Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 June 5 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete G7, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Fishkin[edit]

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

Subject requests deletion.[1] Article was previously deleted. I am acquainted with the subject and can confirm that he is the one who made the request. I personally take no position on whether the article should be deleted or not (my vote is recuse). Jehochman Talk 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person that created (or as it turns out re-created) this page in good faith. I was unaware of Mr. Fishkin's preference, which I respect. I regret there is no mechanism in wikipedia to alert contributors to the fact that certain pages are marked as "unwelcome." I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time if I had received such an alert. Go ahead and delete it. Woz2 (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way, which I have now employed. It's called WP:SALT. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thank you from future potential contributors whose time you have saved Woz2 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priceless (Birdman Album)[edit]

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

Non-sourced crystal ballism; violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results[edit]

New Zealand general election, 2005: in depth results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely redundant, with the main article New Zealand general election, 2005 containing more detailed results than this one. No other election in New Zealand has split out results to a separate article to my knowledge. gadfium 23:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Point Fire Station[edit]

Quincy Point Fire Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I believe this article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because I could not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just being designated a "historical site" doesn't really establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the key point is that there are over a million buildings designated as "historical" on that list.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's about 80,000 properties on the NHRP list, not "over a million." Besides, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no practical limit to the amount of articles. If there are a million notable buildings, then there can be a million building articles. --Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually," is what the NHRP article says.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this one seems to be listed individually. The other 920,000 are part of historic districts and generally not notable on their own, but only as part of a larger area. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All buildings on the register have already been determined to be notable by virtue of being on the list. It's not easy to get on it. It's like winning an important award for people. And they are all extremely well-documented by the information on the application if nothing else so are easily verified, from their condition, history, to the reason for significance. Drawn Some (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NRHP have already been determined to be prima facie notable. Swampyank (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sigh - this isn't just "historical": it's an enrty in the National Register of Historical Properties, and there aren't "a million" of them (did you throw that number because you didn't have anything better to say?). And since the consensus is that they are inherently notable, and no VfD has ever been successful, lets close the debate immediately.--Aldux (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. If it's notable to them, it's notable here.--Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query — Please can you link the discussion in which these buildings were "determined to be notable"? If it's based on strong consensus, then I shall withdraw my nomination and close this AfD with apologies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're asking for. There's no "discussion requirement" on the notability of specific topics. We go by WP:NOTABILITY and other genre guidelines. By law alone, all places must go through a rigorous documentation application and documentation process (like I said, much more rigorous than Wikipedia's "notability" process) to even be considered for the register and it's all documented with the National Park Service. --Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking for is either (a) evidence the article complies with the general notability guideline (by which I mean, links to the two reliable secondary sources that give it significant coverage); or (b) evidence there is a consensus on Wikipedia to disregard the general notability guideline for buildings on the NRHP.

I would accept either as sufficient reason to withdraw this nomination as a snow keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will all NRHP properties there exists a National Register of Historic Places "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" document, with accompanying photos, that consists of an inventory of the property, a description of its significance, a summary of history of persons associated with the site, and so on, which is often a 20-30 page document. These are usually written by professional historians and edited by National Park Service NRHP staff. These documents are usually not on-line but may be obtained by request from the NRHP. Any NRHP is notable and its notability can be verified by these documents. To say "I want to see hpyerlinks of this significant secondary coverage or I don't believe it exists" is silly Wikilawyering and willful ignorance.--Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this strikes you as wikilawyering and willful ignorance, Oakshade.

It doesn't have to be a link, you could also cite the significant coverage in multiple secondary sources by ISBN or ISSN.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this link cites 6 sources, 5 are probably secondary sources and 4 are books (although no ISBNs are given). They aren't on Google books as far as I can tell. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chiliad. I'll accept that and close this AfD, with apologies to anyone I offended by raising the matter.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HISTORIC. ZabMilenko 08:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, didn't notice the failed consensus mark. ZabMilenko 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Having some issues finding notability outside of WP:LOCALINT, which is expected of a structure only important to the city of Quincy. If I lived there, this link alone would make me argue fervently for a keep, but policy-wise I do not know of anything keeping the article in wikipedia. If someone can point me at what says NHRP stuff is automatically notable I would consider changing my vote. ZabMilenko 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hakubi[edit]

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

The speedy deletion as db-spam was declined by another admin, but I think this needs to be examined at WP:AfD ... all it says is "here's a vitamin pill, widely available". Spam or not? - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic FC Result 10/08/2008[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Celtic FC Result 10/08/2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual season matches are not notable. Otherwise we would end up with a deluge of results for every game for every team of a 38-game season, Wikipedia is not a news service and not a results service. PROD contested by page creator without any explanation. – Toon(talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator, no other delete comments. Non-admin closure. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10/90_gap[edit]

AfDs for this article:
10/90_gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. All it is is a twenty year old statistic from a website forum on health insurance. Non-notable and no sources. Article is written like an advertisement. Renaissancee (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I've decided to withdraw this nomination. Renaissancee (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kunt and the Gang (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kunt and the Gang (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline notability. Well-referenced, I suppose, but the references themselves are mostly only passing mentions to what is, frankly, a non-notable pub band. THe band regularly edit the article themselves. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the sources available, but I'm not sure they come up to the required standard:
    1. [2] is barely more than an advert.
    2. [3] is trivial.
    3. [4] doesn't load.
    4. [5] and [6] are both very short website-only reviews from a regional free magazine.
    5. [7] isn't about the band, it's about a local school's issue with the band name, making the coverage trivial.
    6. [8] is an advert for someone at the Edinburgh Fringe, from the Edinburgh Fringe guide. Everyone performing there gets a mention, notable or not.
    7. [9] is written by a member of the public, not a journalist.
    8. The sources mentioned on the website aren't notable either - take a look at them. Nothing more than one-sentence reviews and trivial mentions about the shock factor of the name. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. is not an advert. Guardian journalists do not advertise bands. 2. is a brief mention but well beyond the definition of trivial coverage found in WP:N. 3. loaded when I found it - the NME homepage doesn't load at the moment so this shouldn't be held against it as a source. 4&5 are from a valid reliable source (The Skinny (magazine)). 6. is about the controversy over the name but includes borderline significant coverage of the band. 7. is from a festival guide - the guide includes critical reviews as well as discussing forthcoming events - it isn't an advert. The additional sources on the website go well beyond trivial mentions and sources such as Bizarre, thelondonpaper, NME, Metro (well beyond a one sentence review), and Bent are perfectly good examples of significant coverage - I don't understand the argument that these are "not notable" - if you are suggesting the publications are not notable, I don't think that argument holds water, and in any case is irrelevant.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand some of your points - 1. Is barely more than an advert. I never said it was an advert. 2 is especially confusing, because WP:N doesn't define trivial, it defines 'significant' - which source two quite obviously isn't. It's a one-sentence mention in a huge article. If you can come up with some decent sources, I'm happy to keep the article - but at the moment it's a magnet for self-promotion. All the references given so far are either 2-inch long column reviews, about the band name, or written by a member of the public. The band aren't, as far as I can tell, even signed to a record label - except for Disco Minge, who are run by the band, and were created because "No other label would touch with a shitty stick Kunt and the Gang’s toilet and nob gag obsessed punk-synth-pop". A good band? Probably, yes. Notable? Not unless we get a few decent-length reviews in NME or the Guardian. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Michig's sources demonstrate that the band has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the band meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I Can't seem to fit this band in the criteria for WP:MUSIC so i agree. And the name of the band is just indecently vulgar :/ DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If anyone comes here arguing that the band's name is offensive, or that the article is " a magnet for self-promotion", that is going to be ignored by any decent closing admin. There is plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG, and easily WP:BAND criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Offensive name or not, they aren't notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Band has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. — Satori Son 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

If you don't like it you haven't got to listen to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.63.210 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday drive[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Cites google books exclusively for sources. Note: The link to this article in {{tourism}} was added by this article's creator. —LedgendGamer 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNeutral per neologism. It is probably fiction as well, since it is linking to google's books. ZooFari 22:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to neutral, since there were some changes prior to my delete. ZooFari 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: what issues would have to be addressed in order to change this neutral to a keep? --ClickRick (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not completely satisfied, especially since the references provided are not completely relevant. The references make "Sunday drive" look like it is just a term. Maybe rewriting the lead would be better suited. ZooFari 15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Desribes an age-old concept and tradition, not a neologism (meaning the phrase). Plenty of references available. Books are considered reliable sources. Sebwite (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • Just because google books is the source of the reference doesn't per se mean that the reference is not reliable or verifiable. I've turned one into a genuine book reference already, and the others may well follow suit.
    • The first google books reference (the one I followed through) turns out to be a book published in 2002 entitled "The 1930s". This suggests that the term is not a neologism. Plus I remember the term from many years ago.
    • http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/drive includes the term.
    • The page is new - the author should at least be given a chance to flesh it out.
  • --ClickRick (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but ONLY if substantially fleshed out, otherwise transwiki. Term is known and in widespread use. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More suited to a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. WP:NAD Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A dictionary entry is something that says blank is blank with no other content and no possible chance of expansion. This article may be short, but it is more than that. Sebwite (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I can look for more sources later (time is not on my side), but even it's current state, I say keep. It has adequate sources, but could certainly use more. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please read WP:BEFORE and talk to your mother; this is not a neologism but a cliche. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perhaps more commonly documented under the names "Sunday driving" and "Sunday drivers", and you'll find that there's a lot more in one of the sources already cited for expanding upon this subject. McCrossen devotes the entirety of chapter 4 ("The Sunday Drive") to it. It doesn't just cover automobiles, and the phenomenon dates back to the 19th century. Apparently, at least from how it's cited in other sources, ISBN 9780719055065 has things to say on this subject, too. Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I chipped in a couple sentences and more rescue work would be nice toward, say, B-class. Nom has hardly used the ordinary meanings of either "non-notable" or "neologism" and apparently thinks that Google Books are not reliable sources, without supplying evidence, and that the article creator's linking in from a template is significant. Also article youth commends keeping; would like to see the 19th-century sources. Affirm everything Sebwite says too. In short, this is exactly such a topic as should appear in a list of what Wikipedia IS. JJB 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this traces back to the earliest days of the invention of the automobile and Ford's Model T - Ford created a massive publicity machine in Detroit to ensure every newspaper carried stories and ads about the new product. Ford's network of local dealers made the car ubiquitous in virtually every city in North America. As independent dealers, the franchises grew rich and publicized not just the Ford but the very concept of automobiling; local motor clubs sprang up to help new drivers and to explore the countryside. There is a boutiful supply of reliable sources and a good article can certainly be built here. -- Banjeboi 07:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This a tradition from a time when cars were new, a middle class with leisure time was growing, and suburban development had not destroyed anywhere to drive to. Static Universe talk|edits 02:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can remember Sunday drives and I'm not the oldest person here. :-) Borock (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suppose some of the younger generations never heard of a such a thing. Obviously the article subject is notable, and you should have no trouble finding hordes of places where it is mentioned at. Dream Focus 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Generation Rate[edit]

Conversation Generation Rate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The link begins, "Allow me to introduce a brand new..." I stopped right there, per WP:NFT. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fluther[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The page gives two meanings for the word "fluther", one of which is a dictionary definition, the other is a blatant attempt at advertising a website. There's nothing here that's actually encyclopedia-worthy. roleplayer 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Martin Middle School[edit]

Roy Martin Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no sources providing notability for this school. ZooFari 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkYConcerns met as nominator. It is good enough for me. ZooFari 03:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denney Colt[edit]

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

Article claims lots of notbility, however Google doesn not turn up any hits for "Denney Colt" - highly unlikely if there are really 3 BMG-released CDs. Passportguy (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Found this. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cannot find reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Her name really is Denny Colt, and this author is hell bent on making an article on her (it was already speedied in February; two other pages have been vandalized with the same content). Dragonfly Sixtyseven and I did a good search for sources the other day and turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3) by Backslash Forwardslash. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 23:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thou Art That (band)[edit]

