please see my comments, suggestions, and non-gossip sources at Talk:Gerald Walpin for how to improve Gerald Walpin. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject and the controversy surrounding his firing are notable. The President has been accused of firing a government watchdog over doing his job. At Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama, I suggested adding info about Gerald Walpin to Presidency_of_Barack_Obama. It was suggested to me that the info be put into a separate article. So, I created Gerald Walpin firing. Afterward, I created Gerald Walpin and redirected it to Gerald Walpin firing, because at the time, the article was about the event, not the person. Later, someone else nominated Gerald Walpin firing for deletion. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, multiple people suggested that Gerald Walpin firing be deleted, and that the info from it be merged into Gerald Walpin. Now Gerald Walpin has been nominated for deletion. Please see my comments at Talk:Gerald Walpin for how to improve Gerald Walpin. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep [EC] Meets WP:N, has significant position, has been in the news for years. [15]. I can't be sure these are all the same guy, but the first 10 or so news hits (before the current firing issues) are about a Gerald Walpin who is an East Coast Lawyer. Most recent coverage puts him way over the bar. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, obviously notable. References are sufficient. --Blurpeace (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination based upon sources provided by ChildofMidnight. The depth of coverage about this person clearly exists which put to rest my doubts about the ability of this article to be made compliant with WP:N. Still, WP:BLP concerns are legitimate, and care should be taken to ensure that these sources are used to expand the article in question to provide a WP:NPOV portrayal of the subject, and not merely to act as a WP:COATRACK for the recent news stories surrounding him. Still, I no longer have concerns over the notability of the subject. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is rather unfortunate, as by the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, CoM should have not even been participating in this AfD or presenting any such material on the subject. Per ArbCom decision, he is banned from all Obama-related areas, including talk pages. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Salda

Contested PROD. Reason given: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 June 25 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability Zoo Fari 15:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who has done his homework. The lack of coverage in web sources, coupled with no evidence of non-web sources, would seem to clearly indicate this person does not pass WP:N or WP:BIO inclusion criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ACADEMIC standards -- and the prod was not genuinely contested. That's a sock of a banned user (User:Azviz) evading his block. I've just been reverting those per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: when you say contested, do you mean earlier, or that *you* contest it, ZooFari? If you contest it why list it here immediately after? If you mean earlier, didn't you see the note? DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this IP contested it, and another user disagreed, and then the PROD was removed again. So I listed it here. Zoo Fari 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yeah... sock of a banned user doing block evasion, the deprodding again should have again been reverted per WP:BAN. But it looks like it'll be deleted with an AFD, which is better precedent in case someone tries to add it again. DreamGuy (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability has not been established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried several searches to turn up notability for his Cinderella project and his work on Arthurian animation, but didn't find anything convincing. The biggest response for the Cinderella project came from regular Google rather than Google scholar, books, or news, there were less than 400 hits (not a big number for regular Google), and a large fraction of the hits seem to be schools that mention the project as an example of how to cite a web site rather than for any of its content. And in any case if the project were notable it would argue more for an article about it than about him. In the absence of evidence in the article that he passes WP:PROF, and not finding any myself, I don't see a rationale for continuing to have this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Carpenter (academic)

BLP of Associate Professor in which all information about the individual is from a primary source (pages on the university site she would have written about herself). There is one independent source that is there solely to site the existence of aschool in Hong Kong and which does not mention this person's name. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails WP:PROF, furthermore, information is unverifiable even if someone comes up with some whacky fantasy rule for declaring her notable in their opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete let us not forget there are on the order of 10^6 college professors in the world. Abductive (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though only an associate professor, Scopius shows 7 papers, with citation counts of 83, 57, 29, 25, 24, 14, 0. She is sole author of the top 2, both in excellent journals. She has two of her papers in Journal of Financial Economics, probably the most prestigious journal in the subject. The other two publications are Working papers, which in economics normally means preprints that will eventually be published. She;s at one of the very highest level institutions of her subject, NYU Stern Business School. There are not 1 million such professors. Just as well argue against a notable persona in any subject on the basis that there are an overwhelming number of non-notable ones also. (Speedy delete is inapplicable if there is any indication ofeven possible notability, btw. ) The secondary sourcing is the citations , and in particular the inclusion in J Financial Economics. Much better evidence of notability than if one or two newspapers happened to mention her. DGG (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, this smells of scraping by. There are thousands of profs with articles in two or more top journals. And "published in numerous journals" is not a claim to notability, not for an academic, anyway. Hairhorn (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it all boils down to DGG's opinion that she is notable based on a few citations that millions of other professors have. Worse, he willfully and knowingly makes arguments that go against consensus expressed by guidelines, like arguing that notability can be inherited from an employer or from a publisher. This is not the way administrators on Wikipedia are expected to conduct themselves. Drawn Some (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's opinions are usually right on the mark. He also explains them well enough that they can be argued with on their merits, and if by having a dialog a new consensus if formed, it will be a better consensus. But see my comment below. Abductive (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Sometimes his opinions are right on the mark but at least as often he argues to keep clearly non-notable articles by making up borderline non-sensical reasons or actually uses arguments as he did here implying that someone can inherit notability from an employer or that having a university-branded publisher makes a book or author notable. If he doesn't think our notability guidelines are any good he should advocate for changing them but he shouldn't deliberately circumvent or ignore them. That is disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is arguing for a shorthand way of presuming notability using citation counts, based on the likelihood that if one searches hard enough, one will find irrefutable evidence of notability; reliable sources that say that the academic did notable work. I think that DGG worries that there is a shortage of people on Wikipedia with the time, access rights and qualifications to do these searches, and is worried that if citation counts aren't accepted as evidence, the floodgates will open and good articles will be lost. Abductive (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not going to disagree with the statement that there are insufficient people working on this subject, my argument is quite simply that WP:PROF specifies, and in my opinion correctly, that notability is shown by having " made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This impact is measured by citation. That what is meant by the term, impact on a discipline, and the secondary sources are the citation indexes. I am not in the least challenging consensus this time (though I sometimes do, and when I do, i try to say so specifically). I support the WP:PROF consensus--as well I might, for I helped form it. I'm using exactly the consensus standard, and I think she meets it. A little borderline, yes, but still she meets it. DGG (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yeah, borderline, but good enough for me. Side comment I don't see any reason why DGG or anyone else can't make an argument that goes against consensus as long as they're civil about it. Consensus can change, and just because someone doesn't "drink the Kool-Aid" of consensus doesn't make them an evil admin! There's an essay in that somewhere...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An occasional WP:IAR is fine but the purpose of AfD is to see if articles meet our guidelines for inclusion, not to create new guidelines. We have several editors who consistently ignore consensus as expressed in guidelines at AfD and it makes it much more difficult and creates problems like the bilateral relations situation. Totally unacceptable and disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to subscribe to encouraging full discussions and don't see this point of view as disruptive at all. DGG civily stated an opinion and made a point. Focus on the comments, not the person making them. Are the comments incorrect? Please explain why.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see WP:KOOLAID--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is fine. Discussion is based on the guidelines for notability. Occasional WP:IAR is fine but constantly ignoring GUIDELINES is disruptive. Guidelines should not be routinely ignored, especially by an administrator. It is very disturbing. I am particularly referring to repeated claims that someone is notable by some kind of inheritance from a publisher or employer. Drawn Some (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question again, I get that you disagree--fine. But WHY do you disagree, and WHY were the comments "disruptive"?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of me disagreeing. It is consensus expressed in guidelines that notability is not inherited in this case, other guidelines at other times. I am not claiming that the comments in this AfD alone are disruptive, but the PATTERN of consistently ignoring or arguing against consensus expressed in the notability guidelines IS disruptive. AfD is not the place to change the guidelines through a constant pattern of ignoring them and deliberately seeking to undermine them. It is disruptive because it slows down the process of AfD. AfD is to implement a general consensus on notability and that general consensus shouldn't routinely be overridden by a few vocal editors. Gaming the system and processes to achieve a result against consensus is highly disruptive. If DGG were an IP he would be warned and eventually blocked. The notability guidelines are no less important than guidelines on sockpuppetry or civility. Here's another good example of how this behavior is disruptive and interferes with decision-making: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jak_&_Daxter_vehicles. You know, this is probably not the place to continue this conversation, maybe it should be at RFC. Drawn Some (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying I still have to disagree. If someone wants to state an opinion, and that opinion is against consensus, then they should be able to do so as long as they are civil about it. It's not disruptive, it's a discussion. True consensus will prevail, and if it's real consensus it can withstand the test of occasional disagreement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree with you 100% but pivoting on the word "occasional". I even think it's healthy. But in this case it is not occasional, it is "usual" and it is highly disruptive. Like I said though, this isn't the place for this discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON -- WP:DUCKSEASON !--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am reluctant to reopen a closed debate but I need to dissociate myself from remarks made about DGG's editing. He is an esteemed WP editor of long standing with an extensive knowledge and sound judgement of this particular area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment My point of view is that an article on a professor can be appropriate if their work influenced the field/world enough that the related Wikipedia articles would be different. I realized some time ago that every sentence in a college textbook represents the life's work, or at least a major project, of a (now important) academic. But if you can't find a reliable source that says that Dr So-and-so discovered/influenced/transformed/redefined some concept, then you have no secondary sources and the article should be deleted. In the case of academic publications, review articles are secondary sources par excellence. Is there a way to look for citations in review articles only? Abductive (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of distinguishing review articles from original research articles unless one knows the field in detail. Some journals publish both types of article in the same issue. Most papers of original research contain an introductory review section at the beginning. An article is unlikely to be cited in a review until it has been recognised by cites in the original research area. An argument could be made that cites in articles of original research are the more important but I know of no consensus that one type of cite is regarded as more important than the other. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment (and not in any sense a !vote): There's a view, with scholars and matters relating to academia, that one can demonstrate notability via citations of the subject rather than citations to it. It's not a majority view, but it's certainly more than just DGG's opinion.
By analogy, the Botanical Journal of the Linnaean Society cites no sources whatsoever, because not many people have written about it. The argument goes that the said journal is such a reliable source in its own right that it doesn't need reliable sources from other publications in order to have an article.
This is not to say that the professor in question here should have an article. I just wanted to say there are good reasons why Wikipedia tends to be kindly to academics when it comes to the GNG. There are millions of myspace bands, pokemon characters and star trek episodes that find it easier to get past the GNG than a proper scholar such as this lady, and that's a problem.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always want to see a claim of notability. For example, the person who created this article also created one for Menachem Brenner, another finance prof in the same school. Dr Brenner is "also the co-inventor (with Professor Dan Galai) of the volatility index based on the prices of traded index options". See, that is something encyclopedic. Abductive (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That one has 200-300 citations. Not much, but this is an electronic encyclopedia. We have a lot of space.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; better than borderline. Searching on GS with * "author:J N Carpenter" I get cites of 289, 279, 150,113, 103.... She has made some impact. I agree that the article needs improvement to make it more encyclopedic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I think she fails WP:PROF. I'm not an expert and can't claim I wrote the standards, but I think she fails them. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some reasons would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By citation counts above. That just citation counts alone can demonstrate wikipedia-notability has been part of the WP:PROF guideline by longstanding consensus. Indeed, for academics, they are the most important means for doing so. See criterion #1, and Wikipedia:PROF#Notes_and_examples #1 explaining it.John Z (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation counts are highly variable by field and difficult to calibrate — the numbers quoted above are quite suggestive but not completely convincing. But when I do the search the other way around, her work comes up in the top ten hits on a Google scholar search for "stock options". I think that should make it clear that she is one of the top experts on an important subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Configuron

Configuron: a neologism that gives undue weight to one particular point of vue.

Result of a search with Google Scholar:

only 24 hits
2 hits, among them the most cited one, are off-topic
21 are from no more than two different authors, Angell and Ozhovan/Ojovan

Conclusion: despite obstinate efforts by its two main proponents, this neoglogism has failed to enter the scientific mainstream. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism lacking independent sources to make it notable. May mention a sentence or two at glass transition but not an article or even a redirect. Qwfp (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beside lack of notability, I do not find useful information there: first half tells obvious things, which are not specific to this article, second one introduces a concept, whose merit is neither justified not clear. Materialscientist (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted under G7, prempting a quick close of the AfD. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Guide to Green Dragons in Chaos Tunnels

WP:GAMEGUIDE \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOWTO; WP:ORIGINAL Zoo Fari 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:GAMEGUIDE. This unencyclopedic content is making my delete finger itchy, but it would be a stretch to match any of the speedy deletion criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and also WP:SNOW. Manning (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- """No Delete!"""* Stephypooface

Writer of article Hey hey. (Took forever to figure out how to respond) I spent four hours on this article! Here look I'll explain to you what it is. There is a game of runescape, have you heard of it? okay well there's a map of chaos tunnels and you have to keep going through portals to get to the monster you wish too if you research it and see what people talk about, it's not easy. There are good chances you will die. I originally had put that information on notepad for me, because I NEEDED to look at it quickly, or else I had a chance to die. And the thing is, I'm sure a lot of people sit there, and do the math in their head what tunnels to take to get to the specific monster "Green Dragons." Because, that is in fact a popular monster. I checked everywhere and no website had what I was looking for. I can't be the only person in the world looking for it, in fact I know I am not, so I put it up. Please don't delete it :( Additional details:: When it talks about a bunch of monsters in order, it's because everytime you use a portal, you enter the room with that monster inside of it. and need to know what portal to use next. And if you check out this link http://www.runehq.com/guide.php?type=map&id=0946 you will see how complex it can be. please please pleeeassseeee consider it, and figure out what it really is all about before you delete it? <3 you ;]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chick who wrote the page, again.

I do not believe you hit save page? I don't see the update to my link =s Am I not seeing it correctly?

Delete The amount of time put into an article does not have any relevance to the deletion process. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the right place for game strategy articles (see WP:GAMEGUIDE). I'd suggest that the author transfer the content to a more appropriate wiki, like maybe strategywiki.org. Amazinglarry (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly transwiki to a runescape wiki if one exists, per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Entirely unencyclopedic in nature, signed as a blog post or userpage, no WP:RS, no nothing. MLauba (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear game guide content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue, Stephypooface, is that it boils down to a Game guide and Original research. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability, not usefulness. You really need to ask yourself whether or not this topic is notable (which means significant independent reporting by third-party sources) on its own merit. I hope that helps a bit - if you're interested in RS, why not try and improve other articles related to it? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

me again. yeah okay. i understand what you guys are saying. alright I will check out those websites, thanks. I didn't know there was a game version of wiki. The reason I chose here, is because it was adding onto the site with MY NAME on the bottom, you know? Being able to give advice and people knowing i figured that out on my own. if you understand. Obviously you do if you are on this site. But it's true, looking on the website, it's more about things which go on in the world, not the world of rs. thanks for the links guys.

ha cool. i see the wiki place you guys gave me is what I am looking for :D im' happy now ^.^ thanks lol i was sad for a bit.

stephy : alright I am granting you guys permission to delete my page, saving you guys time talking it over :) thanks!! <3 you guys are real nice about things

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Post it to Gamefaqs.com instead.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 16:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate World Championship

Pure original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POV. Article is built with inappropriate opinions and definitely WP:ORIGINAL. Zoo Fari 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SPEEDY DELETE per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and speedy delete criteria #7 no CREDIBLE claim of significance or importance of the article's SUBJECT OfficeGirl (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think we are dealing with a case of WP:SNOW. OfficeGirl (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODd-ed it first so no speedy is possible, but I do think this will be a snow-closure before the 7 days are up. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is completely false. No such distinction exists. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:ONEDAY applies. Tavix | Talk 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, this appears to be what he created after he was yelled at for altering the Grand Slam Championship page. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, entirely made up. Nikki♥311 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the violation of WP:OR. I think this may also violate WP:NOTDIR due to it's purely statistical nature and base. It's not a real name as such. The real name is Grand Slam champion as mentioned. Mal Case (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uhh, I think someone who won every wrestling circuit championship would be called something else...Blacklisted because they jumped promotions and ticked off every circuit president for doing so. Total bollocks. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete, this "distinction",as put so eloquently, has been recognized by both TNA and the IWGP in the forms of Jeff Jarret and Kurt Angle, like I said on Darrenhusted's talk page most people do not recognize this title because of its rarity. Mike Tenay and Don West both made comments about this in promos for Jeff Jarret and Kurt Angles rematch and during Angles entrance if that enough verification then it cannot be verified what do you want me to do post a link of the video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshman5000 (talk • contribs)

Do I don't want you to link to the video as it would change nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, because I just went an checked their rematch from Genesis 2009. West nor Tenay say anything about this championship nor talk about any championships Angle or Jarrett have ever won. They talk only about their feud.--WillC 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one where he angle slammed jeff off the stage they talk about it before the promo and during kurts entrance you might want to check again and if you can find kurt vs brock for the IWGP title with captions they talked about it their as wellWrestlings Savior (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would fail WP:V and WP:RS, and still would fail WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Freshman, what you said there is original research. Have you read WP:OR? Provide evidence of what you say consistent with WP:RS and WP:V. If you can't do it, then under the rules of this site it has to go. What part of that don't you understand? This championship does not exist and should be deleted quick smart. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't exist, so no article is necessary. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this thing now Completely made up.--WillC 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Slipknot (album) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

742617000027

This is an article about a non-notable track and all information included can be used in the album's article. It does not cite any sources and includes original research, and if this information is to remain on Wikipedia (for example, in the album's article) this will need to be addressed. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSONGS. Bullzeye ^contribs 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slipknot (album) per established practice. Tavix | Talk 16:35, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hauptwerk Virtual Organ

Several reasons:

It lacks information on the notability of the subject matter. WP:GNG
It does not cite any references or sources. I'm not counting the "Crumhorn Labs About Us" ref because the specific page doesn't exist any more.
It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Nameley, the company website. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
It reads like a review, advertisement, fan site, news release, and is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone, compromised by peacock terms. Its tone and style are not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:SOAP
It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and it may contain original research or unverifiable claims. WP:OR
It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content (how to create a virtual pipe organ). WP:NOTHOW
All of the encyclopedic content duplicates what is already covered in Organ and Pipe Organ. – jaksmata 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — – jaksmata 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it sounds like a pretty darned cool piece of software, if your system is configured properly and all the promo fluff is accurate. No info on notability, too much info about related material -- if this were properly cleaned up (without looking for sourcing), it would be about two paragraphs long.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 22 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) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the notability or sources, reads like an marketing brochure and I wouldn't be surprised if its a copyright violation of something. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourcing can be improved Googling shows this to be a reasonably well-known free product. The main issue appears to be finding acceptable third-party sources. Oh, and the article is terrible. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's free... According to the company website, it costs either $224 or $539 depending on the version. – jaksmata 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. You people are out of your minds. There are so many mediocre articles in Wikipedia, and this one actually provides information on an excellent product which is (in my opinion) too good for the average idiot reading Wikipedia to even appreciate. It needs more rigorous referencing, but should NOT be deleted. It is perhaps one of the most revolutionary products to come out in organ and harpsichord practice in the history of synthesized music. I own the product, paid for it, and think that it deserves a reference in Wikipedia. I am too busy to improve the article, but if you have enough time to complain about it, then why don't you try to improve it? Perhaps because you don't understand it and never used it, and therefore have nothing useful or intelligent to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.173.172 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I, Kenneth Spencer, was the original author of the page. I have deleted the discussion as I am very annoyed that my work has been deleted from Wikipaedia. Who is Jaksama anyway and why didn't he or she contact me before deleting the article? The contribution was made in good faith following many requests for assistance in the understanding of Virtual Pipe Organs. Other than the fact that I own a copy of the software and have built a virtual pipe organ myself I have no connection with Hauptwerk. Furthermore, I have been accused of stealing the content of my schematic of the virtual pipe organ. This schematic was in fact my own work and nearly all the photographs and diagrmas in the schamatic are of my own hardware or were drawn myself. The rest of them, and very few at that, were all reproduced with permission, as was declared.

I shall now proceed to delete the rest of my contributions to Wikipaedia, including those on two English Villages, and on the nature of Compton Scattering in radiation physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaspencer (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City Of Beacon Fire Department

Non-notable fire dept. A single-minded user deprodded this without explanation. Abductive (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local fire department. Beware the template full of red links foretelling a couple of dozen upcoming articles. Drawn Some (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ugh, indeed. Somebody needs to quickly put our friend wise as to WP:NOTE before he makes any more. That whole template and most of the pages on it will likely need to be squashed as well, as only a few aren't hopeless redlinks or redirects. 47 separate non-notable firehouses? Yeah right. Bullzeye ^contribs 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and previous arguments. either way (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not secure any Google News coverage to enable the article's survival, nor is there anything to merge. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either way has squashed everything else i've done. Might as well say delete --English836 (talk) 02:39, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Batie, Jr.

Removed prod, bringing it to AFD for further discussion. Article is about a U.S. Army officer who received a small burst (and I do mean small) of news coverage when some fast food franchises he owned were seized by the company for being an absentee owner. This may have been a sad misjustice, however there are some serious issues with the subject of the article, such as: 1) Article appears to be autobiographical, raising serious conflict of interest concerns. 2) All published, reliable information about the subject is about this single issue, raising serious WP:BLP1E concerns. 3) The entire article seems to be a coat rack to allow the author of the article to complain about the unfair treatment he received. 4) Per WP:NOTNEWS, human interest stories such as this aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. I cannot find any way the subject of this article merits inclusion in Wikipedia even considering this single news story, and as such it should be deleted. Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete If you have an article somewhere concerning the legal aspect of deployment on the home front this would go well there, otherwise it wounds like an ad and really ought to be deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOTNEWS. Although unfortunate, the article falls short of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I was going to suggest to the author that they put the info elsewhere, but I see that has already been done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete: I sympathise with the individual, however, I believe that the article has a number of issues. Firstly it is not written in a neutral or encyclopedic tone. Secondly the individual does not necessarily appear to meet the notability guidelines. Certainly the case is notable, though, so as suggested above by other users the information could be merged to other areas where appropriate. For instance perhaps an article that discusses provisions for protecting civilian livelihoods of Reservists on deployment? — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan Carew

PRODded my myself with the concern that "fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-pro league"; PROD was removed by article creator DavidDublin (talk · contribs) who claimed that "Carew played in the League of Ireland which is a professional League." However, thie asumption is incorrect in two ways. Firstly, the League of Ireland is NOT a fully-professional league (confirmed by WP:FOOTBALL). Secondly, Carew's club Kildare County plays in the FAI First Division, the second tier of football in Ireland and a level which is certainly NOT fully-professional. Carew, therefore, still fails WP:ATHLETE and the article should be deleted. Giant Snowman 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General notability guideline generally overrides any of the supplemental guidelines. Specifically, articles should not be deleted for failing one of the subguidelines if it can be demonstrated that there exists substantial coverage in reliable sources covering the person anyways. The subject appears to pass the basic WP:N requirements based on the level of multiple coverage seen at this Google News search. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:GNG says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." But none of the news reports you have brought to our attention meet this - they do not "address the subject directly in detail"! Giant Snowman 12:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article. I have added 2 sources which do address the subject directly and in detail. I have linked it up to the wiki. The teams he has played for and the Championships that he have one already have full wikipedia pages for them. His father is also one of the most famous Kildare Footballers of the millenium. David —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, the only source which addresses "the subject directly and in detail" is this one, which is his club profile. Also, just because the team he plays for is notable enough for an article doesn't mean that he is. ALSO, notability is not inherited from his "famous" father. Giant Snowman 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if thems the rules then Eoghan Carew goes. I disagree with the rules, Kevin Doyle began with the Wexford Youths who are Irish First Division, Roy Keane started with Cobh Ramblers also Irish First Division, John O'Shea and Daryl Murphy also with Waterford Utd. If these guys early careers aren't documented on wikipedia, this is the sort of information that will be extremely hard to find in the future. I have also seen countless articles I have written for such players re-used in club match day programs up and down Ireland. Proves that these are useful. I know I've lost the fight. Just giving my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing setting Carew apart from Doyle, Keane, O'Shea etc, is that they have all gone on to play fully-professional levels. I can imagine there are thousands of players who go through the clubs in the FAI First Division who don't amount a great deal. If Carew plays at a fully-professional level then the article can easily be recreated. --Jimbo^[online] 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are thousands of FD (FAI First Division) players that don't go on to play for fully-pro clubs, there are also thousands that do, and not just to England, we have fully pro teams here in Ireland too. How can the article easily be recreated - all the info and references are lost? Check Daryl Murphy, his Waterford United career and any background on it is all but forgotten by the wiki. He was worth £100,000 when he transferred from the League of Ireland. I don't understand why these articles are being deleted. People want these articles (check how many Irish players are being created on the wiki. check the Irish Football wiki project). People use these articles (check Padraig Amond/Ger O'Brien when they were transferred to a fully pro club their early career and background was already filled in, lets face it, for famous players the early career and background is that most difficult part to source and write. check the match day programs that use the players wiki pages to help write their pre match programs and their player profiles). Why delete them? What makes a player suddenly notable by playing one minute for a fully pro-team? There are internationals in the FD and players that have played fully pro in the past, and believe me they are many times less notable and celebrated by the club than the club captain/top scorer/young potential star. You reach a point where your best players are not allowed have articles but some useless barbados international is? The FD is not some back water amateur league. It is mostly semi-pro with a couple of fully pro teams (Shelbourne/Sporting Fingal) and run by a fully professional organisation - the FAI. It is covered by local, national and international media - for example sky sports.
The article can easily be recreated by requesting to an admin that it be reinstated - once he/or any other subject becomes notable. With regards to articles on "captain/top scorer/young potential star" and "some useless barbados international", you might think they deserve an article for being a decent player, but another fan might think they're not - it's too subjective, which is why notability criteria is in place. --Jimbo^[online] 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any multiple significant and detailed coverage, but only occasional references to his name in match reports (using quotes to keep John Carew citations off the search results). This is definitely not enough evidence to meet WP:N, and if possible even strengthen any argument for deleting the article. --Angelo (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a fully-pro competition. Also fails WP:N due to no sources that assert any notability. --Jimbo^[online] 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable soccer player. --Carioca (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Carew has competed in the League of Ireland, First Division is still League of Ireland. He got paid therefore professional. Many of the top teams are fully professional, other teams are semi professional.