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

Other than their myspace page, I can not find any mention of this band or any of the titles listed in the discography section of the article. There is a list of references but I can not work out what they refer to, and so are opening up a discussion as there may very well be something I missed in my searches. Sixtysixstar (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus in this discussion is to delete - happy to explain Wikipedia's concept of consensus to Wikid77 if he is still confused - fair play, it isn't the common usage. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designated[edit]

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

List of pages that happen to have "designated" in the title. See WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Page changed to avoid objections - see bottom "Reduced/split article". -Wikid77 (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original prod as "Pointless disambiguation page". . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To expand the point, this is not a disambiguation page, just a list of articles which happen to have a particular word in the title. There is nothing ambiguous which might create confusion between any of the articles, hence no need for disambiguation. . . Rcawsey (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pointless deletion. It is absolutely a correct page. A term "designated driver" is a correct entry for the page, just as "John Henry Smith" is a correct entry for the page "John Smith" even though the word "Henry" is added. The addition of extra words does not exclude a title from being an issue of disambiguation. In fact, disambiguation absolutely demands the inclusion of extra words. Why? because only 1 page can have the exact title, and other titles must vary by other words (or word spellings). If you can't comprehend that, then you honestly have no clue as to what a disambiguation page provides. Dear God, I cannot believe anyone cannot comprehend this disambiguation. How can so many people have such limited thinking? I suspect the content of the MOS:DAB is so twisted and confused that people lose all common sense as a result. By themselves, so many people would not be so confused that disambiguation titles contain different words in them, beyond the shared words. HINT: Disambiguation pages list titles that contain some different words in each title, where the shared word(s) could be used alone in context, such as a player who was "designated" or a driver who was "designated". The MOS:DAB is very poorly written and fosters many pointless deletion requests. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Extensive explanation of your view does not keep it from running counter to consensus: WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created, WP:D#Partial title matches. Your personal attacks and other unhelpful hints do not change that either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello (?), there is no so-called "consensus" because I disagree. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Consensus can exist on Wikipedia even with disagreement; WP:CONSENSUS is not the same as other definitions of consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the writing of WP:CONSENSUS has been incorrect. Consensus must be unanimous, otherwise: 2 people discuss an issue, and one claims they have consensus, but the other disagrees. That simple proof is an example of reductio ad absurdum, and so yes, consensus obviously must be uanimous. There is no such thing as a 1-person consensus between 2 people (except in past Wikipedia decisions, hence the flawed policies). -Wikid77 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTUNANIMITY. There are more than 2 people involved in the disambiguation guidelines. That none of them agree with you does not mean that they are all one person. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Extensive explanation was used above to explain the concepts. The word "designated" is being disambiguated, because it is the main "title" of the concept that is shared. Specifically:

Those articles are disambiguated as various meanings of the term "designated" because a separate article could be titled "Designated" to describe what is meant as "designated" in each case. This explanation is not intended as a personal attack, but rather as a clarification. Above, I thought I had made it clear that the MOS:DAB is to be blamed for the confusion, and no "personal attacks" have been made. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a disambiguation. That is a list of articles that include "designated" in the title. They are not articles about various topics that are ambiguous with "designated". They are articles that all use the same dictionary definition of designated in different ways, and are perfectly findable with {{intitle|designated}}: All pages with titles containing designated. Readers who are looking for a hitter who is designated are not likely to enter "designated" in the go box, but rather "designated hitter". -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "designated" certainly is a disambiguation, and many of the articles have extremely diverse views of the word "designated". For example,
  • a "designated driver" does not need to use a bat to hit a baseball.
  • a "designated range" of a musical instrument is not chosen by a group of friends at a bar, and does not involve drinking alcoholic beverages.
However, in those examples, the key word is the term "designated" as the shared title, as in "Designated (baseball)" or "Designated (driving)" or "Designated (musical range)". Also, readers have been entering the word "designated" more than 35 times per day, so they are actively seeking the information, such as being unsure what term to use for the military "designated marksman" or what term to use for soccer (football) "designated player" versus "designated hitter" in baseball. I hope those examples help to clarify and answer all your questions. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a disambiguation page and it does not appear to serve any other function that is not provided by the search function and a good dictionary. Phrases that happen to contain a particular term, but are not commonly known by that term alone do not need to be disambiguated by that term. older ≠ wiser 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it certainly is a disambiguation page (please read/re-read all the explanations here and re-read again) that handles various uses of the shared term "designated". Also, anything can be hunted by the "search function", and a so-called good dictionary is unlikely to have "designated marksman" or even "designated range" (music).
  • Comment - About broad scope: Another issue, that might be confusing, is to combine so many articles with the title "designated" rather than have a separate disambiguation page for each subset of titles. For example:

The intent is to have one disambiguation page to handle many phrases about "designated" rather than have several disambiguation pages for each of the 20 sets of the similar terms, official rules, and song/book titles. This strategy helps to reduce all the various disambiguation pages, as more similar song titles and book titles are added as article titles. However, the combined page of all variations of "designated" is likely to remain small because the term "designated" is quite specific, in actual use. The page is not similar to attempting to handle the word "slow" for "slow lane" or "slow day" or "slow motion" or "slow hand" (etc.). No, instead, the page "Designated" is much more focused, as a true disambiguation page. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this [your idiosyncratic interpretation of disambiguation] has been discussed extensively before and your arguments are entirely unconvincing. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's the way disambiguation actually works: if the articles could stand-alone with the exact same title: "Designated (baseball)" or "Designated (soccer)" or "Designated (driving)" or "Designated (musical range)" or "Designated (song)" then it is a case for disambiguation. There's nothing extensive to discuss about that concept. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not how disambiguation works. That is only your opinion about how disambiguation works and you've persuaded no one that that is a reasonable model to perpetuate. older ≠ wiser 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles wouldn't stand alone under the title "Designated" though. The title, for example, Designated Hitter- the important bit about that is the hitter bit, not the Designated bit. If it didn't have it's own article, it wouldn't be a section in an article called Designated, it would be in an article called Hitter. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the use of the word "designated" for a designated hitter most certainly would appear in an article about "Designated" along with explaining the term "designated driver". There are numerous such multi-meanings articles on Wikipedia. The fact of including "designated hitter" within the topic of "designated" is also proven by Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary for the word "designate". However, I understand your alternate viewpoint, even though I share the view of those mainstream dictionary writers to put "designated hitter" with "designate". The reason seems to be the rarity of the word "designated", and thus there are quick dictionary connections to the term "designated driver" whereas "hitter" does not directly imply explanation of "designated". The world, at large, really does disambiguate the term "designated" as seen in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and that is the reason hundreds of people request "Designated" every month on Wikipedia, and the reason I initially wrote that page. It's not my mere opinion, it is the way the World works. I hope viewing the Merriam-Webster dictionary helps to sort out the priorities, as to why "designated" is the focus. It took me weeks to research and conclude that "Designated" was the disambiguation used by mainstream people in the world. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you've not offered any evidence of actual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the entries are known simply as "Designated". -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several, clearly, are known as "designated". For example, at a baseball game, if a player said, "John needs to get ready to bat; he's designated" then they know the meaning is as designated hitter. Also, when drinking at a bar, if the conversation went, "Why is John still in the bar with you? Oh, he's the designated", then too, there is obvious intent: "designated driver". The fact of including "designated driver" within the topic of "designated" is also proven by Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary for the word "designate". Again, that is not mere opinion, it is the way the World actually disambiguates the term "designated". Perhaps I should have cited all these reasons earlier, and this delete-request would never have arisen. The world has specific venues: in Austrian music, "Strauss" is either "Father" or "Son" (the Waltz King), but when designing blue-jeans, then "Strauss" is typically "Levi Strauss". I had researched the term "designated" for weeks, to see that the world considers the word "designated" as an exclusive word for disambiguation. Perhaps the best approach is to write several articles all titled "Designated (xx)" because so many people do not realize that's how the world at large handles the issue. My focus has been to make Wikipedia answer the questions asked by the real world, by several thousand people in each case. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term designated is simply not used alone when referring to a designated hitter or a designated driver. In your example for baseball, What any announcer or fan would actually say is "John needs to get ready to bat; he's the designated hitter" and your bar example would have actual conversation that ran as "Why is John still in the bar with you? Oh, he's the designated driver". The "designated" portion is a fragment of the actual topic and ass such are not valid entries for disambiguation. -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after ec) I am not convinced that this will do any good, but: if the baseball game announcer or the story in the paper the next day is likely to say "The designated cinched the game with a home run", then "designated" is ambiguous. If you have a source that says "The police officer gave the designated a breathalyzer test because he smelled alcohol in the vehicle", then "designated" is ambiguous. But they don't -- "designated" is just another word that has a meaning that can be used in multiple sentences and multiple Wikipedia article titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce and split
Other tag-alongs created

If this discussion ends in deletion, what process needs to be followed to also remove the add-ons Designated (baseball), Designated (driving), and List of phrases with designated? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - they can be listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion¸¸. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All the recent editting fails to address the fundamental issue that there is nothing about "Designated" that needs disambiguation; in particular, all the framgent usages that have now been made redirects are not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike some of the commentators above, i think the article both useful and potentially encyclopedic. There I would however add some text to this, a discussion of how the general use of the concept came about--for there is a common element. Concerns about what makes a "proper" article or a "proper disam" page are irrelevant; if the material improves the encyclopedia, we ned not worry about terminology. A proper place to use IAR. DGG (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if there were an article written about the term "designated", it should occupy the Designated space. But the nomination is because the material currently there does not improve the encyclopedia, because Wikipedia is not a directory. If it were simply an improperly-formed disambiguation page, I would have just formatted it properly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreating a proper article. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think JHunter makes good points. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't what dab pages are for - there's no disambiguation being addressed by the list. PKT(alk) 19:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7, author blanked the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Kannan[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about an assistant professor at Purdue. Article does not provide any reliable sources and the only info I could find consisted of LinkedIn/Facebook/university profiles. TNXMan 19:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ward[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be real notability and this article lacks sources showing any notability. (please note that I was confused in the process because there was another article that popped up as previously nominated with the same title) CZmarlin (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bari baba sarkar[edit]

Bari baba sarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While I tend to believe that this temple does exist, I cannot verify that and there are no sources to establish either a corrct spelling or it's notability. Passportguy (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Passportguy (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the names Mehda and Raun in the article, this would appear to be a temple in Bhind District; but I can find no sources for the existence of a Hanuman temple with this or a similar name at the specified location (though there seem to be several elsewhere in the area). As it stands, this article fails WP:V. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found. Deor (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for temples in Bhind District, Chambal etc and got a couple of other hits, nothing on this one except a Youtube video. So it likely exists, but not notable (enough?). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12. TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grpatilcollege[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable school, with no reliable sources provided and none found. Article is also very spammish. TNXMan 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to List of characters on 6teen. Alright, there appears to be pretty clear concensus that this will be a speedy merger that does not require AfD. I will carry out the process outlined at WP:MERGE. Thanks, (non-admin closure) The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 03:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Wong[edit]

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

Also nominating: Jonesy Garcia • Caitlin Cooke • Wyatt Williams • Jen Masterson • Jude Lizowski • Starr (6teen)

I noticed this page through recent changes patrol, due to the large amount of vandalism it gets. I question this article's notability, as it does not have references in reliable, independent sources. Rather, it is mostly an in-universe description of the character's biography and personality, without any regards for the subject's importance outside of the show itself. I suggest merging it with either the main article, 6teen, or the more specific article, List of characters on 6teen deleting the article for containing mostly useless and insignificant information, as List of characters on 6teen already contains a character biography that should be suitable enough for the encyclopedia. If needed, some content may be copied over, but most likely not. The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating six other articles under the same criteria. They are listed above. The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I suggest merging each of the articles into List of characters on 6teen, and that that article should also be semi-protected to prevent anonymous IP editors from vandalizing it with nonsensical garbage and unproven fan speculation about the characters. Creativity-II (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced WP:VSCA. I mean, where does all the character detail come from? Is it OR? Eddie.willers (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Invalid nomination; nominator is proposing a merge instead of delete. Powers T 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the note. I changed my nominating statement's wording. Is this better? The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 20:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect would still need to be created, which doesn't require AfD either. Powers T 13:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybabies (band)[edit]