Secondly, I'm not sure where to post my comments on this issue. I put them on Carew's talk page first but seems that I should put them here. How do I sign it? How do I quote other peoples posts to make a counter point?

Thirdly. This probably doesnt matter now but this was my defence to keep the article.

Carew played in the League of Ireland which is a professional League. It is the highest level of soccer in the Republic of Ireland. It is covered in the local, national and international media. The national broadcaster carries a weekly show focusing on the League. International broadcasters such as Sky Sports and Setanta Sports carry news/footage/matches from the League.

The Republic of Ireland national soccer team is ranked 35 in the World. And the FAI League of Ireland is ranked 30 out of 53 European Leagues. Teams from the league have competed with Hamburg, Dinamo Kiev, Bayern Munich, Red star Belgrade, Deportivo, Nantes, Paris Saint Germain, IFK Goteborg in recent European competition.

There is an interest for these articles on wikipedia.

Amateur sports persons are all over the wikipedia because there is an interest. Eoghan Carew can be removed if the list of GAA players, the list of Lacross players are also removed. Both are purely amateur or semi professional leagues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lacrosse_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Geraghty

This makes this article noteworthy.

Also see point 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_spirit —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mahmudiyah killings. If, as here, a policy (WP:BLP1E) applies to an article in a relatively straightforward manner, I am bound to consider arguments more strongly that argue for its application; conversely, I am bound not to weigh arguments that do not address why the policy should not apply here. The "keep" arguments of Judo112 and Geo Swan do not address the BLP1E issue and are thus discounted. Taking all this into account, we have a consensus to apply the BLP1E rule to this article. Sandstein 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dale Green

He did partake in an absolutely hienous crime, but it is also WP:BLP1E. His role is already covered in Mahmudiyah killings Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the extent of his trial and various related aspects extend beyond the coverage in Mahmudiyah killings. Manning (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Manning, the length of his trial which covered so much of his biography (we could do with adding the stuff about his childhood on this article), his "unique-ness" in being a convicted U.S soldier in civilian court and the fact he was the ring leader all make him notable enough for inclusion. Also his amount of coverage in various world media is indicative of his notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content necessary to Mahmudiyah killings. I think we need to follow the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James P. Barker, which is that these men are notable for one event and as such we just have an article about that event. The only difference with Steven Dale Green seems to be that he plead not guilty, so he had a trial and that was covered. I suppose that makes him slightly more notable, but I don't think we have a good real-world argument (as opposed to an esoteric Wiki policy one) as to why Green gets an article but the others do not. If we're going to delete some, they should all be deleted. At Mahmudiyah killingswe have a section on "Legal proceedings," and I think the key content from this article can simply be merged there. The trial itself is worth discussing, but there's no reason at all we cannot do it in the article about the event, and we have to have some consistency in how we treat the BLPs for these individuals, rather than essentially "punishing" (since we would be keeping a negative bio) the one soldier who did not plead out. This is perhaps a somewhat out of policy argument I'm making here, but I think it's the right way to think about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is well-written and makes a lot of sense. Since none of the other have an article, he shouldn't either. The victim's name re-directs to the article as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no opinion on this article, but I would like to say that 1) using an AfD that violated normal procedure as a precedent is a bad idea and 2) all people involved in this crime (or any other event) are not inherently of equal notability. Saying the ring leader is automatically non-notable just because the other participants are is an invalid argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point 2 is worth considering of course, but as to point 1, I'm not suggesting this should be deleted speedily, and in that sense don't want to follow the precedent for the James P. Barker article. My point is just that we have apparently decided to delete all articles about the other soldiers, and part of that precedent was established in that AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A consensus on one similar article or even about the same subject or event, doesnt mean that all other articles about it falls under the same consensus.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge - agree that we should be consistent with respect to bios of other perpetrators. Further, I think this is a classic BLP1E scenario. As heinous as their crime is, what is notable here is not the biographies of the individuals but rather the event itself. Further, as a simple matter of content organization it would be redundant and unnecessary to have separate articles about each person involved. The article about the killings is more than adequate (and were it not, any relevant information here could be merged there without overwhelming it or taking it off topic). Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (I nommed Barker's [16]) except that Green stands out from the others. Only he did the killing, his trial went on for years publicly in civilian court (the others were dealt with quickly in military court), and there was all the discussion generated by suggestion of the death sentence, plus he was the ringleader. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) per WP:BLP1E. There is no chance a bio of this person would be an article, except for the single event. It is the event that it notable and which needs an article (which it has). Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His bio could be expanded, his entire biography was laid out in court [17] (Just word search for "Green"). Biographical information hasn't been added to the article in 2 years, so what you see now does not depict the actual status of information available about him. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lenghty article. good sourcing. why merge or delete something that is very good.--Judo112 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as Manning. And my own personal opinion that the article isnt anywhere near a merge or delete worthy article in itself.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. There is information in here that doesn't really belong in the incident article, but I'm not absolutely convinced that deletion on BLP1E grounds, as I recommended for Barker, isn't appropriate here as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the incident is notable enough, the BLP 1E does not reasonably apply. This particular crime is of international political significance. The trial also too large a topic to fit in the main article, and is relevant and significant. DGG (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If the incident is notable enough, the BLP 1E does not reasonably apply." Are you serious? So if a plane crashes in the ocean because a bomb was placed on it and 200 people die, that is probably going to qualify for an article. Does the pilot get his own article? The head stewardess? A Coast Guard rescue swimmer that found a lone survivor? That statement just seems way too broad for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - However you twist and turn your arguments its still a Keep article and far away from a merge or delete worthy article. Well your argument is also a bit wierd as this isnt about a pilot and has nothing to do with rescuing or killing 200 passengers. So that cant be compared.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no skirting around WP:BLP1E. Yes, there's more coverage on him, but it's all related to the one event. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its always funny to see that the "deletion" thinkers always refers to one of the Wikipedia rules or guidelines which are always wide in interpretation. And no, mutch of what is in this article is spesificly about Steven and not the event itself. and it will be lost of the article is either merge or deleted.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:BLP1E fails to have anything to do with this article as Steven is known for more than a one time event, he has been in both the killing and a mutch so media covered trial. With possible appeals and othr reactions or twists it totally fails that BLP again.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it equally funny to see that the "inclusion" thinkers try to split hairs like "the crime and the trial are different events" when everything still stems from one event. The trial is a result of the crime which drops it right back into WP:BLP1E. What you are doing is akin to saying that the crash into your back bumper is one event, your impacting the windshield is another and then demanding two seperate crash reports being completed by the police because they were "different events". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is another instance when the excessive urge to merge is a serious disservice to readers. Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Sorry, but WP:BLP1E still says to me that this private didn't do anything of note apart from the crime. Considering the likely media frenzy surrounding such a crime, (WP:NOTNEWS) and the fact it is covered in Mahmudiyah killings and because the trail - believe it or not - is related to same event (again, NOTNEWS), delete is the logical conclusion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(or merge) per WP:BLP1E with Mahmudiyah killings. Notability has not been established for a separate article on the subject.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 - this is an unsourced sub-stub article on a company that makes no claim to significance. ~ mazca ^talk 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cross Navigation and Trading Company

Fails WP:Note, article has no references, and is about a failed company that never really started. While its precessor may be notable, this company wasn't even notable in its time, much less now Fuzbaby (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this for Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 - I see no assertions of notability here, let alone any thing that does make them notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track+

The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability

Delete The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability Hatter87 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. I'm loathe to agree with someone with a contribution history that reflects a possibleWP:COI, but no sources=no keep. --Karnesky (talk) 18:15, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Wells

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wells

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steven Wells

Notability unestablished, page almost entirely unsourced. "Recent death does not establish notability." Mikerichi (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was an established journalist who wrote many articles for reliable publications such as the Guardian and New Musical Express. That fact alone makes him notable. I'm not going to scrabble around looking for references to those articles to illustrate this point; the onus is on you to demonstrate he was not notable. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't decide - the existence of articles about him does suggest notability. On the other hand, some of the claims appear specious - for example, he's not mentioned in the Mekons article. Deb (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work with regard to sourcing and defining Wells' involvement in certain areas such as The Mekons, but he certainly seems notable enough to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a disgrace this article is even being considered for deletion. Theres nothing academic about the removal of common sense. At one time I might have empathised by suggesting linking to the pages on zines or actually putting an email through to the NME to find someone to verify this. I'm wondering if whom proposed this for deletion ever read the New Musical Express for any period of time. I read it for only a year and its validity is beyond apparent. [John Luke, 13:53, 25 June) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.116.208 (talk • contribs)
Keep The Register seems to find him notable enough in their article. Wakari07 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons mentioned above. "Recent death does not establish notability" misses the point. He is notable for being a well-respected journalist for a number of well-respected newspapers. --Sonofulster (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'mark for deletion' is obviously trolling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.20.120 (talk • contribs)
Comment Please be aware that this has, and is receiving media attention, so would all editors please display the appropriate level of decorum and respect. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The register's report about this deletion debate also may contribute to the notability of the subject, keep. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only editor around here who hasn't shown "the appropriate level of decorum and respect" is the one who nominated this article for deletion. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a reminder doesn't hurt anyone. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many articles, many obits. palfrey (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Palfrey. Willking1979 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seething Wells was a major figure on the new music/comedy scene in the early Eighties, and Steven Wells was a widely known and respected journalist. The article may need fact-checking and citations, but what on earth has that got to do with deletion?

Hudspith (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take it you folks don't read NME, I've only been read it for a short period of time and I know of this person. [Dan Williams, 15:32, 25 June)
Keep Not just a notable journalist, but a famous one: the serious media are already starting to crank out obits: see [18], [19]. On another note, I observe that the nominator's main activities since setting up their account seem to have been contributions to talk pages and AfD discussions, and that their very first interaction with Wikipedia was to start an AfD process. -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erving Morelli

Hoax article, no information regarding this person in The Internet Hockey Database Raphie (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete hoax, only google hits are copies from wikipedia itself. -Djsasso (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tempted to speedy as an obvious hoax. The Hockey Hall of Fame hasn't heard of him either, and they list every player who's ever played in the NHL. Reso lute 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, Clint Smith lead the team in assists in 1944. Patken4 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It was actually listed on the Chicago Blackhawks page that this guy led the team in assists in the 1943-44 season but I changed that. Raphie (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears that the creator of this article listed that on the Blackhawks page just prior to registering and creating his account, then created the Erving Morelli article -Pparazorback (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a hoax nothing verifies these claimsOttawa4ever (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LYNX Photonic Networks

Was prodded as G11 but there was enough room for doubt, and it has sat at CSD for over 24 hours. Hence moved to AFD. Manning (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak). Despite considerable effort by the page creator, most of the links seem either self-generated by the company or are tenuous references at best. Does not strongly meet notability.Manning (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be sufficient notability here (albeit not necessarily in the article). Hoover's has an article on the subject (always a good yardstick for WP:CORP) and I get a good feeling from news reports like this one that more may be out there. $300 million net worth seems to justify that. Admittedly, there is a load of press-release spreading going on, so it's only a weak keep from me. I've been in conversation with the article creator, and we seem to have worked out the G11 issues. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- these reports are not press releases, they're market research papers, osting thousand of euros, which choose to pick out Lynx and devote time to talking about it. Likewise, I would hope that if these were all merely press releases they would not be presented with their publisher's logo next to them. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious advertising is a separate matter entirely from notability, and this article contains obvious advertising: Lynx built its products around its patented light management technology, to provide cost-effective, [all optical] switching solutions. Since there solution is [all optical] in nature there is no need to replace it when upgrading other elements of the network such as the [XDM]'s, [Transponder]s, and [Optical Amplifiers]. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! I've done your example in the meantime. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling produces press releases and more press releases; there's no indication that anyone really cares about what products this company may produce (and for that matter, not a lot of evidence in the article that they are producing something notable). Money raising isn't notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry but I can't find the reliable independent secondary sources required by WP:CORP. Yes, there are fluff pieces, but given this article's extremely self-promotional nature, I would want to see good evidence for notability to warrant keeping and fixing. If the fluff was removed from this article, it would be four lines long. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we've got one independent source under WP:CORP: Hoover's. You're welcome to defluff the article. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 09:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been expanded by creator with information regarding patents. c.f. long posts on my user talk page, outlining the company's notability in designing components which were then used by many large telecommunications firms. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Blindness

Was PROD tagged as hoax, but the PROD tag was removed. There are no Ghits for this concept; all hits for "paper blindness" refer to other things. I have access to PubMed through work, and there are no hits at all there either. That reading makes your eyes weaker is one of the classic myths. Finally, none of the references mentions paper or reading at all -- they refer to scleritis or to dry eyes in general. Delete as hoax. bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 08:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure about the hoax, but the references definitely don't fit the article. Get Dumb 09:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully some people with specific medical knowledge will weigh in on the hoax question -- this edit by the article's author is probably relevant (see this reference which does not support it). --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V for want of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a hoax or original research. Drawn Some (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was discussed a few days ago at WT:MED and dismissed as a hoax built around a description of Asthenopia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax; I'd consider blocking the article creator for obvious bad faith (e.g. the fake ICD-10 code) as well. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 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 Speedy Delete per A7 and BLP1E. Manning (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV note : This closure was reviewed on June 29, 2009; please reference the discussion here. The speedy closure of this discussion was not endorsed, but upon further review of the article it was deemed unlikely to survive relisting at AfD. As such the deletion is allowed to stand, but this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the out-of-process manner in which it was deleted; BLP1E is not to be interpreted as a criteria for speedy deletion. Shereth 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Barker

PROD removed. This article is already redundant to his section on the Mahmudiyah killings‎ article, subject is no more notable than the other 3 killers (barring Green of course. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic WP:BLP1E. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. He is already identified in the article about the event: Mahmudiyah killings. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 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. Although consensus would seem to support a merge no suitable target article appears to exist, so it would be unreasonable to close this as "merge". This close does not prevent anyone wishing to create a list of characters from going ahead and doing so. Flowerparty^☀ 09:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakor

AfDs for this article:

The only references given are to two reviews of two of the novels this character appears in, novels that have their own articles. I cannot find references granting this character (and probably other Feist's ones) an article of his own, nor any real world significance for him. Goochelaar (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a character list as is normal. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a key character in a major series. This is the sort of character that should be kept, not merged. In fairness, I point out that we cannot find sharp criteria for this & it will usually be a matter of judgment. I see him as central--others may not. DGG (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a couple of sentences of this poorly-referenced original research on a minor character who is not at all notable except to fans of the book, as opposed to someone like Bart Simpson who is known outside of a tiny group of fans. Drawn Some (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. No need for deletion. I just want to emphasize, contra Drawn Some that this is a fairly major character who appears in several popular books, not a minor or one time character. He still might be best covered as part of a list of Midkemia characters but this is not by any means deep Fiest-cruft. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha

AfDs for this article:

Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional, failing WP:V. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo^[online] 08:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Keep - club played in the UEFA Cup in 07/08 and the Intertoto Cup in 08/09, both major European competitions. This would be at the top level in the game really - certainly there will be a lot more athletes with clubs with less notable achievements. I'd like to see some citation to show he played in games in these competitions mind -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, wouldn't the top level be the group stage/finals rather than the preliminary/qualifying rounds? --Jimbo^[online] 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say that UEFA Cup in particular is notable in itself before the group stage. That strikes me as above the top level nationally for example which is what you'd look for for notability -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in Europe really isn't enough to warrant an article - players from micronations such as Andorra, San Marino and the Faroes get to play in the UEFA cup qualifying rounds. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N; playing in the early stages of UEFA Cup is irrelevant, since it is quite far from being a top level in its qualifying rounds, and can be considered a high-profile tournament only from the group stage and, in some extent, the first round; same for Intertoto Cup, which was merely a tournament wit the only aim to give access to the UEFA Cup early round (or even just qualifying round, as in its final season). --Angelo (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in European competitions and the top-level in Albania. Again I have added info to this article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment playing "top-level" doesn't make someone notable, as it has to be fully-pro by the criteria set. Playing Intertoto against other semi-pro teams doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 08:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment or at the highest level of the amateur game of course. I think there's an argument that UEFA Cup is at or around that level. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment the UEFA Cup isn't amateur, amateur means players aren't paid. Anyway, this footballer in question hasn't played in the UEFA Cup. --Jimbo^[online] 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eldumo. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A rationale which, it has been pointed out, is flawed because it still fails to meet the guidelines (WP:ATHLETE)? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation from the link listed below. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webelos Planet

Contested CSD G11. Article is blatant advertising for a resort which does not claim notability. Deadly∀ssassin 07:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant ad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not enough context to determine the location; this might bear a short mention in one of the Scouting articles, but I can't tell which one. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copyvio from [20]. Speedily deleting. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:23, 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 redirect to Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of United States Human Space Flight

POV fork of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee G W… 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to original article. In fact, I may even do it soon. – B.hotep •talk• 07:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response within the discussion page of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Review_of_United_States_Human_Space_Flight_Plans_Committee --Medic463 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as simple fork. I'd have no problem if B.Hotep was bold and went ahead. No offense intended toward Medic463, but he seems intent on pushing the possible conclusions of these reviews, which is not appropriate given there have been no 3rd party sources I've seen or that have been presented which also discuss these outcomes. If something does appear, then it isn't unreasonable to present what is reported (if the source is appropriate). Until then, leave this out. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the support on the "Conclusions" matter Hunster, I will bare in mind what you have said and keep my eye out for good sources. I am also willing to remove this section out of the new page. With regard to article deletion CONSIDER THIS: The Review of US Human Space Flight is a very important topic in world history, and mega-important within Space Explorations history - for example it could conclude to put an astronaut on mars (when they put a man on the moon it was an event that 600 million people watched), or to push forward plans for a base on the moon. Ok this is speculation but it is not unreasonable that they may conclude this. And to have the page "The Review of US Human Space Flight" in the wiki deletion category next to "Kitchen and Bathrooms" is unbelievable. If anything the "Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee" page should be deleted (I mean how important is that!), or become a section in the "Review of US Human Space Flight" article. Change is not a bad thing. --Medic463 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered and improved the article, deleting the conclusions. --Medic463 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to original article.Uksam88 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. There is not yet a demonstrated need for two articles, one about the review and the other about the committee conducting the review. Conceivably at some future time article size concerns could motivate a split along those lines, but both these articles are currently stubs at best! (sdsds - talk) 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a merge and redirect - but to the correct page. In my neutral opinion, the "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans" is the important topic of information here and should be the title of the page. Surely the committee should be a sub-topic within this page as the committee would not even exist without the review - they are a serial fork. And P.S. this page title is wrong anyway, the correct title should be "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans" --Medic463 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would still prefer the full title (including "committee"), as that is the official name of the board conducting the review. --G W… 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Well, actually.... Although it is the "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans", the official name of the committee really is, "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee." The documents defining these names are published, cited in both articles, and clear to read for anyone who cares to do so. In one case "United States" is spelled out; in the other it isn't. (sdsds - talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

But Sims, your argument is that you prefer the title (including committee) "because that is the official name of the board conducting the review". Well that is great - if for some strange, unknown reason the board are more important than the review itself. Your logic suggests that the board of Kellog's is more important then Kellog's itself, and I don't see any Kellog's board wiki pages. The important information can be transfered.--Medic463 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have transfered the information but haven't added "Plans" to the title because is still up for deletion and think only an admin can do that. - Looks good! check it out Review of United States Human Space Flight --Medic463 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the 3 or 4 editors (people?) in the world that care about this, it appears that no one wants 2 pages. And I'm getting a vibe that anyone who has been following this discussion has either quit wikipedia altogether or topped themselves. Anyway I propose the following:

A new Wikipedia page created entitled the "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans"
Transfer of information from Review of United States Human Space Flight including sub-section of committee and its members, to the new page
Speedy Deletion of Review of United States Human Space Flight and Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee once the new page has been created
Allowing 24 hours before go-ahead, to allow last minute sensible and justifiable arguments, which takes into account everything of what has been said on both this page and the discussion of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee page, taking into consideration that we are all on the same team and that a new article would also be better for the general public who use Wikipedia to try and find information--Medic463 (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal violates the GFDL so I'll have to oppose it anyway, but why that title? --G W… 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request for clarification posted on my talk page, this violation is because the deletion of two articles following a merger to a third title would leave no edit history, which is a requirement in order for contributors to be properly credited for their work. --G W… 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there are some very good reasons on this AFD page as to the name change. And the work around for GFDL compliance would be for some kind of name change / redirect, but I'm not convinced anyone really cares about the GFDL or takes it seriously anyway. --Medic463 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I still fail to see the point of moving the original article. Perhaps an RM could be conducted once this closes to gauge consensus, but I don't think there is an issue with the current title. --G W… 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the deletion of this article and an RM to gauge consensus on the title of the committee page. PS if I find out that an editor is actually on the committee and wants the page titled in their favor for financial gain or other personal benefit, then I will ~~beat them to a pulp~~ be very upset --Medic [ talk ] 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) and / or spam all the appropriate wiki detection pages.--Medic463 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medic, if you make another threat like that, I will indef block you. I don't care if it was serious or meant in jest, that was entirely inappropriate. I would strongly suggest you retract that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunster, you would have to be quick on the block button to beat me to it. I have had just about enough of Medic's attitude and single-minded lone crusade and acts of bad faith. – B.hotep •talk• 17:20, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stilsbury

AfDs for this article:

I closed a prior AfD on this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury, as delete. However it was brought to my attention that work was done on the article towards the tail-end of its AfD period. Starting another AfD on this article to re-assess its notability status as of that point in time. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is fully sourced and contains several reliable, third-party sources, including three book references. The arguments brought up in the previous AfD did not support deletion. A quick run-down is as follows:

"He was only in the WWF for a brief time" - In reality, he was there for a year and a half.
"He didn't do anything noteworthy" - In reality, he had feuds with Frenchy Martin and Killer Khan televised on the company's major television programs; he also defeated several big-name wrestlers, including Nikolai Volkoff and former WWF Champion Iron Sheik.
"He should be subject to WP:CREATIVE" - I don't believe that wrestlers fit this definition, as they are not similar to scientists, engineers, or visual artists. WP:ATHLETE fits, as professional wrestling is an athletic performance, albeit a scripted one. This establishes his notability, as he performed for the world's biggest wrestling promotion (as a character that was featured regularly, although it was often as a "jobber to the stars", similar to Lanny Poffo). The alternative would be to use a combination of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, as professional wrestlers are also television personalities. In this case, he would be considered notable because he has a cult following. THis can be seen by his induction on the WrestleCrap website and his inclusion in several books. It is further demonstrated because he is included in a line of action figures by LJN Wrestling Superstars.
"WP:ATHLETE is being interpreted too broadly" - I agree that wrestling one match for a major company should not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I stated before, however, he wrestled for them in a featured role for a year and a half. A good comparison would be Adam Bomb's tenure with the WWF: he was pushed at the beginning and had victories over big-name stars, but he later moved into a jobber to the stars role and ultimately developed a cult following. I can't imagine anyone claiming that Adam Bomb's tenure in the WWF is not notable.
"He was an embarassment to wrestling/WrestleCrap inductees suck/He was a laughing stock" - The quality of his gimmick or wrestling style is not appropriate to include in an AfD discussion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.