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

no real notability shown. lacks sources showing notability Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above is the prod reason. deletion was disputed by article creator and band member on the talk page. prod removed and brought to afd. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation taking place on the discussion tab of the article itself. --122.106.42.4 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage, but will reconsider if any is forthcoming. If someone declines a proposed deletion and sees fit to bring an article to AFD, can we just let it run its course please, as adding speedy tags just disrupts the process.--Michig (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born Scar[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, and WP:V, could not find sufficient reliable sources. Verify tag has been up since July 2007. Most likely a one-hit club DJ? OlEnglish (Talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 He did chart, but Google turns up only false positives. How the heck did he even chart?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does "he did chart" turn into A7? Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there's jack s**t information about him online, nothing else than YouTube videos? Come on, I can find more sources for Redmon & Vale, whose career was just as short-lived and successful chartwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which = delete, not A7 unless you challange and remove charting claim. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You get a tiny bit more - Youtube videos, etc. - if you search for it as one word, which is how he's listed on that Billboard link TPH provides. Still not much. Does a reasonably long appearance on the charts trump the whole "who?" thing? Honestly, I don't think so in this case - without sources, we don't get an article out of the deal. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there are some minor concerns over whether the article has some notibility due to their position in the Billboard chart. What I don't like is that the article has barely any context, which makes it rather confusing for readers. It has not assertion of notibility, one could argue. The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 18:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Viaduct[edit]

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

I'm not sure if we have a notability guideline for bridges, but this doesn't seem to be a notable one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over 100 years old, the longest viaduct of its type in the US, third longest in the world, sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It goes by other names that were not in the article when the nomination for deletion was made. It would be okay if TPH & his otters &c. withdrew the nom in light of the additional info. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability clearly established by many mentions in books and articles. See in particular [10]. Meets the general notability guidelines. Cool3 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also [11] which is a very long account and cites many other sources. Cool3 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Immaculate Mules[edit]

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

Declined the latest speedy on this frequently recreated page because there's a claim of meeting WP:MUSIC (charting with a hit single). However, 0 ghits for the single, just 14 24 non-wiki ghits for the group, none of which show WP:Notability. Zero gnews hits for single or group. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city‽ 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptic - journal published by University of London 1958[edit]

Sceptic - journal published by University of London 1958 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A journal with only 2 volumes released. Fails WP:BK. Different google searches don't return anything. [12], [13], [14], etc. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sometimes there may be a case to keep an article on a little known journal. But this one hangs by a thread, and with no reliable sources, what can we do? Having the name 'sceptic' which gets a zillion unrelated Google hits suggests that finding any real sources may be nigh impossible. How can we know for sure that this journal ever existed? Google does know something about Wen Su-Tung but this does not lead us any closer to actual information on the journal. I did not find any library holdings of this journal in worldcat.org. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By own admission about as non-notable as you can get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst the article as it stands doesn't appear to be a notable subject, AfD'ing anything on the day it's first day it's created is a dubious practice. If it's so urgent and nasty that we have to shoot it on sight (WP:BLP or something) then we have WP:CSDs for doing that. This article hurts nothing, and maybe the creator has some vast new content yet to add. Nothing is served by this hurry, and it alienates new editors. If it doesn't improve after a week, then AfD it, but otherwise what's the hurry? We don't get to score ourselves for each scalp we hunt down and kill, we certainly don't aid the project by WP:BITEing new article creators. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally tagged it with a CSD, but was told (see edit summary) to either prod it or bring it here. I chose the option I'm more comfortable with. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quirk of the deletion policy that requires books to go through AfD rather than speedy puts us here. The creator of this article has been notified of the AfD, but he has only made four Wikipedia edits in the last two years. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've run into this problem before. I wish this problem would be brought up somewhere. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD would have been even worse, not better. Please read my comment more carefully. For that matter, book articles can still be speedy'ed if there's an urgent reason to do so (e.g. WP:BLP issues). The WP:CSD#A7 exception for books is only there on the topic of assuming notability (as does indeed apply here).
If the article creator has only made four edits, do you think this approach encourages them to make a fifth? The purpose of AfD is not to alienate new editors, just because an established wikilawyer finds themselves in a position where they're permitted to do so. Articles are important, but so are editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is going to add meaningful content to assert the notability, then s/he has received notice of the AfD and would be prompted to do so. The editor has made 4 edits in total, few and far between. I would hesitate to say I was biting a new editor by nominating this for AfD. The subject is, far as this discussion can tell, non-notable, which means it's either deleted now, or later when the same conclusion is found. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The journal Sceptic did in fact exist, as it is listed in the catalogs of the University of London's own Senate House Library and Oxford University's Bodleian Library. But, still, it only lasted two issues, and no sources have been provided to indicate that any publications more notable than itself ever took note of it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need another pointless list. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem notable enough for its own entry; not notable (or sourced enough) to even merge to, say, History of University College London (I'm thinking it was UCL, not University of London). Disembrangler (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bus routes in Winchester. I have found the nomination and several of the delete comments to be superficial "non notable" arguments, although a more solid "not a bus timetable" argument has also been presented. Since there is a list article which covers the buses in Winchester, I am redirecting the nominated pages there and keeping the history so that if anyone wants to merge parts of the material (as several people have suggested), they can access the material using the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester bus route 5[edit]

Winchester bus route 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Winchester bus route 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Winchester bus route 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Winchester bus route 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable. Highest Heights (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Winchester bus route 7 added to list - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winchester bus route 7 has a proposed deletion tag, because of small notibility. I agree, but the page wasn't finished, and was going to be merged, before this discussion. Adam mugliston (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all per WP:NOTGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It contains nothing from what it is said in the notguide. Can you see any prices there? If it is because Sainsbury's and Tesco it is because that is where the route's terminus is, so what else can I write? Adam mugliston (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't have to contain prices, it contains route details, which makes it a guide. they're are probably 100s of 1000s of bus routes in the world, and I am not for creating articles for each and everyone of them. Wikitravel would be more appropriate. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why are there articles about London Bus Routes, Dublin Bus Routes, Isle of Wight bus routes, and loads more, and they are not being deleted. What's wrong with these ones then. If they were merged would you still mind them? Adam mugliston (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. we're here to discuss the merits of these bus routes. In fact I recently nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin Bus (No. 54A). LibStar (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's still another single bus route. Are you proposing that we also delete the list? If not, what's wrong with merging all the articles into the list? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still what about the London bus routes, Baltimore bus routes? I definetly agree to merge into the list. If you want to see how does it look in the list, you can, because there routes written there not involved in AfD discussions. Adam mugliston (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar's argument to "what about these other articles" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (read the link), although they possibly didn't make that very clear for a new editor, which'll be why you missed it *shrug* - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the link, but that still doesn't make a difference. From peoples messages I can see that, they think the Winchester bus route pages are less important then all the others,because otherwise they would either not have a deletion tag, or every bus route page would have a deletion tag. Adam mugliston (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't prove anything other than the possibility that no-one has got round to proposing these articles for deletion yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single list in chart form. The list of stops and timetable should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR. Other information can be placed in a single box in a graph. There is room on Wikipedia for articles on individual bus routes - if they tell factual encyclopedic information about them, such as their sourced history. These fail to do so, and are better described on a single page. Sebwite (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to find history, but there is nothing that says anything about it, so it is not possible to add history, but If you find any, I don't mind. And there isn'ta list of stops but main stops and the names of the streets the bus goes on which is very helpful, when you need to know which bus to use, and I think Wikipedia should be a place to find that information. And also there is no timetable it is just information about the first and last bus and how often the bus runs,which also is helpful information. Adam mugliston (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see WP:BUSROUTE for information on what makes a municipal bus route notable or not, and how to best write one. It is a part of an essay I am still working on, but this part of it is pretty much complete. Sebwite (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice essay,but I'm not saying leave the article on a single bus route, but merge, so this essay has not a lot to do with it.Adam mugliston (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable or guide. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Index of Maine-related articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of important buildings in Maine[edit]

List of important buildings in Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV list with only three buildings on it - no scientific standard as to what an "important" building is. Passportguy (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV? why would this be point of view? --Finjun6 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV is anything for which there is no independantly verifiable stanard. E.g. a list of skyscrapers would be permissable as there is a standard which defines what a skyscaper is. A list of big buildings would not, because there is no standard to define when a building is "big", i.e. any assumption that a build is big is purely an opinion. Passportguy (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
big i ment important --Finjun6 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Important how? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - nomination has been withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Blatherwick[edit]

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

No real notability shown, none found. Sources do not show notability. note this is not about Sir David Blatherwick. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the prod tag from this because there was a source cited, and there are sufficient potential sources found by Google News and Google Books to mean that this merits discussion before a decision is taken on deletion. I haven't yet looked through all of those results yet so I'll reserve my opinion on keeping or deletion. The Canadian Art review doesn't seem to be available online but its existence can be verified here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment David Blatherwick appear to be the co author of Cheese, Worms and the Holes in Everything with James D. Campbell, James Patten and Robert McLaughlin. ISBN 0919837778, 9780919837775. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing WP:ARTIST in that he has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition in notable art museums and art galleries, both solo and as part of group exhibitions. Article is still undergoing improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established through exhibitions at Art Gallery of Windsor, Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec, Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, The Power Plant, Museo de Arte Moderno and Musée du Québec. The article needs more references, but it's an obvious keep. freshacconci talktalk 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Freshacconci (talk · contribs)...Modernist (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Artypants, Babble 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, improved article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city‽ 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Frana[edit]

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

This issue came to my attention via WP:COIN#Brett Frana, where a user seemed to be editing his autobiography. If this is in fact a notable musician we should keep the article, but no reliable sources are provided, and Google results are unpromising. Frana is mentioned in our article on Bile (band). Since Bile's records since 2000 appear to be self-published, the band's notability is not guaranteed. My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult seems to meet WP:MUSIC, but the band's web site does not mention Brett Frana. Google does not reveal any association between Frana and that band, except for mirrors of Wikipedia. It is unclear if Frana has even made any recordings with them. And it goes without saying that not all members of a notable band are notable. Individual members need to meet WP:BIO on their own. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC - nominator's research appears to be confirmed. ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any reliable sources either, and many of the details Brettfrana (talk · contribs) added simply don't check out. Anyone with a CV like "a well known Production designer for tv movie tv and music industry. Brett has worked as a production designer for Hanna Montana, Demi Lovato, Poison, Jonas Bros, Allman Bros, Rock and Republic, Bvlgari, Verizon, TNT, FOX, Third Eye Blind, 30 Rock, Devil Wears Prada, Gucci, Ferrari, Ford,Dodge and hundreds more" [15] shouldn't be so difficult to find; and I'm smelling a wind-up. It's hard to believe anyone could have such a solid media career and be "not skilled at the ways of the computer and internet" [16]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult are notable. Unsourced addition of Frana reeks badly of vandalism and was badly done, breaking the info box. change done by 173.70.227.244. Justin thyme also added at the same time. I've tried to fix the vandalism. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, not notable enough through reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems not be a member of either Bile or My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult (though according to Bile's MySpace page someone called Brett Frana did do the lighting for one of their stage shows). If not a band member, the article is just another non-notable vanity biography. Astronaut (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok so i was in the process of editing my page for the site.. i have contacted the webmaster of the thrill kill kult page and she said she will be changing the site in the next day or 2.. yes i am a real member of thrill kill kult.. they referr to me as Brett Piranha.. i started olaying live on stage with them in the early 2008 as their second keyboardist for their 20th annaversery tour and then for this last tour in which thrill kill broke up 14days into it. i was playing guitar on most songs bass on a couple and keys on 2... yes i am legit.. i was in Bile from 2003 to early 2008 when i quit to to thrill kill. i however am still involved in the booking and production end of bile as im their video editor and designing a new lighting rig for their new tour.. its all true and i am not a liar and vandalising a page.. i went by the name brett frana in bile and also brett bile......please give me some time for the thrill kill website to be updated. but i am no liar and its 100% true


Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettfrana (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


also as far as my production work goes that also is all true.. how it works is i work for a dozen companies that hire me as a freelancer.. companies such as Jet Sets, BML-Blackbird, PRG, All Access, WestEFX, Powerhouse Sets, ED & TEDS, Scarff Weisburg, All of those are main production companies that get the gig and then hire e to turn the clients work into reality.. that is my main job thrill kill and bile are just smaller bands that dont do too much work anymore and especially afetr thrill kill just broke up... i am a production designer and yes its something that bothers me when the companies and boss get the credit and not the people actually doin the main work..and also i know my grammer is not the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettfrana (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure those who brought up the hoax suggestions apologize if they are mistaken, but the key issue here is notability. If you find some reliable sources to establish notability, it will help your article stay up. Thanks and good luck. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the notability issue, Brett, for some reason you don't seem to understand that you're not supposed to write an article about yourself. ...Oh, and by the way, delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is there any way to prevent it from being wrongfully deleted? when i randomally search peoples profiles and see they have a wiki page they have alot of useless info and self promoting also on there page. its seems odd that i seem to be being picked on when all i was doing was kept adding more information about my life, career, hobbies to my bio. i thought i was doing the right thing by making sure things were accurate to my life and that it had information about that me that was true and told my story so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.28.34 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia depends on the verifiability of its sources and that is especially true for biographies of living people. I'll check the band's sites again in a couple of days, but may I propose the page is moved to the userspace (possibly User:Brettfrana/Brett Frana) until he can find reliable sources which allow us to verify what he has done. Astronaut (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmet O'Halloran[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician Passportguy (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid entry as per

http://www.finegael.ie/representatives/lea/index.cfm/type/person/pkkey/992/pkey/655/ikey/10

Comment Please refer to WP:POLITICIAN Passportguy (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've removed it to include only his political achievements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangersandmashinireland (talk • contribs) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Only keep vote was from a single-purpose account. 78 ghits? Oh, boy! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentweeting[edit]

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

Contested Prod - prod tag was removed by an IP single purpose account after adding wikilinks to the article, but those additions don't add any evidence of notability. Original prod reason was "non-notable neologism", and I agree. Only 12 unique Ghits, no hits at all in a Gnews search means no evidence of notability. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Dawn Bard (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment was just posted on the talk page by 151.104.120.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "Do not delete Commentweeting! It is simply a basic way to get updates on sporting events when you have no access to a radio or TV! It's very convenient and is going to take off!" I just wanted to make sure it was included here; my own opinion has not changed. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As original PROD'er. This is a neologism, plain and simple, with no coverage in reliable sources. TNXMan 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've heard several people do this sort of thing at notable events, but they all just called it Twitter Updates like everyone else. Until the neologism becomes the de-facto term for this, or at least until we can find an RS for it as a neologism, delete as unsourced and unverifiable. ArakunemTalk 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced, non-notable neologism. If sources can be found, then merge with Twitter. The comment that it "is going to take off" seems to concede the lack of current notability. Cnilep (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I don't even find this to fall into a neologism; 57 results on google currently, not a single one of which is anything noteworthy. I'm sure that in the span of five minutes I could invent a neologism that would appear to have more weight than this. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms; for the IP who pleads, above, that it "is going to take off!": see WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a passing admin please snow delete this article? Thanks.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!It is up to 78 hits on Google already...wait a week and watch it grow. To reply to the comment that stated "many people do this but they all just called it "twitter updates": that is the broad way of defining anything updated on Twitter. "Commentweeting" is the specific act of updating sporting events".
Comment: Considering that at least one company seems to currently be trying to "trademark" the term, I would suspect that a lot of this is involvement in viral marketing of an odd sort. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rosenblatt[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this rabbi meets WP:BIO. Article says he talks at clergy conferences and he is the leader of a Jewish Center that was in the news recently (WP:ONEEVENT). see also Talk:Jonathan Rosenblatt. ccwaters (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. He is a leader within his profession, holds the pulpit of the Riverdale Jewish Center, one of nations' leading modern orthodox Synagogues, is regularly chosen by journalists as the rabbi to interview when they need a religious Jewish voice on sundry topics and, yes, I created the article after his synagogue was subject to a (thankfully) failed bombing attempt. The attempted bombing did, of course, provoke, a provoked a lot of coverage.Historicist (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also put up an article for the Imam of the mosque involved in the 2009 New York bomb plot, Salahuddin Mustafa Muhammad, but not for the Rabbi of the other synagogue that was attacked, the Riverdale Temple, because, unlike Rosenblatt, I had not heard of her, because her congregation is small and not a leading congregation in the Reform movement, and because a quick google revealed no particular notability. I am hardly arguing that all rabbis and ministers merit pages, but many of the ones who head large congregations that have leadership roles within their denominations probably do.Historicist (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably AFD the imam under the WP:ONEEVENT rationale, but that's for another day. ccwaters (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- presumably the article was written because of the recent event (and NYTimes coverage), but the citations go back over a decade. Meets "multiple independent sources" — to be honest, I'd be delighted to see even half the sources in many, many other articles. (So many {{BLP unsourced}}, so little time.)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is ironic that the supposed only event Rosenblatt is notable for isn't even in the article. Jon513 (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article provides ample reiable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:CSD#A7. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Annesley Gore[edit]

Paul Annesley Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable person. heir to a peer = not a peer, so pure WP:BIO applies. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete – improperly sourced and completely non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note. To create a new article of this title, I restored the deleted page, moved it to Paul Annesley Gore (born 1921), and deleted it again. The history is therefore preserved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Shiftra[edit]

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

Possible hoax and previously deleted as such. Absolutely no sources, only source given does not have his name in it. Has been repeatedly recreated, and as a result it has widely spread throughout other wikis on the internet, making a Google search difficult. However I cannot seem to find any reliable (read non-wiki) sources stating that this person exists. Passportguy (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. After this was brought up, I contacted Karachi University in order to obtain proof of his series of lectures. The two links I was sent are 

            http://top40-charts.com/pedia.php?title=Karachi_University#Distinguished_Alumni
            http://www.karachiuniversity.org/great.asp

Thanks. Anterior1 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first source is a mirror of a former version of Wikipedia's University of Karachi, so it is not a valid reference. The second one is a private networking website and not an official website of the university, so there are serious concerns about its reliability. Also, even if it were reliable, it only has his name on a list, which isn't enough to source an article on. Passportguy (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one more comment : All these issues of reliablity of sources and hoax indications aside : the fact that after one week you are having such a hard time even proving even the existance of this person is a clear indication that he does not pass the general notability bar, even if he does exist. 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the slow progress has been a combination of both me being quite busy and the slow reply of Karachi University. Obviously, because this page had been on wikipedia for a long time before it was deemed unfit, doing a google search for reliable sources is tricky. Also, I am still waiting for the new asian journal of physics to come out. So please bear with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anterior1 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic dividend[edit]

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

Not a term I've ever seen used before. With the language it seems to be some bizarre pov-thing about democratic participation. I wouldn't have a problem with that except all the voters I know are ignorant and untrustworthy :P. WP:NEO. Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not-so-cleverly disguised spam for massblp. Drawn Some (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google 'democratic dividend' and see it's common usage. The civic payoff from investment in democratic governance is the democratic dividend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aettinger (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the term but the article is nothing but spam. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't like doing it during an AfD, but I completely stripped the article of spam leaving the dicdef/stub. Drawn Some (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if this were a common expression the information should be a part Democracy, in a section like "Benefits of democracy." Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term "democracy dividend" is a fairly common term in comparative politics. See 257 google books hits, nearly all of them relevant. 159 scholar hits. "Democratic dividend" seems to just be a synonym for "democracy dividend." Insofar as this is the case, the article should be kept, though I would suggest a move to Democracy dividend. Cool3 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the term seems to mean different things to different people, and there's no notability established for it as a topic on its own. Not a term of art of generally accepted meaning in political science as far as i can see. Not a slogan that gained currency in any way (like, say Peace dividend). Article as is consists or OR/synth and unsourced.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. I can see a case for including the information in a merge to "Democracy", but I'm inclined towards dropping it if there's not major improvement. With that said, I've tagged it for improvement. We'll see how it goes over the next few days.Tyrenon (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laterr[edit]

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

Non-notable bot service, borderline DB-CORP Passportguy (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete An article about web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Until It Sleeps 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. It's a fringe theory, but it's a notable and well-sourced fringe theory. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010[edit]

Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fringe theory of one man. Merge the information back to Igor Panarin. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a notable fringe theory as confirmed by in-depth coverage in a great many independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of 80 refs 43 are not in English, so I have no idea how reliable they are. Of the rest the bulk include only passing references, of the rest most are interviews that simply state over and over the exact same thing. In-depth it is not. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching for (US collapse Russian) and you get lots of reliable sources like the WSJ, NYT, MSNBC, Foxnews (well, semi-reliable). For an example of how in-depth the coverage is, see this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
I also see Pravda is recently crowing about the demise of American capitalism. Funny both sides lost the Cold War huh. Drawn Some (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Pravda is no longer owned by the Russian government or the Communist Party. It has become the Russian version of the National Enquirer. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We are not voting on the accuracy of the prediction but on its WP notability. It seems to be notable enough to merit its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:Fringe. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back to Panarin article, and clean up all the crud "references" to fringey online "publications" and worse (I just deleted a reference link to collegetermpapers.com!) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to the Panarin article. There is no need for an extra article that for most parts is just a timeline of Panarins appearances on TV or in the press. Stepopen (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was split from the article about Panarin because the latter became too big. If it's not notable enough to be a separate article then maybe the article about Panarin is not notable either? Anyway, I will obey to the opinion of the majority. If most of you think that it's better to merge it back, it will be done. Thanks for your feedback! --Лъчезар (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that there's enough here to split off from the article about Igor Panarin, who is notable for other things besides this bizarre theory. This easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Ridiculous? Yes, but they said the same thing about The Jupiter Effect (they were right). Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on a first glance at the title, it looks fringey. But looking at the article itself... there is a case for notability as a fringe theory, especially given the recession giving it credence/popularity. Hmm... Sceptre (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge the relevant information back. The large amounts of information are unnecessary; a few paragraphs on Panarin's page would be more than enough.Tyrenon (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Much too notable. -download ׀ sign! 22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have not heard of this one, but it is a possibly notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A dedicated article on such a fringe view violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are a few important reliable sources, including Sky News, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal and Forbes, which should keep the article alive, but I'm wary of several sources which seem to come from private websites, and I find the lack of academic interest in the theory to be a vote of no-confidence in the theory's viability. --Pc13 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, we are not considering the theory's viability, but its notability WP-wise. Also the policies on fringe theories seem to be a little misapplied here if used to criticize this article. This article is about a fringe theory so of course the fringe theory discussed is given weight. In an article on the history of the United States even mentioning this theory would be to give in undue weight. The same as if Bigfoot was discussed at length in North American mammals. But it would be wrong for Bigfoot's own article to say, "Bigfoot is a fictional North American mammal. Here is a list of real ones." For example. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to merit its own article. --Morfal (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This nomination is ridiculous. This article cites dozens of reliable sources. It's even up for a GAN! I urge the nominator to withdraw this nomination and take another look at WP:N. Timmeh!(review me) 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if the nominator has to take a look at WP:N, it would be only fair if you take a look at the rationale of the nominator. The question is not whether the theory is notable enough to be included, but whether it deserves a stand-alone article vs being discussed in the Igor Panarin article. Stepopen (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious (at least to me) that there is enough coverage of this prediction for the subject to warrant its own article. Also, notability is whether or not a topic merits its own article. Something doesn't need to pass WP:N to be discussed as part of a different article. Timmeh!(review me) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion! In fact, the article was already nominated for a good article 12 days before it got nominated for deletion! (How many articles have you seen that are nominated for a good article and for deletion at the same time? :) --Лъчезар (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you spun it off from the main article and nominated it for GA on the same day does not make it notable. Notability is not judged on the assessment level of an article, and it hasn't passed GA, it is just a GAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, albeit I nominated it not the same day but the following day. I was wondering whether the good article "rank" is hereditary. It turned out to be worse than not! =O --Лъчезар (talk)
  • Comment I have still not seen a valid reason to delete this article. WP:FRINGE applies only to theories that have not received much if any attention. This has, especially recently. This is evidenced by dedicated articles in the Associated Press, Bloomberg.com, and other notable sources, as well as several interviews. I still don't see how this subject is not worthy of an article. Timmeh!(review me) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that this theory should not appear here on Wikipedia. If you would at least read the discussion on this page this should be obvious to you. Stepopen (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting what I said. Obviously, there are people arguing for the article's deletion, like I said. Timmeh!(review me) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one anonymous IP? Because everyone else is saying that the information should be merged into the Igor Panarin article. Stepopen (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't merge even half that much content into the Panarin article; There's too much there. And a merge still results in the topic losing its own article. Timmeh!(review me) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I can trim this article, so you can see the substantial information that will be merged back. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn I found lots more references for her works. Triwbe (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Long[edit]