In conclusion, this is a well-sourced article about a notable character in the world's biggest wrestling promotion. There is simply no precedent for deletion the article of a long-term WWF character (and yes, a year and a half is a decent tenure with a company like the WWF). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not notable. See my statement on my user page for some of the reasons. I won't touch the article for now because of the present dispute between myself and Gary. Additionally - Adam Bomb got a gig at Wrestlemania 10 - which invalidates the comparison. Compare to Mario Mancini, Don Driggers, Tiger Chung Lee (probably the best example) and Brian Costello - none of whom have articles and in the case of Mancini jobbed for even longer than 18 months. I think it was two to three years at least. Oh and there is a peacock language issue with the reference to his theme music (referring to it as "famous"). !! Justa Punk !! 07:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree about the peacock language. It was there before I started editing the article, and I removed it in response to your comment. I'm not convinced that the wrestlers you mentioned are good parallels - certainly, the WWF never gave any of them a victory over such high-profile names. The win over the Iron Sheik was also four months before the Sheik's arrest, so your speculation regarding the reason for the win is incorrect. At any rate, I just wanted to mention that the information for reference #2 actually comes from the picture of the card on the linked page, so that text is not credited back to Wikipedia, although the rest of the page (which is not used as a source) certainly is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chung Lee did which is why I said he was the best example. He got something that Stilsbury didn't get - a non title match against a reigning champion on television (IC champion Ricky Steamboat just after Wrestlemania 3 on Superstars). I know I saw Stilsbury against Honky Tonk amongst those other results but they were house shows. As far as reference 2 goes, I think that needs a third party source given the WWF were trying to put him over with that which places it's reliability in accuracy under a cloud. !! Justa Punk !! 07:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not exactly the most important person in the world, but there is coverage in multiple reliable sources there. While I wouldn't personally lose any sleep if this were deleted, I do think the GNG should prevail. Keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. References only prove he was there. No references to prove he worked for Stampede or in Australia and WWF debut was in 1987 (ring results referenced show nothing for him in 1986). Two matches do not make a notable feud or even a feud (re Frenchy Martin). No one knew about Killer Khan until the face misting on TV and Jack was gone not long after that. Limited TV exposure and the two noted "big wins" were on house shows. Therefore fails WP:N. Get Dumb 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "November 2, 1986: Butch Reed defeated Outback Jack". At that time, many feuds were only featured on a couple of television episodes--they also had a series of matches on house shows, however. The article also doesn't give full results of his television exposure. I limited it to a couple of feuds, but more could certainly be added if you'd like. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources have established notability.--WillC 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first AfD caused me to ask about notability standards at the Professional Wrestling project here: [21]. Even among devotees of wrestling, the question is not clear about whether they should be looked at under WP:ATHLETE or not. Theirs is an athletic performance, but not a competition, since the outcome is pre-determined. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed. 18 months is still brief for a tenure in an elite level. Agree with Niteshift about WP:ATHLETE and wrestling could be interpreted as visual artistry so WP:CREATIVE shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Also agree with GetDumb re the TV exposure and what he did outside of the fed. TaintedZebra (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Applying WP:CREATIVE would show a thorough (and perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of visual artistry. Wrestlers are a combination of athletes and actors, so WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER are the only applicable notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was my mistake for saying creative.......WP:ENT is the next paragraph. I just used the wrong short-cut. I don't misunderstand the industry at all. Just take a deep breath and WP:AGF once in a while. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the special cases. The GNG always applies, and it's sufficient to decide this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, Marshall. The GNG is a guide only and can not be applied as one size fits all. In this case I firmly believe it fails. I note the last reference from GaryColemanFan to the "shoot" and I would consider that unverified speculation by the wrestler concerned. TaintedZebra (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while debating if he's "WP:Athlete", "WP:Entertainer" or "WP:Smurf" people forget that there is a general "WP:Notability" and "WP:Verifiability" that trumps it all. The article fulfills both with the reliable sources being cited now. He doesn't have to fulfill any other requirements than these two, the other requirements are ONLY if he did not straight up fulfill WP:N & WP:V. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and WP:V, regardless of the never-ending debate over ATHLETE and ENT. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Darrenhusted User:BioDetective2508 17:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meets WP:V and WP:N.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE! What is going on here? Since when does being a glorified jobber for 18 months make someone notable? I'll bet the wins over Volkoff and Sheik were the result of a DQ. That's happened before and the beneficiaries don't have articles! How about Brad Perry? He beat Dino Bravo on TV but he doesn't have an article. What about the guy who beat Jake Roberts by DQ when he hit his eye (during the Martel feud) and Roberts went nuts? This guy is not notable! It doesn't matter how much you prove he was there; He was a JOKE! And that's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a failing of WP:N. And he's not an athlete either. He's a full scale entertainer, and a bad one at that. Mal Case (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this above vote should be ignored from the offical decision. This vote is clearly a bias one and does not follow a netural point of view.--WillC 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NPOV only applies in article space, and doesn't apply in deletion discussions. Indeed, the whole point of deletion discussions is to extract the point of view of individual editors. However, I agree that the editor has not based his point in policy and I am sure the closing admin will give it the appropriate weight.
    - I understand that it only applies to articles but I was using the term a bit more widely. The above user's vote was not netural in the aspect that he/she was voting plaining on notability of reliablie sources. Was instead voting on his/her own personnel opinion of the wrestler.--WillC 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point IS based in policy!! WP:N! It FAILS! Don't accuse me of something I'm not guilty of! Think about this; How many jokes have articles? Come on, be serious and look at this from purely a notability angle and not anything else (like WP:ATHLETE and so on). Mal Case (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the GNG, regardless of arguments about his "talent". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been forced by the most recent reference to remove my delete vote. I still don't think he's notable, but as I can't counter the weight of evidence with anything other than speculation so I am no longer in a position to hold a delete vote. However I can not in good conscience vote for "Keep" either. I'm now abstaining. I do have a question though. What's GNG? !! Justa Punk !! 06:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the General Notability Guideline. You can read it here: WP:GNG.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I've never followed pro wrestling at all, so my vote is based solely on the sourcing - it's clear that this personality has received significant enough media coverage to be notable by Wikipedia standards. matt91486 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- I'd say a Weak keep, although he's obviously a Jobber, I'd says he's at least notable if WWE is willing to make an action figure on him. Afro Gold - Afkatk 19:23, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case race

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Case race (2nd nomination)

Completely unsourced drinking game of dubious notability. Contrary to WP:NFT and WP:NOTMANUAL as it is a step by step guide to playing the game. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a second nom for this. It was in a massive, bundled nom in 2008. [22] Niteshift36 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely agree with nom about WP:NOTMANUAL. Has to go. No notability at all. Get Dumb 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete WP:NOTMANUAL doesn't really apply here as the article is detailing the rules of a game which is different than a step by step instruction on how to play. I don't think WP:NOTMANUAL was meant to apply to game rules as you can find many listings of rules for many different types of games presented in a way very similar to this article. I don't think this falls into WP:NFT either since this is a pretty well known game. All that said I still think it should be deleted due to it's lack of citations which suggest it may not be notable enough at the present time.Rcurtis5 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: WP:NOTAMANUAL says "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.". That is what I believe applies when I cite it. This is essentially a game guide and an instruction manual on the rules etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree this article should be deleted but I still don't think WP:NOTMANUAL applies and this should be deleted on the basis of notability. WP:NOTMANUAL seeks to prevent step by step guides and how-to's. WP:NOTMANUAL doesn't have anything to do with listing the rules and setup of a game in an encyclopedic way. Almost all articles that are about a game detail the rules and how to play it(example Ultimate Frisbee, I'm not making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but just pointing out the precedence for writing game articles includes a description of the rules and how to play). When WP:NOTMANUAL mentioned game guides I believe it is referring to walk-through type material related to video games and other lengthy discussions about play.Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Manning (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no sources; fails WP:GNG. Could be included in an article listing all the things made up on the Internet, but not notable as a separate article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 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 Speedy Delete. Obvious A7 candidate. Speedy tag removed by chief article contributor without reason given. Manning (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Balamanigandan

Article written by B. Balamanigandan himself, see here. Did a Google search while there are hits I could not find any third party coverage. Fails WP:PEOPLE. MS (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) *Note:I'm also nominating :BBM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The page is a duplicate of the above. Or is it the other way around... Removing. A look further in the history shows the IP removed the information from the original page to write about B. Balamanigandan. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, G11. I searched in English and Tamil sources, nothing/ஒண்ணுமே இல்லை. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried to speedy it but the IP came and removed the tag. I'm not sure if the IP is the creator of the page but I just thought I'd play it safe and bring it here. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:26, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Levy

Article does not currently establish notability of subject; does not appear to to satisfy the suggestions for notability given by WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. While there are some articles mentioning the subject as an also-ran for political office, I do not believe that these references constitute significant media coverage. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The only refence included is to an out of print book from the 70s, which doesn't seem to have made a signifigant impact because it is largely difficult to locate with no independent reviews of the work.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, gnews search "Jerry+Levy"+marlboro&cf=all here shows there are sufficient sources to support a brief article on him. I doubt he meets WP:PROF, but I think he satisfies WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC) okay, why does my attempt to link a search fail to work/display properly? The gnews search is supposed to be: "jerry levy" marlboro, all dates[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear failure of WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Along with WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN, the article also fails to convince me that he passes WP:CREATIVE for his role in "Marx in Soho" — the reviews I found for his version of it were all very much small-town press. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VH1's 100 greatest songs of the 80's

Non-notable. Only one reference to a not quite reliable source in my opinion, is the only coverage on here which is not making it notable. This list is also subjective to one networks opinion on songs from such a vague topic. Other "VH1 Greatest" articles have been deleted also and there's nothing different with this one. Rockin56 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory or source repository. This article merely duplicates the list and therefore has no inherent notability. JIP | Talk 07:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, under WP:NOTDIR. Get Dumb 09:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be one thing if the article offered commentary backed up by third party sources, but this is simply a republication of the VH1 televised list and is therefore not appropriate for inclusion. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no hope of being more than a regurgitation of the list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the article to serve as a hub for others like it. Looking back on it, probably not the best thing to do. I do consider the article pointless and does not promote what Wikipeida is here for...Gyr ferret ™ 21:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut heavily and Merge to VH1. Basically make the intro paragraph a section of the VH1 article, cut out the titles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's a copyright violation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective list, criteria for inclusion dependent only on what the programme-makers thought would fill an hour or so of telly and attract advertising. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VH1 Greatest Hard Rock Songs. pablo_hablo. 12:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's subjective in the way that having a page on Obama is. An open vote doesn't really count as "subjective" in this case. Still article should be gone.Gyr ferret ™ 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Obama containing 100 facts voted for in an unaudited poll by VH1 viewers maybe! pablo_hablo. 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then instead of Obama, let's make it the 2004 Bush Election...Gyr ferret ™ 04:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Probably best to re-list individually any clubs that appear to fail notability guidelines. Black Kite 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Knights

Notability; All clubs are in either the Western Australian Premier League or Division one, with possibly the exception of the Premier League final, games between these teams dont recieve significant coverage in local print media, none in the broadcast media. Players in the leagues are not professional players, though some do go on to play at professional levels of the game in Australia and overseas. Gnan garra 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full list - all non-notable clubs

Premier league

Division one

Delete all as nominator, Gnan garra 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would have to strongly disagree with the comments that they do not recieve coverage in local print media. The Sunday Times and The Western Australian both publish articles on the Permier League games in Western Australia on a regular basis. Am happy to cite examples of these if necessary. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Aren't all of these clubs semi-professional? There would be no argument that players at this level would be non-notable (assuming they haven't previously been at a pro club) but wouldn't the clubs themselves be notable given it is the second tier of competition in Australia?The Hack 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is only one professional league, there is no second tier league in Australia these are state base leagues but even if we consider them to be 2nd tier league the issues is significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Gnan garra 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 04:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Cricket project determined (see WP:CRIN) that clubs playing Grade cricket, eg. Mount Lawley Cricket Club, Fremantle District Cricket Club, were notable, by virtue of them being "... the highest level below the state representative team". Is that not also the case here? –Moondyne 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without stating an opinion (as yet) on the notability of these football clubs, the difference between the cricket clubs and the football clubs is that the next tier up in cricket is representative selection; a Test or shield player actually belongs to one of the clubs rather than the state body. This is not the case in football, Perth Glory are a club in their own right, not a representative team from the Perth club competition. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how do the Western Australian semi-pro state league clubs differ from ohter state league club articles with respect to notability? Am I correct to assume this falls under WP:CLUB more specifically? batobatobato (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An earlier discussion about the NT league can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it should be a case of "one size fits all". For example, Floreat Athena has a long history (in Australian football/soccer terms) and for at least part of that time, prior to the inception of the National League in 1977, would have technically competed at the highest level of Australian football/soccer, since there was no higher level than State League. I'm not sure the Cricket project argument translates perfectly to all sporting codes. I'm not sure the NT league is necessarily perfect as a precedent either, considering the likely differential in standard. Murtoa (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't really care about precedents, notability conventions, wikiprojects, etcetera; I just want to know if these can be sourced. I've had a look around and I reckon it would be problematic, with the possible exception of Stirling Lions, which could be sourced to Vellios' Stirling Macedonia: a record of sporting achievement.
Contrast this with the situation with Australian rules football clubs at the same level of competition: we have Brian De Garis's From amateur to professional and back again (Swan Districts); Ken Spillman's Diehards : the story of the Subiaco Football Club; Kevin Casey's The Tigers' tale: the origins and history of the Claremont Football Club; Brian Atkinson's West Perth Football Club, 1885-1985; Jack Lee's East Fremantle Football Club: celebrating 100 years of tradition ; and so on. This is why it is dangerous to apply precedent across different sports. Hesperian 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re sources - "A soccer century : a chronicle of Western Australian soccer from 1896 - 1996" and "The Soccerites" by Richard Kreider are pretty comprehensive studies of Western Australian soccer. There are a number of journal articles also available specifically on WA soccer.The Hack 07:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non notable clubs.--Grahame (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These clubs play at what is effectively the second level of Australian football, which IMO makes them notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:ORG isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all play at a notable level some have even competed on a national scale which pass WP:ORG. Enough sources for them to meet WP:N as well. --Jimbo^[online] 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As a general principle based on the league/s they compete in, I don't see any of these meeting the WP:CLUB criteria. However, the additional criteria "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." opens the door for a case to be made when good reference material is found. That's not the case with any of the articles at this point in time. –Moondyne 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. Regardless of whether sources exist or not, all of these clubs play at a high enough level in the Aussie league system (one or two levels below the top flight) to make them notable by position. After all, we have articles for the top ten levels in England, and Australian levels 2 and 3 are equivalent to that in my view. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY says have significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, every article needs to meet this requirement. Gnan garra 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; verifiability is non-negotiable. Hesperian 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FourFourTwo seems to cover the league, as does AussieSportsInfo.com. I dare say there are news reports to be had elsewhere - this Google search seems a good place to start. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game results would support notability of the league but the clubs still lack independent sources to meet notability. Gnan garra 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Bettia. Giant Snowman 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per several above. While many players in these leagues may not be notable for playing in these leagues, the level they play at seems to be enough to claim notability for the teams. Reso lute 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Division One clubs, which are clearly non-notable. The Premier league clubs should probably be nominated individually. Hesperian 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even some of the Division One clubs are sourceable e.g. Henk Beumer's Morley-Windmills: 50 glorious years, 1950-2000 Hesperian 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all and relist those that can't be sourced after some investigation. The argument that appears to have been made by the nominator and some others is not that clubs playing at this level are non-notable by way the level of football played but rather the claim is made that the articles cannot be sourced. As such I feel a mass nomination is inappropriate and each article should be listed individually. Some clubs may be able to be reliably sourced, others may not - but discussion over the articles as a group will not resolve these cases adequately in my opinion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some merit in this approach, some questions need to be answered the couple of potential sources mentioned are they commissioned works(primary source)? are they independent(reliable source) of the subject? Gnan garra 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the club-specific sources I've mentioned are commissioned works. The soccer-in-WA sources that Hack mentions above are not. Hesperian 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Have started checking local histories and found some references to a number of the clubs. Believe that this information can be sourced, with a little bit of research. I do however believe that these clubs are notable in the own right. The clubs in the State Premier League receive regular independent news coverage in Western Australian media, with a number of players proceeding through to be notable players in thier own right. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.215.88 (talk • contribs)
Keep all per Bettia. Clubs at this high of a level do receive media coverage. Obviously players who are exclusively at this level aren't notable, but the clubs themselves are. matt91486 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the view that thought the players in the clubs are not notable, the clubs themselves areDGG (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NFT does not apply; also, many of the delete "votes" fail to establish why the topic is non-notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I ever