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

Lacks independant reveiws to pass WP:CREATIVE - Probably too early to create the article now. Triwbe (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, if we can find a bit more on her it's probably a keeper. --Triwbe (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hymera Linux Distribution[edit]

Hymera Linux Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just another Debian based Linux distro, no different than most. Only released in March this year so hasn't really had time to gain any notability yet. WebHamster 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just Another Debian based Linux distro": in my opinion, it is not a good reason to delete article. --Thothos (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— User:Thothos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment What makes you think that it is a premature article? Distrowatch, LinuX Freedom, LinuX Freedom for Live, e-linux, linux softpedia, are premature article for you??? -- Thothos (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's premature not because it doesn't exist, which is all those links demonstrate, it's because it isn't yet notable according to Wikipedia standards. --WebHamster 10:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Linux Distribution Category, there are many other distributions that aren't so notable in my opinion. --Thothos (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't being discussed, this one is. And your opinion isn't relevant, especially as there seems to be a CoI in your case.--WebHamster 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HostGIS, CAOS Linux, DAVIX,...and the list goes on. --Thothos (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very well listing these but what isn't clear is why you are listing them. All they do is show that the distro exists (and that its existence has been reasonably well promoted by you and your friends) which isn't being argued. There is nothing to show how this distro differs in any way to the myriad of others. What makes Hymera noteworthy? It would be worth your while having a good read of WP:N and WP:RS. You apparently don't understand that for an entry in WP an article's subject doesn't just have to exist, it has to be noteworthy. I somehow doubt that your distro has gained notability in less than 3 months --WebHamster 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify your doubts, look at the link listed on the article. --Thothos (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had any doubts I wouldn't have nominated the article in the first place and none of the references in the article meet either WP:RS and/or WP:N which is why I advised you to read those articles. --WebHamster 12:07, 1 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 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fledgling Jason Steed[edit]

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

Recreation of previously deleted article. Major problems with sourcing (majority are forum posts, blogs, or not found at claimed links). Notablity of book and author is still questionable. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "delete" fails WP:Author and WP:Book - the only decent references are those to the person who the fictional character is based upon and he already has his own article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per sourcing problems -- and I don't mean the problems with the ones in the article, I mean the inability to find significant coverage out there. Teen Vogue might be an acceptable ref, but given previous problems with references that can't be verified, I'd want someone independent to cross-check.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: single author has now "blanked" article (actually, changed it back into the redir it used to be). Speedy close the AfD, or let it run to establish consensus?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Wikipedia reliable' publications over the next few days/weeks. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems. (Teen Vogue - edition end of April, beginning of May. The same Malia Obama details also mentioned on a US show called Teen Zone apparently at beginning of May - but I'm in the UK, so don't know this programme.) I do, however, feel that SarekOfVulcan is slightly 'over the top' in his determination to delete this article. His edit summary of "Exterminate" says it all really. --Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, had a Doctor Who moment there. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would not object to recreation if it happens that reliable sources are later found. Don't see that a redirect to Raymond Steed makes sense, because until the book Fledgling Jason Steed becomes notable (if it ever does) there is no reason to mention that novel at all in the Raymond Steed article. A redirect from the name of a book to the name of a real person is puzzling. (It's not an obvious choice for a redirect like going from the name of a book to the name of its author). Since this AfD has been mentioned at WP:ANI I recommend that the deletion debate be allowed to run for the full length of time, and not speedy closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a CSD:G4 to me. The first deletion wasn't just as self published, it was because of lack of reliable sourcing to establish notability. That same lack of reliable sourceing exists today. I liked the one about it being reported that something was said in teen vogue. No cite to that report, but instead an apparent cite vaguely pointing to teen vogue. Either it was said in teen vogue in which case a real citation can be made, or it wasn't, we shouldn't be basing articles on vague unsourced claims that something was said in a real source --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been informed of the proposed deletion of this page on my talk page, presumably because I created the page originally as a redirect to an article I wrote - Raymond Steed. (As suggested at the last AFD for FJS). I actually voted to keep the original Fledgling Jason Steed book article at that AFD, but I refuse to take part in this discussion as I no longer have any faith in Wikipedia's administrators to make fair, just or independent decisions.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whoever closes this will be much more likely to decide in a fair manner if you present an argument for keeping the article. DGG (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with no prejudice towards recreation in the future. The sourcing problems are tremendous and the notability is questionable currently. That being said, these books could easily become notable in the future with the publishing deal apparently in place. AniMatedraw 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HWY 5 (band)[edit]

HWY 5 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local band of questionable notability. No independent reliable sources in article. Google search turns up no major reliable third-party coverage, or corroboration for claims of notability (chart positions, awards). MikeWazowski (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable local cover band. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 Opening for notable acts isn't an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notabiltiy evident here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HWY 5 is not a "local cover band." They're an original act who has played major shows with major artists. They've gotten international radio play and had a single which charted #103 on a major country radio chart (Music Row), which is quite notable for an unsigned band, especially because this chart is based in Nashville, a music town driven by major labels. -- Ronson87 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Point Technology[edit]

Triple Point Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Avi (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What we learn from those sources is mostly that they are litigious. One is a magazine story that uses an account of litigation involving this business, which it lost, apparently because it could not deliver promised software, as a background for general musings about the high cost of litigation. The second is from a law book supplement about (the same? another?) lawsuit which resulted in a reported decision - it's about the point of law decided in the case, not really about this business. The third is a listing for a very minor trade award, awarded by another business software provider: neither reliable, nor strong evidence of notability. I'm tempted to rewrite the article from the viewpoint of the magazine article; that at least is primarily about this business, even if they're used mostly as the Bad Example of a cautionary tale. But if all that can be said about this business from reliable, independent sources is that they make more promises than they can deliver on, and then start lawsuits against their clients, I'm not sure that meets business notability either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (change from keep). Your points bring up even more concerns about WP:COI (which this article already has a bit too much of going on). Rewriting from the viewpoint of the magazine would undoubtedly draw criticism as a potential attack page and there doesn't seem to be enough "good" and/or notable content out there to balance. There is little holding me on the keep side of the fence besides the remaining chance of potential notability and a not-to-be-used WP:EFFORT argument. ZabMilenko 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: In case it is overlooked, a contributor to the article has made a comment here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Triple Point Technology. ZabMilenko 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I cannot see the article being regarded as independent or notable. I do respect the efforts of the first editor to improve the article, but an editor should not focus on just one article. Nelson50T 09:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These sources establish notability: [17] [18] [19][20] [21] [22]. The current state of the article is not very good, and could use some cutting down. That does not mean it should be filled by mostly negative things though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION: Why are the sources that are currently listed on the article not counted toward notability?Jen Svensson (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) JenSvensson[reply]
  • Most of them are from the company's own website. The BusinessWeek reference does help establosh notability I think. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There could be a good article about this, but what we have fails quite badly. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Soccer League 2008–09 results[edit]

Premier Soccer League 2008–09 results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As discussed in Premier League, such result is not in a encyclopedia scope. I suggest merge the cross-table into the main article and delete the sub-page Matthew_hk tc 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although an article about a sports league's season is acceptable, we should stop short of reporting the score of every game played. [[WP:#NOTSTATS]] discourages the recitation of long lists of statistics, such as the batting averages of every baseball player during a particular year, and [[WP:#NOTNEWS]] would be applicable as well. I agree with Matt that the cross-table would be an appropriate addition to the article about the 2008-09 season for South Africa's top-level (soccer) football league. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the season article (Premier Soccer League 2008–09). GiantSnowman 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main season article already has a table of results (a complete one too, I might add), so there's nothing else left to merge. Bettia it's a puppet! 09:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Bettia. Duplicated info. --Carioca (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Humphreys[edit]

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

Not sufficently notable author. While lots of unrelated hist turns up when I search for "Jamie Humphreys", "Jamie Humphreys Qui Tacet Consentire" doesn't turn up anything. That along with the purported arrest for indecent exposure at Buckingham Palace lead me to think that this is likely a hoax. Passportguy (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree, it seems to be a hoax, no trace of him or his books in Google Books (see article talk page). At the very best it is unnotable, unsourced, and apparently unsourceable, BLP. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look like it meets notability criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of this being true. Contributor's only other article is a blatant hoax, up for speedy, and is almost identical.--Dmol (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brandstater[edit]