Non-notable drinking game, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFT. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begging your pardon, but WP:NFT is for something that only a few people know about. This game is something that is well known in the general public and there are a lot of Google search results for it-- are you sure you've never heard of it? OfficeGirl (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begging your pardon.....it was made up in someones garage/dorm/basement/bar. The article smells of WP:OR and lacks real notability.Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not notable at all.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be worth a sentence in Drinking games but certainly no more. Manning (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article needs TREMENDOUS work and citations to reliable sources, it is a classic game and well known. Someone with a little initiative just needs to set to work looking up the necessary material and removing the unsourced original research. OfficeGirl (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS- I found some cursory sources in less than 90 seconds with a Google search. There are numerous other drinking games that have individual articles and there is no doubt that this CAN be developed properly according to Wikipedia standards. OfficeGirl (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find google hits......goggle hits arent the measuring stick of notability. Mentioning it on a blog generates a hit, but fails to meet our purposes. Plus the title of the game itself makes the searches harder. Instead of saying "I got hits", would you like to provide links to the ones that are reliable sources that we are looking for? As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning....well, other drinking games are nominated for deletion too. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article needs work. I believe a variation of this drinking game was featured on the american TV show LOST but I can't find a source to verify that.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TV shows and blogs have to fill their content with ephemeral nonsense/fun. Being featured in a blog or TV show does not make a WP:MADEUP game notable. Given that no one can find a WP:SECONDARY source with an analysis of subject, it fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling this drinking game reveals 150 million hits on google. I believe deleting it would be giving up too early. There have to be SOME valid secondary sources among those 150 million webpages. Unless a diligent search for reliable sources is conducted and NO sources are found, I see no reason to give up and delete this article. This article was marked for deletion because of non-notability. I believe it's huge popularity is evidence enough that there is no cause for deleting this article. Imsome (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but Stubbify) - It's mentioned in most books that cover the topic of drinking games. Here's what I came up with after the barest of searches:
- Barbas & Cullen. The Little Black Book of Party Games: The Essential Guide to Throwing the Best Bashes. 2006.
- Beane. Middlebury College College Prowler Off the Record. 2005 (and indeed many of the "College Prowler Off the Record" series)
- Cassel. Post Grad. 2009
- Marschall & Bannan. Crowd Breakers and Mixers 2. 2003.
- etc., etc., etc.

Being featured in most books on the topic of drinking games and several TV shows clearly demonstrates that WP:NFT does not apply. I'd need a much stronger argument than "never heard of it..." -Thibbs (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or ideally Merge into List of drinking games. I know Google is sketchy, but I feel it has received sufficient cultural standing to warrant a mention somewhere, and barring the aforementioned list this article is the best scenario. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, I've heard of it (it was portrayed in one of my favorite Family Guy episodes). Trying to invoke WP:NFT makes me suspect that Niteshift36 has never actually read the guideline; it is specifically about creating an article that an editor or their friends made up. I doubt very much that the person who created this article had anything to do with inventing the game. I'm curious if the nominator bothered to even check to see if there could be coverage of the game, just looking at Gnews shows the game covered by such sources as the Chicago Tribune, which states "One of the prime drinking games designed to combine alcohol and sex is called 'I Never,' also known to some as 'Never Have I Ever.'" There are dozens of references to the game in college publications as well, showing how prominent it is in universities. -- Atama ^chat 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 Speedy Delete. Manning (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Italo "El Maestro De La Melodia"

Italo "El Maestro De La Melodia"

Non-notable music producer. Google search shows little outside of self-promotion. Article is chock full of red links - hard to say if any of the few blue links are actually related. Wknight94 ^talk 04:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't even try to assert notability. I have never seen so many red links in my lifetime. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn Seems I didn't do my homework well enough. Sorry for the trouble. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchens & Bathrooms

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kitchens & Bathrooms

This band doesn't appear to be notable; while they have released two albums on Sonic Unyon, they fail to meet any other criteria for notability, primarily that of sourcing. The article provides only one reliable source, and I'm hard-pressed to find any others on Google; only the first four or so hits are relevant (even after multiple attempts to exclude hits selling remodeling stuff), and none are usable for establishing notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notability for their albums is enough notability for the band. When it is difficult to find informations via Google this one more good reason to have an article here. Profile on Allmusic should help that this is not a hoax : http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:djfqxqwhldfe~T0 --Ilion2 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's a hoax; I can tell that it's not. It's not Wikipedia's purpose, though, to create new material where none exists elsewhere. Our articles rely on content available elsewhere, and if there's not enough to support an article, we have a problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why deleting the whole article when challeging only parts of the content. By the way, there is no new material in the article that did not exists elsewhere. --Ilion2 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying - I'm contesting the fact that this band is notable, as there aren't enough sources to adequately support an article about them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their music albums are availabe on e.g. amazon, so they exists. And their albums are enough notability for the band. So this is enough to write an article about the band consisting at least about the band members, their origin and their albums. I think this is enough for now. I so no reason at the moment to talk about the one or two sentences in the article which you perhaps mean you can not verify with enough reliable ressources. I do not see a constructive discussion about reliable ressources in a discussion about deleting the whole article with strange reasons like "fail to meet any other criteria for notability". One criteria is enough. --Ilion2 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band released two albums on a notable label and satisfies WP:MUSIC. Google searches bring up a number of reviews for these albums. Amazinglarry (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The band has received coverage in a national music magazine, Chart, has at least one album review in Exclaim! [23], and there is a 12-paragraph article about them in the Ottawa Citizen (Jul 31, 2003. pg. D3). There is also an article from Jam! [24] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:31, 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. Without sources it can't even be merged. +An gr 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spieprzaj dziadu!

Unreferenced POV article that fails WP:N. It is un-encyclopedic and contains little content other than "he said it". Ostap 03:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending the addition of reliable sources. Based on the see also section, it seems there is some precedent for articles like this, although it does need to be references, flirting with BLP-related stuff as it does. Unfortunately, as I don't speak Polish, I'm probably not the best person to go looking for sources here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: If more sources are added and I don't come back to change my comment, please consider this a neutral. Currently the only "source" is the original polish conversation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "famous" saying of Kaczynski is not as famous as the creator of the article claims. For the background information, in Poland right now the political scene in dominated by two parties, Civic Platform of Donald Tusk and Law and Justice of Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Both parties fight each with a huge determination and its supporters almost hate each other. Kaczynski did say that indeed, which resulted in some media coverage in Poland at the time but now it is insignificant. Politicians say many different things. Now days however, this incident is used by people who do not support Kaczynski to discredit him in the eyes of others. This is exactly what is happening here. Polish internal political fights are brought into English Wikipedia and this is not a place for it.--Jacurek (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is barely sourced. If this can be sourced and has any significance besides being an insulting comment spoken by a politician seven years ago, it can be merged into the article about the speaker, Lech Kaczynski. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lech Kaczyński, or keep. It is a significant phrase (if it were American there would probably be an article on it), but the information can probably best be presented within the article on LK.--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lech Kaczynski. The instant title is very unlikely as a search term for readers of the English Wikipedia, which ought to be in English. In the absence of context, Piss off, old man! isn't particularly helpful as an article title either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTABILITY and all the above. Topic does not merit its own article. --Poeticbent talk 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Are we going to create articles about all remarks of politicians? This is a silly article, about an unsignificant utterance, made during an informal conversation. It has been blown out of proportions by some Kaczynski bashers, and to keep Wikipedia neutral, there is no space for such crap. Or perhaps we should write an article about Polish prime minister Donald Tusk chewing a gum during a meeting with Angela Merkel. Tymek (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lech Kaczynski per Ihcoyc. For the record: Polish Wikipedia AfD from 2007.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (to Lech Kaczynski) - as this has gone on to a whole life of its own as a catch-phrase. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was news in Poland for like two days way back when (can't even remember when, more than a year+), it was a "catch phrase" for maybe a week ... it's like making a Wiki page based on some joke that Jay Leno/Conan O'Brian told. Nothing notable. And of course, no sources.radek (talk) 22:37, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les FRES

Nn software, google hits show ~~little~~nothing about this program. Can't find 3rd publications or an official site... Perhaps only a French program?Zoo Fari 03:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability and possible advertising to boot. I'm not even entirely clear from the article what this is supposed to do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Guibert

Contested prod. Former wife of a notable musician and mother of another one. However, her only claim to independent notability is a request she made to Napster, for which I am unable to find reliable sources establishing that event's notability. I tried redirecting to the article on her son, but the article creator objected to that. Delete or Redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would be for the existence of an article mentioning her early life and focusing on her later business moves which are very relevant in the Buckleydom and slightly relevant to the larger music industry world. The reliable source is the appendix to the book, "Dream Brother" by David Browne, although that source does not indicate that that has yet become an important legal precedent. I would also support merging if we can find a way that doesn't favor her biological role in the universe over her business role.Linguistixuck (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since reading WP:BIO and looking at WP precedents on similar characters. As creator of the article, can I just go ahead and do this?Linguistixuck (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only coverage of Mary Guibert appears to be in relation to her handling of the Jeff Buckley estate, and there's very little written about her other than in the context of Tim or Jeff Buckley. I think a redirect to Jeff Buckley with increased mention there of her oversight of his posthumous releases would be appropriate. These were the closest I found to significant coverage of Guibert, other than the Dream Brother book: [25], [26], [27].--Michig (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NRVE a person is not notable because they are related to two notable people. If the Napster incident was notable, there should be an article on the event (and I should be able to find a reasonable analysis in Google, which I can't). Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability here. لenna vecia 00:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to For Better or For Worse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mtigwaki

AfDs for this article:

In-universe twaddle, almost no sources. Delete or merge, just get rid of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to For Better or Worse. Not notable enough on its own, but warrants a section in the comic strip's article and as a search term should direct readers to the comic strip article. OfficeGirl (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to For Better or For Worse (note exact title). The article has mostly in-universe content and does not really warrant coverage as a separate article. Although this location was a significant setting in the comic strip for about two years, it is unlikely to be shown again in the comic strip, at least not for about 20 more years. (The cartoonist is currently retelling the story from the beginning, so we have a long time to go before Mtigwaki is re-introduced.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed in previous AfD. Someone needs to put them in the article, obviously, but there's enough to meet N and V here, so a merge is unnecessary, and FBoFW is already a rather long article. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no strong opinion on this; but Mtigwaki is mentioned in the "Key Storylines" section of the main article; perhaps a "Key Storylines of FBoFW" could be split, with this article merged into it, and expanded upon, leaving a summary in the main article. vıd ıoman 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep becauses sources exist, and there listed in the external links. I think I added those at the last AfD, and I was as suprised as anyone to find that it actually is notable, but it is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the existence of sources does not necessarily mean there should be an article. Unless the fiction is very notable indeed, locations such as this should be merged either into a spinoff article if there is enough material, or the main article. A redirect is always appropriate. Both the approach of the nom and of PF/JC just above are the extreme positions. If we could agree on merges, we could save a lot of trouble. DGG (talk) 03:26, 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 - default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Markedonov