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

Is this article really necessary or is someone trying to run up their edit/authoring total? This article is nothing but trivial fluff. This Tom person is not worthy of an encyclopedia article unless we've reduced the level of criteria on Wikipedia. Basically anyone can write an article about anyone or anything regardless of whether there is any real significance or not. This is clearly an example of someone fishing for a subject just for the sake of writing an article. This guy played college football. Big deal. Thousands of young men play college football each year and this guy was not extraordinary in any way. Note that neither his predecessor nor successor (listed at the bottom of the article) have a Wikipedia article. This is just some random guy who happened to be drafted 174th in the NFL draft. The importance of his so-called college career is subjective and he's never played a minute in the NFL let alone succeeded at it. The possibility that he will ride the bench as the third string quarterback for an NFL team next year does not increase his stock. Until he does something notable in his career, this article is really jumping the gun. If not, how about an article about the bagger at your local grocery store or your local UPS delivery driver? Is that where we are headed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindacober (talk • contribs) — Lindacober (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Have you read Wp:ATHLETE? The first part of the first criterion is, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". He hasn't done that, therefore he fails it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have you read WP:Athlete? It's not necessary to condescend to someone simply because you disagree with them. The second clause of WP:ATHLETE arguably contradicts your point, insofar as Division I FBS college football is the "highest amateur level" of American football. Strikehold (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I've read WP:ATHLETE, which is why I said I feel he makes it. Our opinions differ. Live with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "highest amateur level" clause is for sports that do not have professional levels such as swimming, diving, and gymnastics. Football obviously has higher levels. This guy does not qualify. He has not competed at the "highest" level. We might have an NFL fan bias happening here.
  • Keep- Even if he fails WP:ATHLETE, looks like there's enough sources to show that he meets the general guidelines just fine. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The nominator's main thrust is that the article's editors were acting in bad faith and had no purpose other than to pad their "edit counts". Additionally, saying this is "just some random guy who happened to be drafted 174th in the NFL" is both contradictory and shows that the nominator does not have a real understanding of American football or the noteworthiness of its individual players. Being drafted by an NFL team – in the middle of the draft, I should add – certainly implies some notability. Being a starting quarterback at a major college football program – for three seasons, I should add – certainly implies some notability. Having several feature articles and significant coverage in reliable sources solidifies notability beyond doubt: ESPN, The Fresno Bee, [23], [24], [25], Scout.com, The Modesto Bee, [26], [27], The Idaho Statesman, etc. About 1,300 more hits here if you want to look through the rest. Strikehold (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Let's just end this, the nom is accusing the creators and writers of bad faith.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because we like running up out edit/authoring totals because this player will clearly be playing in the NFL, and per the sources provided above. MuZemike 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete He's a nobody in terms of national recognition. There is no guarantee that he'll be "playing" in the NFL. He didn't play on a national contending college team and didn't set any significant records. He didn't appear in any serious bowl games, in fact his team failed to even rank in the BCS. It's not like this was a Heisman candidate we are talking about. It's more likely than not that he'll be out of the sport entirely in a few years never accomplishing anything. (The average NFL career lasts only 3.5 years - source: http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?fmid=181&lmid=349&pid=0&type=l#a3). He is listed as the third string backup for the Broncos. He's never played a single down in the NFL. He may never play a single down. The articles cited above are local fluff and repeats of local fluff. He's not known nationally and nobody cares. Some of you NFL fans may be giving undue credit and/or bias to the importance of the NFL. Just because he has some association with the league does not make him special in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindacober (talk • contribs)
    • Number 1, who said this? Number 2, you're stomping on WP:CRYSTAL by saying, "It's more likely than not that he'll be out of the sport entirely in a few years never accomplishing anything", why is that relevant? He's notable and you don't have to have "national recognition", you think I have any clue who some athletes are, no yet they're notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually it is you that is stomping all over WP:CRYSTAL by assuming that this guy will even play in the NFL. This article could have waited until the subject had become notable in anyway which by WP:ATHLETE standards he has not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.24.12 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No by your saying he going to be out of the league in a few years as your rationale is breaking WP:CRYSTAL plus all the sources provided give Brandstater notability along with being named the 2007 Humanitarian Bowl MVP.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit vs. Murder Inc. feud[edit]

G-Unit vs. Murder Inc. feud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unsourced, notability of "feud" not asserted. Lot's of celebrities bitch at each other, we don't need articles dedicated to this tabloid gossip. — R2 10:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - First of all "Murder Inc." is actually The Inc. Records now. And second, this feud is already described in detail here on The Inc. Records page. I haven't actually read over the article, but I'm willing to bet most of the information is just copied from that page.  Anonymous  Talk  Contribs 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, nothing more. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, if your guys are going to delete that page because of 'celebrities bitch at each other' why don't you guys delete The Bridge Wars, Roxanne Wars, G-Unit vs. The Game feud, Jay-Z vs. Nas feud, and LL Cool J vs. Kool Moe Dee feud????, why dont you do that is there a fucking difference. mcanmoocanu
Please watch your civility, your little tantrums are becoming tiring. — R2 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My vote to delete had nothing to do with "celebrities bitching at each other". Consider actually reading the reasons people give before throwing tantrums. As I said previously:
There is no reason to have two pages that say essentially, if not exactly, the same thing.  Anonymous  Talk  Contribs 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this information was sourced, it should belong in sections of the articles of the people involved. DDDtriple3 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by college population[edit]

List of countries by college population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. This is a case of a seemingly well-intentioned list that never got improved upon, giving us an instance of listcruft. Has not been substantially improved on in about a month. Tyrenon (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is. I agree. With only two countries on the list, it isn't useful. If anyone wants to improve this with sourced references - feel free to do so. Passportguy (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created nearly a month ago; it appears that the author reconsidered the idea and did not push this further. Might qualify as a speedy, simply as a matter of housekeeping. Mandsford (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bit silly. A per capita list might be interesting, but this isn't. Hairhorn (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Massaro[edit]

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

Player has not met guidelines provided by WP:ATHLETE having not played in a fully professional league or for a national side and does not appear to be the main subject of multiple articles by reliable sources, so fails on WP:BIO criteria ClubOranjeT 10:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion has shown that Serie B and Copa do Brasil are fully-pro. I don't recall the source, but some of the Brazilian editors explained that they are. Jogurney (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is so, but some Cypriot editors have explained how there are 3 fully professional leagues in Cyprus, recently Israeli editors have explained how there are 3 levels in Israel, yet, until they can WP:PROVEIT it counts for nothing here.--ClubOranjeT 07:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Campeonato Brasileiro Série C claims it is only for pro clubs - so Série A and B must also be fully pro. The Copa do Brasil appears to be open to all clubs in Brazil (like the FA Cup) so it only helps when pro clubs play each other. Jogurney (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, but Campeonato Brasileiro Série C is a Wikipedia source, uncited and inherently unreliable :-) --ClubOranjeT 10:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't read Portuguese, but based on my limited understanding of the CBF regulations for Serie B seem to place sufficient financial and stadia requirements on the participating clubs to rise to a "professional league" status. Perhaps someone who reads Portuguese can clarify or confirm? Jogurney (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Jogurney, you are correct. --Carioca (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Jogurney. He played in at least one fully professional league (which is the Série B). --Carioca (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Power of attorney per nom. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting powers of attorney[edit]

Lasting powers of attorney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Stub with no sources. Seems to describe a type of living will, suggesting that it should be merged in with Advance health care directive. Tyrenon (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • change to redirect This is a genuine and important topic, not a living will, but replaces enduring power of attorney in the UK. However, this stub is just to promote the book, make as redirect to Power of attorney jimfbleak (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That redirect works for me as well. The concepts are vaguely similar (and Advance health care directive redirects from Living will, which I think I just mentally applied a bit broadly).Tyrenon (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon, Egg and Cheese sandwich[edit]

Bacon, Egg and Cheese sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The entire article is basically summed up in its title. It is a sandwich containing bacon, egg and cheese. Despite everyone knowing what it is, what can we possibly expand on? We have 0 reliable sources that I can find on gnews/gbooks/gscholar (it appears no one wants to write anything about such a mundane topic) and the article's author has only just escaped a CSD A3 by adding "Also called a BEC". ~fl 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(My personal favorite)....--Buster7 (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form as a restatement of the article's name. I am not sure if much more can be said about a Bacon, Egg Cheese sandwich without opening the floodgates to articles about all the multiple variations of wheat snacks. " Prawn and Vinegar Sandwich: A prawn and vinegar sandwich is composed of prawns and vinegar in a roll". Perhaps a redirection to Bacon sandwich in a paragraph about variations with cross-referencing to Cheese sandwich would be appropriate. Porturology (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't Egg McMuffin be an equally plausible redirect target? Drawn Some (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell no! I'd happily eat bacon, egg +cheese sandwiches, but McDonalds' version stinks. pablohablo. 12:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Biscuits and gravy for lunch. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge the other way might be better as the McDonald's product is a specific implementation of general recipe. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    stricken per change of opinion given below — Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So-called article just restates the obvious. One "source" fails wp:RS, the other is a dictionary, which is where this belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in response to the original statement, everyone in you're culture or nation, but what about the rest of the world. Wikipedia is an Internet-site, available to the world, not just you're culture or nation.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Emmette. The BE&C is available here in Bali; a pretty good take on this iconic sandwich goes by the name of “Breakfast Special #1” at my favourite restaurant. They can't do the Kaiser rolls, though, so it's brown toast or a bagel. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm going off of an old AFD I did two years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacos al Pastor), where the article simply described carnitas Al pastor in a tortilla. Boils down to WP:OR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bacon sandwich for which this seems to be one of numerous variations. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the primary ingredient is the eggs. cheers, Jack Merridew 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack, please note that "other stuff exists" is an argument to avoid here in an AFD discussion. This was pointed out above. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that my comment was regarding the inappropriateness of the suggested merge target. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the Egg, Bacon and Cheese sandwich. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the article has nothing to contribute to the sum of human knowledge. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly a notable sandwich. The Egg McMuffin is one notable version. Not sure why some seem to think deleting it would make the encyclopedia better. Lots of coverage on google books [28], including on its nutritional qualities, recipes, versions etc. It's also, by the way, very strange to me that we would have an article on the Egg McMuffin but not the sandwich itself. It's like saying Kleenex is notable, but tissue isn't. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all to Breakfast sandwich since most are just a variation on that product. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that the author is trying to stretch the article, but the name of the sandwich pretty well tells the whole story, doesn't it? The current description is "a sandwich made with bacon, eggs (typically fried or scrambled), cheese and either bread or a roll, which is sometimes buttered and toasted. Some people have been known to use a bagel. The sandwich is often served with coffee. A more robust version includes a hash brown. One voter at Yahoo! Answers deemed it the 'Best sandwich in the world', while another voter thought that a Bacon, Egg, Cheese and Tomato sandwich was better. The sandwich is recommended as an economical breakfast at the Earl of Sandwich at Disney World where it cost $4.95 in 2006. Also called a BEC." I was checking to see whether we had an article on ham and eggs, and it turns out that some practical joker turned it into a redirect. No, it was not I. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of this specific combination of ingredients. It is the slippery slope towards repeating the "Bilateral relations of countries X and Y" thousands of articles, with potentially millions of articles, which simply state the permutations and combinations of everything that can be served between slices of bread. This is not prejudice against some sandwich that satisfies WP:N, which would include hamburgers, grilled cheese, hotdogs, BLT, PBJ, eggsalad, and numerous others. There is no notability in restating the ingredients of an Egg McMuffin. Edison (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Breakfast sandwich or possibly Bacon sandwich. Note that most of the references actually describe the breakfast sandwiches from particular restaurant chains or frozen food brands, or a "Canadian bacon sandwich." Cnilep (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These is very substantial coverage of this notable sandwich. See [29] and [30] for two esy to find examples. It is also discussed in numerous reliable book and newspaper sources. Perhaps if less time was spent trying to delete articles and more time to expand and improve them... but well, I don't want to bore anyone with the same old song and dance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commen part deux The article has been greatly expanded with many sources and bears little or no resemblance to the original. I think we can move into speedy keep mode now and move into improvement mode on this and other articles. The Ham and eggs article needs work too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - notable foodstuffs. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been properly expanded and referenced, and it now meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly passes WP:N and the deletion rationale smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article goes well beyond simply "bread-bacon-egg-cheese" and describes a wide variety of variations utilized by many restaurants, as well as the fact that these are not the most healthy sandwiches out there. Eauhomme (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will change my opinion to Keep - it is an entirely different article to the one first nominated. Porturology (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. — Jack Merridew 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per recent article rescue. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say the rescue effort was a success. Geoff T C 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unusually, I agree with every word Edison says above. Hamburger etc are notable because of their particular cultural significance; a particular combination of ingredients has nothing particularly notable about it. Every single reference relates to the US (and aside from the occasional McDonalds, it's a combination that would draw blank stares in a sandwich shop elsewhere in the world) – this is fine if you're treating it as a part of US culture, but there's nothing in the article, even in its new-and-expanded form, to suggest that this is the case. As Edison says, a similar article could be written about any combination of ingredients; this is the reason we have Ham, Mushroom and Pizza, but not Ham and mushroom pizza. – iridescent 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks better now. At least merge and redirect over delete if keep is not an option. There should be enough out there to create ham and mushroom pizza... mmm... hungry... --candle•wicke 18:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. MAD Magazine tried to popularize a "Bacon, Lettuce, Egg and Chopped Ham" sandwich, which they called the "BLECH". Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / redirect somewhere: Edison makes a compelling case, though there are some nuggets of good information that shouldn't be lost by a simple delete. And the term seems reasonable enough for a redirect to remain. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I support a keep of the article Dscarth (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pastor Theo. The article looks much better now, after rescue, could use a cleanup though. The sandwich is notable, which comes from it being a very popular/notable sandwhich in North America. - Epson291 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...um, the Egg McMuffin is not an incarnation of this sandwich. The base type is made with ham not bacon. ("Canadian Bacon" as used in the US is much more like ham than it is like bacon) That material needs to be removed. After it's removed, the notability of this topic goes way down. Therefore ... delete and merge any remaining content to one or more of the other sandwich articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian bacon seems to be equivalent to back bacon. Are you saying only streaky bacon a.k.a. bacon (in the United States) counts as bacon? This seems very discriminatory. Please don't belittle the lesser bacons enjoyed by people all over the world who don't know any better. This article isn't just about the Egg McMuffin (which can be had with TWO types of bacon, the real thing and the Canadian kind) but also about the other versions of the sandwich, such as the one served on sourdough at Arby's. There also appears to be something called the "Massive McMuffin" in Australia that includes bacon. Whether the bacon used qualifies under your very strict standards Lar I cannot say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the "Canadian Bacon, Egg and Cheese sandwich". Canadian Bacon, as eaten in the US, is ham, it's not the Back Bacon of elsewhere. I removed the ref to the original Egg McMuffin (along with the duplicate material about how it was invented) but left the Massive McMuffin reference, since I can't say whether it qualifies or not :)... last time I was on Oz I didn't have one. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"after it's removed, the notability of this topic goes way down." Uhh... what? This article still has content and references. It also mentions plenty of other restaurants which offer the sandwich. While the article may end up being deleted for other reasons, the potential deletion of this article should not hinge on the exclusion of the Egg McMuffin. Also, bacon + egg + cheese + sandwich = Tasty as fuck --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XXXtra Mannish[edit]

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

Article was speedy deleted once before tonight. It was recreated, so it comes here. It may be in need of some salt, particularly considering the name (which is unlikely to be the title of anything else anytime soon). Also, GNews returns nada on this album, strongly suggesting a lack of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article I created had the wrong entitling, so I recreated it to XXXtra Manish which is the correct title. This link is proof of its existence; [http://www.amazon.com/XXXtra-Mannish-Little-Bruce/dp/B000000578/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1244110768&sr=8-6—Preceding unsigned comment added by SFKing415 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made XXXtra Manish as a redirect to XXXtra Mannish because there's no reason to have 2 articles. If this survives AfD, the admin will do the proper redirect. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Existence isn't the same as notability. As to the article creation...no wonder I thought the article had been recreated following deletion. I thought that was a quick recreation.Tyrenon (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable CD by a non-notable artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any coverage of this other than track listings. Also, the artist doesn't even have his own article. It clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh!(review me) 21:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as well as the fact that the musical artist that was associated with this album has had his article speedy deleted 4 times. t'shael mindmeld 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, per above. Non-notable album by non-notable musical group is actually speedy-able, but may as well let AfD run its course I guess. DMacks (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akme Ballet[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment complex. GNews returns 7 hits. 3 of these are pre-1950, while the remaining 4 one is unrelated, two are brief mentions of the building's construction, and one has to do with a protest. Seems to have at best fifteen minutes of fame some time ago, and the piece has an advertising feel to it. Tyrenon (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of importance or significance for this apartment complex. Cool vaguely egg-shaped toilet tanks though. http://www.akmeprojects.com/ballet-model-apartment.htm Drawn Some (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn, I was hoping it was for some new esoteric dance company. No such luck, it's an apparent ad for an apartment complex in India. Damn. In any event, doesn't say why it's notable, or anything like that, so I'm inclined to go with a Speedy delete and go with {{db-spam}} under the circumstances. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. There aren't enough reliable sources to meet any notability guideline, although there certainly do seem to be a lot of unhappy residents. –Megaboz (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to it being a major landmark in Bangalore city near Bangalore Management Academy. This cannot be verified through Internet as many Indian landmarks have a poor presence on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.71.41 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company seems to return a few hits in the media, but nothing for this particular apartment complex. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable, I was there today afternoon on ORR, and I tried asking directions just for fun as this had turned up in Karnataka topics, nobody there even knows the place. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as run-of-the-mill. Event there was not notable. Sebwite (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lapistan[edit]

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

A fictional country name made up for a military exercise is almost assuredly non-notable. GNews turns up exactly two articles, neither of which are English-language. Thus coverage is almost assuredly not widespread. Tyrenon (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable on its own, merge material with an article about the NATO exercise Loyal Arrow. The latter is notable as a major NATO exercise, covered in media before it has even started. -- Sander Säde 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sander Säde. GregorB (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of fictional countries, see Blueland, Orangeland. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would make more sense to transform this into an article about Operation Loyal Arrow, the NATO exercise, since it does not appear that this name has been used elsewhere. The article seems to have been made because some people took offense at the name "Lapistan". Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, Non-English sources are held in equal prominence to English sources. Last time I checked, just over half of en.wikipedia's traffic comes from non-English-speaking countries, not to mention that covering small but locally very significant events could otherwise be impossible. I can dig up the page about this if there's a need. All that there is to say about Lapistan is in the context of Loyal Arrow, so write an article about that and then merge this there. --Kizor 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just over half of en.wikipedia's traffic comes from non-English-speaking countries? Sorry, no. If you removed the articles that were about an American or British topic, there wouldn't be much left. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't get that. Traffic as in web visits. --Kizor 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Besides the article in Aftonbladet (Sweden's largest newspaper) cited in the article, there's also an article about the controversy in Helsingin Sanomat [31] (Finland's largest subscription newspaper). decltype (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I decided to be bold and created a stub Loyal Arrow, then moved the relevant material from Lapistan into there, making it a redirect. I did leave the AfD notice to Lapistan, though, as I don't feel comfortable with closing the AfD at this point. -- Sander Säde 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge and redirect to article about the military exercise this fictional country was created for. -- saberwyn 08:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — merge and redict makes the most sense. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki hobden[edit]

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

Doesn't quite get into CSD territory, but comes close. While an assertion of notability is offered, a Google search turns up less than 2000 results, many of which seem to be Facebook-related (i.e. an account with many friends). Most others have to do with someone who is almost assuredly not this person. GNews, in the meantime, offers absolutely nothing related to the name. Thus I contest notability. Tyrenon (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability just not there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and also created as an autobiography. Smartse (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO as it stands. Tabercil (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because created by user of same name. Self-promotion strongly suggests lack of notability, and certainly requires a higher standard to overcome presumption of non-notability. Disembrangler (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 College of Family, Home and Social Sciences. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BYU School of Social Work[edit]

BYU School of Social Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be notable except as a sub-unit of a sub-unit of BYU. As such, should be rolled up a level into the department it's attached to. Tyrenon (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct per above. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC) User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SNOW keep all Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity (Firefly episode)[edit]

Serenity (Firefly episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another case of a show with all episodes having articles. The show has its own wiki; detailed episode summaries and so forth should go there while brief summaries belong on an episode list here. The episodes are not notable in and of themselves, particularly as several of them never even aired in the initial run of the show. I'm subsuming all of the episodes in the series into this nomination for ease.

Tyrenon (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not certain but I think these have been discussed before. Either way, there is no reason for deletion; the first episode article, "Serenity", is well-developed, so a better approach would be to bring the others up to a similar level. Several of the articles already incorporate material from DVD commentaries and - more importantly - from independent third-party analysis of the material. Furthermore, fan wikis are not a substitute for an encyclopaedic treatment (which we can certainly do here.) As an aside, I have to object to the nom's stated philosophy: ""Better to delete a hundred minimally notable articles than to let one hoax or piece of non-notable cruft get through. --Ckatzchatspy 09:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss my philosophy, take it to my talk page. I'm more than happy to discuss it there. As to the nomination, here's the thing: The TV guidelines state "outstanding episodes", so perhaps the pilot qualifies. However, I sincerely do not feel that there is likely any TV show ever made wherein every episode qualifies as outstanding, whilst coverage in a guide dedicated to the show (or alternatively a brief blurb in a TV guide) doesn't strike me as notable.Tyrenon (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the philosophy is fair comment, especially given that you have close to eight hundred edits in less than two weeks on the site, with the vast majority of them being deletion-related. --Ckatzchatspy 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because all of the articles are well-developed (although to varying standards), the episodes appear to have individual claims to fame (for example, nominations for or successful winning of awards), and there are sources independant of the episodes themselves and the directly-involved parties (for example, publications like Finding Serenity and its sequel Serenity Found by Jane Espensen and others, or Investigating Firefly and Serenity by Wilcox and Cochran, look like useful sources independant of the show and its producers, and academic study of the show is sometimes considered to come under the umbrella of "Buffy Studies", the journal Slayage may have articles of relevance - Issue 25 is dedicated to Firefly/Serenity).
I disagree with the argument that because there is an independant wiki on Firefly/Serenity, content should be 'farmed out' to there (because I think if there are multiple, reliable, independant sources for the subject, it passes Wikipedia:Notability and should be included on Wikipedia, and that "unaired" episodes are 'less notable' - according to sources given in the articles, two of those episodes were nominated for Hugo Awards, while the third won two "SyFy Genre" awards.
I do concede that most of the articles are a little long on the plot and a little light on the sources, but those are problems best solved by editing, not deleting.
Declared interest: I am a fan of the show.

Keep All articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

  • Espenson, Jane; Glenn Yeffeth (eds.). Finding Serenity: Anti-heroes, Lost Shepherds and Space Hookers in Joss Whedon's "Firefly". Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books. ISBN 1-932100-43-1.
  • Rhonda V. Wilcox; Tanya Cochran (20 May 2008). Investigating Firefly and Serenity: Joss Whedon's Worlds Beyond: Science Fiction on the Frontier (Investigating Cult TV Series). I B Tauris & Co Ltd. ISBN 978-1845116545.

There are also these sources to allow for real world production information to be added

  • Joss Whedon (1 Sep 2005). Serenity: The Official Visual Companion. Titan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1845760823.
  • Joss Whedon; et al. (25 August 2006). Firefly: The Official Companion: Volume One. Titan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1845763145.
  • Joss Whedon; et al. (25 August 2006). Firefly: The Official Companion: Volume Two. Titan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1845763725.
  • The Complete Series: Commentary for "Serenity" (DVD). 2003-12-09. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |producer= (help)

Also two of the episodes were nominated for Hugo Awards which makes it difficult to treat all episodes the same. I did find some problems with WP:OR, inline refs and perhaps too much plot on some of these articles, but content issues are not a reason for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Edgepedia and Ckatz. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Edgepedia does bring up a valid point about most, if not all of the episodes, being notable and likely to have real-world information added to them. Sceptre (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The episodes have significant independent coverage, thus are notable, thus no reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; no delete votes. (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandrake Root[edit]