Fails each of the WP:PROF notability criteria. Being a department head does not make one a notable academic, and neither does having one's name appear in a smattering of newspapers, among them the propaganda outlet Tiraspol Times and the Moonie-owned Washington Times. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom and see no notability here via WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The guy's prophecies are all over the mainstream press, but there are no reliable and independent sources to pull together a basic biography. Treat him as just another face on TV: they come and go, if in doubt - delete. NVO (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like the article says, he is a prominent expert and a leading commentator on Russian Caucasus. He has published regularly in respected academic journals (such as Russia in Foreign Affairs and Central Asia and The Caucasus Journal of Social and Political Studies) and is the head of a notable research NGO. He is probably on of the most interviewed experts on his area in the global media, and has appeared in respected publications such as New York Times, RIA Novosti, Moscow Times, etc. Offliner (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That he has published on this both in academic journals and in US newspapers does indeed indicate that he is an acknowledged expert in the subject. We do not need birthdate and education and the like--that sort of stuff is not why he is notable--he's notable for his work, and if we have information on it, we have enough information to write an article. It would be like omitting an Olympic athlete because we only had his sports records. His academic work does not :"come and go" and the NYT is neither owned by the moonies or in the service of Russian propaganda. DGG (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He didn't "publish" in the NYT; he was quoted briefly. Still fails Prof. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This man has several publications, and he was cited only three times. Does it prove that he is a notable academic? Consider a biologist who has ten publications and was cited only three times. Does it mean he is notable? To contrary, it means he is not. How about being cited 500 times? Even that does not show someone's notability. And remember that an editorial in NYT (written by unknown person) is not better than citation in a good scientific journal like Biochemistry.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is in desperate need of improvement, but from available sources seems to me to meet WP:PROF criteria, in that he is regularly considered and used as an expert by the media.--Talain (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether the subject passes WP:PROF or not may be irrelevant in this case. I think it is hard to argue that the subject does not pass WP:BIO, given the subject’s news coverage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, he was cited 73 times (including self-citation) according to this google search. I know students and postdoctoral researches who were cited more.~~ Biophys (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails both WP:ACADEMIC and general notability requirements. He's a minor talking head. We can't list all of those, and there'd be no encyclopedic reason to. If he does something notable then we can make an article about him. DreamGuy (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not a minor talking head. He is "a prominent Caucasus specialist" (according to Washington Times), and "a leading commentator on Russia's Caucasian republics" (according to opendemocracy.net). Offliner (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can claim anyone is prominent. Neither of those sources are reliable for proving prominence... and in fact if that's the best you have I'd say the opposite is true. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Eric Yurken's gnews - not ordinary google - search above. Many reliable news sources identify him as a prominent expert. WP:BIO or WP:PROF # 7 ( see note 14) applies. John Z (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep. Who cares?Biophys (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly significant person. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's hard to find much biographical detail about him, making it hard to justify a pass of WP:BIO: the works cited above e.g. by Eric Yurken are mostly not about him, but by him. And I just cleaned out a lot of promotional content (works by him rather than about him, peacock language) from the article. But he does seem to pass WP:PROF #7: "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. I am an inclusionist, and he does seem like somebody one may want to find some information on. If his views are biased or such, and there is referenced criticism, do add it - that's a better solution than deleting his bio, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Daughtry (band). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs by Daughtry

Unnecessary, as Discography covers any notable music. Falls under WP:NOT. Author may have had good intentions, but anything notable is covered elsewhere. --Teancum (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste Redundant to discography. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To the Daughtry article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 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 speedy deleted as vandalism and a totally unverifiable hoax. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Poole

Likely hoax. Only source is a blog which is more suspect than normal blogs. There are 16 Gbooks hits, none of which is this particular one. Google search wasn't productive as there were too many with the same name, but in context of the French revolution, nothing related to this particular person. Was prodded by Blanchardb and DGG and the page creator removed the PRODs without addressing any of the issues. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The blog post was after this article was created, so while I wanted to speedy tag this as G3, I decided against doing so because of the contested PROD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Stephanie Poole was a small-town Scottish hero. Her family is just bringing to light her martyrdom with her soon-to-be-publicated diary. This page deserves to be saved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpin4jamie (talk • contribs) — Jumpin4jamie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The diary hasn't been published yet, much less been the subject of historical analysis. Wait some time after publication. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. The article states that no additional facts are known about her, which is by itself a strong deletion argument for someone who was merely a soldier. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. No reliable sources are known to exist yet. Even assuming the article is true, not enough information has been provided to establish her notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thoroughly reviewed said information about Stephanie Poole and have come to a conclusion, she was a legitamate person. Upon that website cited I contacted said family member of her's and had an extensive conversation about the topic. The diary will be published and that website is a reliable source. It appears to be a blog because of improper funding to the family and they are not able to buy the domain to make it seem more real. I believe this article should not be deleted. -Wikiwikiwhattt --Wikiwikiwhattt (talk) 27 June 2009 — Wikiwikiwhattt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting and invoking both WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW as a hoax both here and on that phony blog. Blocking the user as well. This individual has already wasted enough valuable volunteer time with this nonsense. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:07, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties

no assertion of notability or significance, no independent sources Dlabtot (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Teancum (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added relevance information and citations that should address the concerns of the editors above. If more is required, there are tens of thousands of additional Google hits that could provide reference material. The band has performed at presidential inaugurations for more than 90 years, including the inauguration of Obama in January. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all you've done is add material that speaks to the notability and significance of the Highty-Tighties. However, no one is suggesting that article be deleted. This discussion is about List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties. What makes this list notable or significant? Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting information off from a main article has been done in the past. This list can't be merged into the main article for the simple reason that it'd be overwhelmed; there's too much information here. More research and development is needed on this article—it's pretty abysmal—but that's not a justification to delete. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On a Wikipedia scale of WP:N I don't think this passes. Useful to Virginia Tech students/alumni, but not anyone else. Content should be moved somewhere on Virginia Tech's site. Falls under a music version of WP:GAMECRUFT. Delete --Teancum (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per JKBrooks85's suggestion that notability of lists can be derived from the parent article it was split from. The only relevant discussion/guideline I can find rapidly is Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.4 (which is a discussion more in the context of fiction-list-splits, such as character lists, hence the lack of concensus (imo), but the idea is clear enough). Is there any more solid guideline that can be pointed to for this concept?
Also, I've left a note at Talk:Highty-Tighties. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the most solid guideline is this language, from the guideline on stand-alone lists: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." In other words, a list having NO notable entries, like this one, does not belong in Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The members of the list simply are not independently notable: they don't have stand-alone articles, and there are no reliable sources to verify their notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted as CSD G10 negative unsourced BLP, and as CSD G3 blatant hoax by User:Jclemens. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Murphy

I came across this article because I had deleted another article by the same editor, one that was an obvious hoax. For this one, I have not been able to find any sources that verify the information in the article. The ESPN website does not corroborate the information; see this search for example. I suggest deletion due to failure of WP:V—but am bringing this to AfD to ask other editors to try to find sources, in case any do exist. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I G3-tagged the other article that Mr. Erik refers to, and its text was nearly identical to this article's. This is clearly a hoax. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete clearly a hoax that suckered me in... ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 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 Speedy keep Seems to be a WP:POINTy nomination. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Black Panther Party

Violates WP:N; lacks signicant coverage and reliable sources. Radiopathy •talk• 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article is on a twenty-year old organization with 25+ references, unless there's a specific problem with them, notability is established. Dayewalker (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't verify some of the references, and some need to be re-referenced, however if that can be fixed there is 3rd party verification and they would be notable. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The article has over 20 refs, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, Canadian Broadcast Corp, and too many newspapers to list here. Notability and RS are well served in this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Look at the article. I don't know where the nominator is getting this nonsense. The article is thoroughly sourced and clearly has notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep When I saw this, I had to look at the calendar to check that it wasn't April 1. The article isn't particularly well-sourced, yet it has more than 25 sources. (Lest someone think I have a conflict of interest, I have no connection with Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the NBPP.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:22, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Sleper

Bio written by user:Jackiesleper. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no, she is not.—Chris! _ct 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speed-of-light Delete This ain't Blogspot. --Teancum (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is asserted, but none of the unsourced claims makes her notable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in this form does not include content that indicates that the subject meets the inclusion criteria. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not show the subject is notable and does not source the claims that are made. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2012

AfDs for this article:

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, of interest only to the US Radiopathy •talk• 01:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. It states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This is obviously a notable event which is certain to take place. The article cites numerous reliable sources which speculate in detail about the election. While speculation done by Wikipedia editors is discouraged, speculation by reliable sources is just fine. The article could use some style work, but all the candidates listed and the election in general have been a subject of many articles published by reliable sources. Tim meh 01:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination) was a clear example of crytal. This one's much closer, sure to happen, and has many serious in-depth speculative references. Many users are carefully maintaining the page to prevent it from being excessive. I suggest you remove the US-interest-only nonsense from your reasoning. Is is any different from United States presidential election, 2008 or United States presidential election, 1796? You might not be, but I'm sure some foreigners might be looking forward to who'll challenge Obama. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's speculative, but the speculation is detailed enough to warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination, this user has also been trolling the Obama page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is an excellent article. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly going to happen —Chris! _ct 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Crystal doesn't apply as above, good article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Timmeh. Gage (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL applies. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:16, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoklet

Contested prod. A non notable forum that fails WP:WEB. The article supplies no independent, reliable sources and none appear to be available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this article after finding it on the WP:NPP backlog. It appears to me that it violates WP:WEBSITE as the nominator has stated, and I was unable to locate sources confirming notability. The prod lasted almost six days, during which time copyrighted material had to be removed which was added by the person who removed the prod. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 21:44, 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 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:WEB there appear to be no independent sources for this web site promotion (and there are none in the article). Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maine basketball teams

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, any 5 people who play basketball together anywhere in Maine? There is no threshold for notability, or at what level of playing (college? professional? high school? night leagues? intramural? pick-up games? which makes this purely a directory with no encyclopedic purpose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slam dunk delete - no indication of notability, no references, basically listcruft. Probably should've been speedied. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 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 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scjessey's comments --Teancum (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbala Das

Prod previously denied (with no real explanation). Clear case of WP:ONEVENT. Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator states, this is a very clear case of WP:ONEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS. Drawn Some (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is already covered in Human-animal marriage and this doesn't need a redirect. This is best left to the Odd news section of Yahoo!news. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human-animal_marriage#Snake; nn, but rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, famous for one event only. JIP | Talk 07:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. There is even question about the snake existing. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS OfficeGirl (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 03:59, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Media Watch

All references I have been able to find are for Palestinian Media Watch. There was previously a reference to what was meant to be its website, but the link is dead. Googling it appears to bring up virtually nothing (all results are for Palestinian Media Watch, except for a link to a blog that isn't there). It seems that the sole claim to fame for this organisation is a reference in an article by The Economist, and it seems that it was not mentioning it due to its particular notability, but just due to similarity in name to Palestinian Media Watch

Just to clarify, I proposed deleting everything except for the introduction of the article a couple of weeks ago, on the grounds that it seemed to be violate NPOV and in style was unencyclopedic. Since there was not response or protest, I did so. I am now proposing to delete the article itself on the grounds of notability and lack of verification. TachyonJack (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the notability. Google came up a bust Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Palestinian Media Watch. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many RS's out there. Gbooks: 43 hits for Palestine Media Watch, 25 for pmwatch.org; gnews: 132 for "Palestine Media Watch", 23 for pmwatch.org, gscholar: 47 for "Palestine Media Watch", 43 for pmwatch.org. Includes articles specifically on this group, like [28].John Z (talk) 19:56, 20 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 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches easily confirm notability, as per WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:42, 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 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebbetlevvus

Non-notable student club, deprodded. Abductive (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability, and my searches yielded no evidence of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:45, 23 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) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a webpage for random student groups. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:43, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Luanaigh

Non-notable game designer. Very little independent secondary source material. Brianga (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the article should stay, but it does need more sources and information. The reason I think it should stay is because of him being the head of the company nDreams and his importance to it and also his past work with SCi Games and Eidos Interactive. JDC808 (talk) 20:08, 21 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) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tag the article with some articleissues tags. Person is notable enough for the gaming industry. --Teancum (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur that this individual is notable; senior in his industry, game and book author. JJL (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So, there's a social networking site, Moby Games, and a blip on his publisher's website? These are our reliable secondary sources that prove notability? Has anyone actually read WP:N? No, he is not notable, in his field or otherwise. Notability is not conferred because you yourself have taken a look at his credentials and were impressed. Notability is not a job interview. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with nDreams / Weak Keep: I usually check Edge magazine for coverage of game industry figures. July 16, 2007 Interview with O'Lauanaigh, May 30, 2007 article. The subject of both is really nDreams - although the interview does have a bio of O'Lauanaigh so I can support a weak keep. His latest twitter message says he's doing another interview with Edge. Marasmusine (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per User:Marasmusine. An Edge bio is good enough for me. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoundMan-Server

Non-notable product, deprodded. Abductive (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced article about a software product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 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) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Community Social Services

Primary sources, a directory listing, and a trivial mention. Targeted viciously by SPAs. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient third party coverage. [29]. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 23 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) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Can you find non-Detroit sources in the GOOG list? Or, cite some specific incidents that created national coverage? The article as written sounds like an ad with citations to directories and incidental mentions. Given how long it has been around, there are likely to be notable historical events of interest to wiki readers but we have no idea what they are and aren't supposed to be mind readers. I'm not sure what provoked the warning about voting but if there is significant interest, it should be possible to document notability, even if due to peripheral reasons rather than their main function. Given that wiki doesn't kill trees and needn't fit on a bookshelf, it isn't too hard to argue for inclusion but you still need to consider the objectives here.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

organisations don't necessarily need national coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roadblock (Young Money song)

No sources that it is an official single, only a youtube link to a video. Str8cash (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice (Young Money song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sacrifice (Young Money song)

No sources indicating it will be a single, just a link to a youtube video of the song Str8cash (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look How I'm Doing

Not notable. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. At best, it should be redirected to Unleashed or Wherever I Am. --Pokerdance (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:49, 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) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete SPAM. I think we indulge these people far too much here. Blatant advertising by users who are from the record company. It should be up to them to prove it is notable not us. Polargeo (talk) 18:55, 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 deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Grivoyannis

An obviously popular teaching professor, but not-notable by the standards of WP:PROF. Abductive (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to have published several books. It would be helpful if prodders on these pages would do the citation searches themselves rather than leave them to others. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am aware that the subject published a study guide to one of his classes, and an in-house research monograph. I reject your presumption of bad faith nominations. Abductive (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No presumption of bad faith was made by me. My comment applies to all prodders. What were the results of your citation searches? They will help other editors to assess the AfD more effectively. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I use the {{prod-nn}} template, which has links to those Google searches. Maybe the AfD template should include those links as well. Sorry for over-reacting. Abductive (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete~~Delete~~. Seems to be a good professor, but I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Citation impact seems to be low. ~~Zero hits on WorldCat~~. News coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I expanded the search on WorldCat and found out that he has one book, Current issues in monetary policy in the United States and Japan, currently in close to 250 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Not bad, but taken alone it is still not enough for notability under WP:PROF criterion #1. I also did a Google search with the book’s title and the word “syllabus”, and got no hits, suggesting that the subject does not meet WP:PROF criterion #4 either. Changed my recommendation to a “weak delete” though, given the WorldCat holdings.

Delete, appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC and other standards. DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability as well as WP:PROF. Drawn Some (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehis books are in almost no libraries. His textbook is self-published. DGG (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence in Google scholar of the heavy citations that would indicate a pass of WP:PROF #1, and he doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria. His article reads a lot like a cv, and the relatively high number of positions and the adjunct nature of some of those positions leads me to suppose that he held them more as a teacher than as a researcher. The article notes some involvement in local politics but not at a level that would justify an article independently of his academic accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VIRAT

One-year-old on-going research program DARPA. Non-notable; too early to tell if this will gain any traction. Text mainly came from the RFP document, hence reflecting the viewpoint of DOD program, and not in encyclopedic style. Vsion (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete it has multiple external sources and the technology will be definitely be notable if it works as envisaged. If it proves to be dead-end research then that wouldn't make it automatically non-notable either. As the nominator says though I think it's just a big too early to tell, and there isn't (afaict from a quick google) much concrete that can be encyclopaedically said about it. What tips this !vote to a delete is that the article as stands would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopaedic in style. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 22 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) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's another source: DARPA Contract Description Hints at Advanced Video Spying (Washington Post Oct 19 '08).

[30] That's in addition to the DARPA document,[31] the Ars Technica article,[32] and the SatNews story,[33] which the article already has. Topic is notable and while any article could use some improvement, I'd hardly consider the tone unencyclopedic. In fact, I'd say keeping track of little-known areas like this is one of the strengths of Wikipedia's model. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the above editor mentioned -- there are already multiple external sources (including the Washington Post), so it definitely meets notability. I think deletion is totally unreasonable -- reason for deletion was non-notable, which has been shown to be untrue -- it would have been more appropriate to mark it as a stub and/or 'needs expansion' ... and I'd be glad to discuss suggestions for rewriting all or part of it on the article's talk page.Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ReelzChannel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Mob

No notability. gordonrox24 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to ReelzChannel This TV show may be notable, but this article from TV Week is the only reliable source I can find that covers it in depth. If this is the only source that can be found, I would propose a merge to ReelzChannel per WP:PRESERVE. If another source is found, I will go with keep. Cunard (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 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) 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leander A.S.C

Procedural nomination. This was prodded with the reason: Non-notable swimming club--even if an Olympic swimmer once swam with them, I don't believe that notability is inherited in that way. Google News reveals a few hits where swimmers from the club are mentioned, but no discussion (even in passing) of the club itself. I de=prodded it & sent it to AfD for discussion, because it seems possible that a club that sponsored such notable athletes might possibly be notable & that a discussion might be warranted. Not my field, and I have no opinion myself. DGG (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG--I am the one who prodded it and I could not find any significant mention of the club at all. DGG is right in that it is not impossible that such evidence will come to light; until that moment, I vote delete. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources could be found to reasonably establish notability; it's an amateur swim club. Also, it's a copyvio of the Club History. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tony--I guess I should have looked for something like that also. Too much good faith, haha. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If someone does manage to rescue this article (which might happen given the number of swimmers who've competed internationally), it will have to be rewritten from scratch. It currently reads far too much like a sales pitch. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Christopher

Prodded by User:Abductive with reasoning "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: Ross Christopher – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." and I agree. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as original prodder, seems to me to be a non-notable person. Abductive (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced BLP on a non-notable individual. لenna vecia 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence to suggest that the individual is notable - fails WP:MUSIC--AssegaiAli (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:NOTAVOTE; I've determined that the keep "votes" provide stronger arguments than those in favor of deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of copywriters

This list (1) is pointless (who is ever going to come looking for it?); (2) can never be complete and useful, given the vast number of copywriters (whatever that means) in the world; (3) is a magnet for spam; (4) is made redundant by the category "copywriters". GNUSMAS : TALK 08:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is redundant to Category:Copywriters, as its inclusion criteria basically means that every copywriter who as a wikipedia article should be on this list. It doesn't offer anything that the category doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 22 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) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above two arguments are, I think, well and truly refuted by WP:CLN.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists can offer things that categories can't, but this does not mean they always do. If you want to rework this list into something that offers more than the category it currently duplicates then I'll reconsider my !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It already does, Thryduulf. Because I can watchlist this, but I can't watchlist a category.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Thryduulf.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "magnet for spam" is not a valid argument for deletion (and in point of fact there is no spam on this page). There is significant additional information beyond what is on the category page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no spam because I keep deleting it! GNUSMAS : TALK 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that, just like I keep deleting spam from List of social networking websites and other lists: that's why we watch, the system works, and again, it is not a reason for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, a list may be useful, but I see no reason for maintaining this list. I might want to scan a List of composers, but my judgment is that "copywriters" is an imprecise term, and not useful for a list. There has to be some judgment here otherwise every category would also have a list. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as people might want to peruse a list of composers, a list of copywriters is interesting in and of itself, too, especially for those who are copywriters themselves.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lists of composers are more useful and interesting to read because they provide information that is not provided by the categories - see List of major opera composers and Category:Opera composers, then compare them to List of copywriters and Category:Copywriters. If this list were restructured to be something like the list of composers then it would offer something that Category:Copyrighters doesn't. At present it doesn't and so my vote to delete as redundant stands. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, but the assertion by the primary editor that it's easier to watch and keep spam off the list is what convinces me, it's a valid argument to me.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no list, there will be no spam on that list. Conversely, having a list and keeping it spam-free will not help keep articles on alleged copywriters spam free (the category will still exist). Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists are not redundant to categories - see [[WP:CLS]. As we have articles about copywriters then a list article is valid as an index to them. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've commented on this discussion previously, some lists are not redundant to categories, but this one is, because it offers no more indexing than does the category. Feel free to improve the list so it does if you want, but nobody has in the nearly two weeks this has been up for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Public

The notability of the band basically amounts to having been compared to My Bloody Valentine and mentioned on BBC Radio 1 (with Geocities links as sources). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable magnius (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 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) 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I will try and see if they have had a charting album or single anywhere because if they have, they are notable by Wikipedia standards. But until I find such proof, my !vote is weak delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find any reliable 3rd party website that shows proof of charting. My !vote remains weak delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:59, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Press

No assertion of notability —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of ~~notability~~ impact on news articles. I can't figure out what I can do against these false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 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) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable.

Keep. Some indications of notability. A Google Book search[34] shows it listed under "media" in a couple of Florida guidebooks, it's in Project Censored's guide to independent media and activism, a book called "Move the Message" about independent media, reviewed in Factsheet Five, as well as the periodical Maximum Rocknroll reviewing it as a music review source. It's been cited in the book Animal Rights in South Africa as well as Trained to Torture: A Statistical Analysis of Human Rights Violations published by the University of Wisconsin. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:32, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific CMOS

This is a product placement for a product launched yesterday, which is somewhat disguised as an article. There is nothing different about an sCMOS than a regular CMOS. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sCMOS is not a product, it is a new technology which is based on CMOS, however there are significant differences between the two. It is also likely that this will become an industry standard in the same way that EMCCD supassed CCD in 2001. These two factors mean it warrants its own page. However I agree that some changes are needed in the article to make its importance clearer and I have gone about making these. Akalabeth 10:36, 18 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akalabeth (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : not verifiable as per claims but reconsider if notability can be established. This is an aspirational article,

ad-style, and makes claims about "secret sauce" that would only be helpful if their secrecy, rather than technology, was notable. Independent notice of claims (" wow, this has 100% QE and pixels are responsive right up to their edges" ) would not even seem possible at this point but could establish notability without revealing secrets. Presumably the lens technology would be the interesting component and AFAIK this is secret although they also mention anti-blooming that is a problem with CCD's ( at least it was in mid 1990's as I haven't bothered to look lately ). Authors should try to find something like IEEE or even IEDM conference papers to cite as start on notability. If they have an integrated achromatic SiO2 fresnel lens it may make an intereting paper but not as presented in current form. In the absence of these, I'm not sure how you justify this as a new technology ready for an encyclopedia. If they can cite patents or otherwise make notability fine however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:09, 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) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious advertising is grounds to delete articles even on notable products. This product, released June 16, 2009, has had scarcely enough time to be notable; more important, this article is shot through with obvious advertising, which vitiates it in its entirety even if it were notable: based on on next generation ... design and fabrication techniques ... primary technical advancements that underlie sCMOS technology remain proprietary ... The advanced feature set of sCMOS means that it will contribute to improvements across a wide spectrum of applications and techniques. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is one of lots of similar products. When this product has existed long enough to be notable, and when it is covered by WP:SECONDARY sources, a new article without marketing fluff can be created. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Davis

Lead singer of a red link band, featured in a supposedly notable film. News sources are mostly trivial. A7 declined Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 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) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone wrote a brief obituary about him (Sep 18, 2003. , Iss. 931; pg. 30), as did the Star Tribune (Aug 15, 2003. pg. E1). Two other articles in the Star Tribune mention his death as having had an impact on other bands (Jan 27, 2006. pg. F1; Aug 15, 2008. pg. E2); same for an article in the Chicago Tribune (Dec 15, 2006. pg. 14). These are all brief mentions but I would not call them "trivial". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call the sources trivial, but I'd call the coverage trivial. Everyone makes nice stuff up to say in an obit. If it took dying to get noted, I don't think he was that notable alive. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:43, 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 merge to Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog.House (album)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Since the band is only barely notable because of having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, their releases do not deserve individual articles. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per poor deletion rationale. WP:N is extremely expansive and most categories have their own rules on what is and isn't notable. The rest of the rationale reads like Just Not Notable. I will amend this vote if there are any relevant guidelines buried in the music wikiprojects that provide a clearer reason for lack of notability. McJeff (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog.House does not meet the basic notability requirement of having "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable". Further, the group itself may not be notable, since its only claim to fame is having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, which does not satisfy "Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". I was waiting to see the consensus on these albums before nominating the group itself for deletion, but perhaps I was wrong there. Conical Johnson (talk) 10:28, 23 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, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All three of the albums are not notable on their own but should be included as part of the article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should not be deleted, even though one of the criteria to make a group notable is "... an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". " The group article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should be kept because even though there is only one notable member because that member is especially notable and the subject of a featured article.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:53, 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 merge to Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernails (album)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Since the band is only barely notable because of having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, their releases do not deserve individual articles. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 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) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All three of the albums are not notable on their own but should be included as part of the article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should not be deleted, even though one of the criteria to make a group notable is "... an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". " The group article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should be kept because even though there is only one notable member because that member is especially notable and the subject of a featured article.Rcurtis5 (talk) 17:23, 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 redirect to Morning View. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqueous Transmission

Per WP:NSONGS, this song has not received significant coverage to warrant an article. It isn't even a single, and hasn't received any awards or anything else to make it notable. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 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) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morning View, this song's album. I think this would be the most useful of the available options to an interested reader. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:00, 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. لenna vecia 15:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Angus

Non-notable person with no media coverage; fails basic criteria of WP:BIO. Top ghits that presumably relate to this person are self-created home pages and social networking profiles. Article appears to have been self-created as well. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable, plus the article is only one sentence long.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:35, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Acting Alliance

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB ttonyb1 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 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) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough to be controversial. Kingturtle (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if they are considering themselves an org/club or a website......but they fail both so it doesn't really matter, does it? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 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.