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

This article seems to fail Wikipedia standards on films. It lacks any substantial independent coverage such as I can find, and appears to be an independent film. Many sources that are listed deal with unrelated films or stories (possibly including other productions concerning Machiavelli's play). Simply put, this appears to be a non-notable independent film. Withdrawn. The crash improvements have satisfied me. Tyrenon (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If it's not independently notable why not merge it to the play it's based on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep Even a modestly prudent set of search parameters per WP:AFTER finds the subject covered in depth in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF. Improvements have been made to show 2008 award nominations and notability for the HD remake of the 1518 Niccolò Machiavelli play. And by the way... the European Drama Network[32] is not exactly an independent filmmaker... specially if they can buck the BBC at the awards tables. Simply put, it's time for some "google-fu" classes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to nominator. "Articles" do not have to meet notability requirements—subjects do. Editors who want to demonstrate that the subjects of articles do meet them are prudent to provide evidence of notability, but their failure to do so is as much your problem as theirs. See WP:SEP. (Note I am not opining on whether the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines—ChildofMidnight's suggestion is certainly reasonable if no independent notability of the film can be established.) Bongomatic 08:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - References and mention of award nomination appear to establish enough notability. I don't understand why this was even nominated for deletion. LadyofShalott 17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt the nominator used different search terms and did not find those first 3 significant in-depth reliable source articles nor the award nomination in his WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The award is regional. The coverage is regional. The "movie"'s release, by a non-notable start up, was limited to the internet. But you can beat up on the nom if it makes you kiddos feel good. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not beating up the nom, as his nomination was surely made in the best of good faith. However, the concerns he listed have all been properly addressed. His assertions:
  1. "article seems to fail Wikipedia standards on films"
  2. "lacks any substantial independent coverage such as I can find
  3. "appears to be an independent film"
  4. "sources that are listed deal with unrelated films or stories"
  5. "appears to be a non-notable independent film"
Taking these assertions in order...
  1. WP:NF states first and foremost that a film must meet WP:GNG (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.). The topic of the article meets this criteria.
  2. The nomiator states the he could not find substantial coverage. He couldn't. I could. I added some. There's more. Want to add them? All help is welcome now that the AfD has forced a rush to improve the article.
  3. He states that it "seems" to be an independent film. So what? There is no guideline or policy that states that independent films cannot be notable, so I do not understand why this was even stated.
  4. Repeats the second assertion but in different words. Fine, the sources such as he could find dealt with unrelated subjects. His search was perhaps lacking? What one finds depends entirly on how well one looks. Multiple in-depth sources exist and with the most cursory of WP:AFTER, I found them. So I added a few.
  5. Repeats the first and third assertions... already refuted. The topic meets WP:N (worthy of notice), WP:GNG (significant coverage in independent reliable sources), and WP:NF (should satisfy the general notability guideline.), and it being "independent" matters not one iota to its notability.
The nomination required refutation. I see the topic as meeting guideline's criteria for inclusion. I am not here to then redefine guideline to make it say something that it does not. Further, I read the sources... and the film had theatrical and festival releases... prior to its DVD release and prior to its being made available through download. As has been determined at other AfD's, regional notability is still notability... whether for a few hundred thousand of for 300 million. RS is RS. Coverage is coverage. In-depth is in-depth. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search. The problem with the search was two-fold: First, there had been previous films; second, the play itself (of the same name) is quite notable as it was by Machiavelli. Thus there was clutter, and what little I found on this particular production didn't indicate notability. As to being an independent film, that was unintentional straw-manning. What I should have said is that it did not appear to have any production company of note nor any distributor of note, which would give lie to notability as well. Some independent films (as well as those by smaller companies) do end up as notable, but at the same time a lack of distribution would be a substantial impediment to notability.Tyrenon (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and please no offense was intended, as I believe your nomination was made in the fullest of good faith. However, once made, the concerns must be addressed. I dig deep as possible when sourcing articles, trying all sorts of varying parameters. And yes, my own search was hampered by the name and its original Machivelli play... but I dug through the grift to find the gold. If I hadn't found the gold, I would have opined a delte right alongside you. I take a small bit of pride in breathing life into articles lying on the gurney waiting for the last rites. Feels pretty good, actally. I appreciate the withdrawal. It shows class. Happy editing, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per sourcing and clean-up. This is exactly the dispassionate and boring (sorry MichaelQSchmidt) kind of stubby we want for films with room to expand but squeezing away the nonsense these articles often attract. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The media coverage seems to meet the requirements for notability. Dream Focus 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of sources. Granite thump (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Parsons[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not appear to be any independent sources which cover this person in a substantive manner. A few sources list the jobs he has held, but that does not supply the depth of coverage required by the inclusion criteria at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable entertainer. Note that there is an article about his character, Ethan Lovett, which article seems to be getting a free ride on the theory that all characters in this soap opera are prima facie notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cleaned up the article and made a 1st pass at adding references; he's a contract player on a notable American series, that should count for something. It's a relatively new stub, perhaps we can give it some time to develop? And not that the actor's notability can necessarily be asserted by the role, but the character himself has been recently established as the only son of two notable/famous characters from the series (I commented as much in that AfD).— TAnthonyTalk 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those references hardly amount to the "significant coverage" required, IMHO. Why should a "contract player on a notable American series" count for something? Should he get a free pass on the notability requirements? – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newly added references do not add significantly to the claim of notability. There is a biography on the website of his employer; which cannot be used to establish notability since it is not independent. There is an IMDB entry which amounts to nothing more than a bullet list of jobs held. There is a short interview with Soaps.com, which is about 10 lines long. I wouldn't call this substantial coverage. If there is nothing more than those three, I can see no way this article meets WP:N standards... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- "time to develop" sounds like another variation on WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not suggesting that we wait until he has more credits or is more famous, I'm just thinking that no one has yet looked for additional sources. The fact that he's a contract player on a series (rather than a guest star, etc) increases the likelihood of something existing. I have someone who amasses recent soap magazines, I'll ask there, and as the series has just established that the character is the child of notables, I expect further coverage. Obviously an AfD is a good way to ignite efforts to improve an article, I just hate to have article deleted quickly before possible avenues are explored.— TAnthonyTalk 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of notability on Wikipedia. If you pull in 200 soap magazines discussing the character in great detail they're worth squat - why? Because they cover the character. It doesn't matter if it's the most important character to be seen in shitty soaps for over a decade, this is an article on the actor and it is direct coverage of the actor as the actor that counts. Soap magazines are very good for articles on the character, but not for articles on the actor. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand WP:N, and I don't quite get your snarky attitude ... there's actually an interview with the actor in the Soap Opera Digest that's currently on the newsstands (June 2, 2009), and I've cited it in the article. Which was my point. I didn't create the article, I'm not a fan of the guy, and I don't know that the article will end up meeting the criteria of WP:ENT, but I find it exasperating when articles get rushed to deletion and editors like yourself get red in the face when challenged. We found several references in one day, it seems counterproductive to slash and burn now and ask questions later.— TAnthonyTalk 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, we don't create articles for people hoping that someday sources will be found. After the sources are found, feel free to use them to recreate the article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - several references and some info asserting notability were added after May 27, 2009 (when the initial "Deletes" were recorded), so ... — TAnthonyTalk 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several independent sources cover information on the actor including both soap opera press and mainstream entertainment press. Contrary to what Ironholds said above, the actor interviews from the magazines give information on the actor as well as the character, such as where Parsons was born, raised, and schooled, and what film roles he held. All of which is covered in the article. Rocksey (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am aware that relisting in these circumstances is outwith the process at WP:RELIST, the consensus based on a !vote-count would be to delete the article, but there were several improvements during the AFD, which it would be unfair to ignore. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per expansion. Significant role on notable soap opera. Granite thump (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER which requires multiple notable roles. لennavecia 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, if we followed that one to the letter we would lose a lot of articles. Come on now.— TAnthonyTalk 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Good. The fewer poor-quality articles on non-notable people, the better. لennavecia 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Payday II[edit]

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

Has been tagged as non-notable for some time. GNews turns up nothing, and Google search turns up nothing of note at a quick glance. Seems to fail WP:ALBUM. Tyrenon (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight pooling[edit]

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

Looks like either an original essay or original research to me. May also fall under WP:NEO. Tyrenon (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Red Sox people[edit]

List of Boston Red Sox people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is an indiscriminate list of people, radio stations and televisions stations that have been associated with the Boston Red Sox in some way at some point. It unhelpfully includes celebrities with no ties to the organization besides wearing their shirts (half of whom are sourced with fan blogs or dead links), as well as the "Other noteworthy individuals" subsection, which includes no one.

For relevant policies: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:STAND, WP:OR. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nisei Bujutsu[edit]

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

Tagging has failed to reveal any additional citations in a month. It appears to be a non-notable sport of sorts; the parent organization yields 117 hits on Google, which reduces to 85 (most irrelevant) once Google "eliminates redundant results". In light of this, I'm suspecting a case of Bullshido is at work here (as in, the group exists but is non-notable and is practicing a "made-up" version of martial arts), and I find notability to very likely be lacking as the parent organization and founder both lack WP pages. Basically, it feels like self-promotion of a non-notable (and questionably qualified) organization after a fashion. Tyrenon (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Clegg[edit]

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

Notability PacificBoy 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable.

    I've removed the {{db-person}} because this article has one source listed, which could be taken as a claim towards notability. This should not be taken as a !vote on this article; I do not have access to the source and have not read it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. He's a soldier who served in the Civil War, nothing shows him as more notable than the thousands of other men who did. GBooks does turn up several Ghits, but they are for a British man who was prominent in the anti-slavery movement. [33] Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, no real claim of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Article does not even make a claim that the subject is notable. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article currently makes no claims as to how the subject is notable. I suspect that there must be some reason why he is mentioned in the book, and I have to wonder where all the personal details about his life have come from (i.e. if there were citations, perhaps he would be notable, I don't know) but as it stands there is nothing other than a book published in 1892, that no one seems to have. There are no page numbers cited also, which makes it even harder to verify. It seems that the original editor who created the page no longer exists on wikipedia, or has changed username (based on what is on their user page), thus there doesn't seem much of a chance that they will respond to any requests to provide page numbers and some clarification of why the subject was mentioned in the book. As such, I feel that there is not much of chance that this article will be improved beyond its current state and as such, despite my usual penchant for voting keep for most things, in this case I must vote for this article to be deleted. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest Lesbian Archives[edit]

Pacific Northwest Lesbian Archives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG as a GNews search for "Pacific Northwest Lesbian Archives" yields exactly one hit. While it almost assuredly exists, it doesn't rise to notability. Tyrenon (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sounds interesting, but not notable yet. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no arguments to delete (non-admin closure). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock waves in astrophysics[edit]

Shock waves in astrophysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the article has citations, it reads like an original essay by the author, thus coming under WP:ESSAY. Cleanup tags should be enough. Withdrawn. Tyrenon (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Cited, WP:ESSAY and WP:ESSAYS have nothing to do with this. The article probably sounds like it was written by the author because it was written by the author. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bdb, what I was aiming for was that the article feels like a synthesis of sources. Which was a misread of the synthesis rule.Tyrenon (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, I am the author, so I'm a bit biased. The topic of astrophysical hydrodynamics / radiation hydrodynamics is practically missing in Wikipedia. The subject is studied for about 80 years, and has many consequences and relations (e.g Supernova remnants, cosmic rays, Gamma Ray Bursts and many more). I admit it's not well written yet, and I should still write both relativistic shocks and radiation mediated shocks to complete the picture. Ignoring the subject is wrong, in my opinion. Ranny1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Ranny, lemme stack some tags on the article for improvement to try and flag down some assistance if any comes traveling by. (Edit: Added a pair of tags to the article)Tyrenon (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I should be able to do it by myself, since I'm sort of an expert on this subject. My problem, I guess, is what you would call "style". However I'm alone there, and trying to slowly improve the article.Ranny1 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I didn't see anything that smacked of OR/personal bias in the article and it is definitely a notable topic in astronomy. It needs time to develop fully.—RJH (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Hungary relations[edit]

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

whilst noting they both have embassies, there is a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, only sport and multilateral. [34]. There's this and another minor agreement but not much to make notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator even provides independent 3rd party sources showing the existence of a bilateral agreement which he subjectively mischaracterizes as "minor". I doubt any tax professional would refer to this as a "minor" treaty. I doubt anyone from Belarus or Hungary would either. Should never have been nominated for deletion under these circumstances given obvious room for improvement. The close proximity of these countries should also be a clue that the Belarussian and Hungarian people have a long and significant history of relations. I've tagged this page for rescue. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure it may be notable for tax professionals but Wikipedia isn't written for a tax professional audience. "I doubt anyone from Belarus or Hungary would either. " is a bit of WP:SYNTH on your part if you can't back it with wide coverage showing it's notable. 1 source I've found on the agreement may be third party but it's not wide coverage.LibStar (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiikipedia is written for whoever is interested enough to read it. As an attorney who took several courses in law school on international law (as well as tax law which I found to be difficult) I rely extensively on wikipedia for research purposes on a daily basis. What you think is irrelevant to your life might be completely relevant to others. That's why we have to ensure that we are countering systematic bias.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have embassies in each others' capitals, they are members of several alliances, etc. It's obviously notable. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep > they're practically neighbouring and have strong relations. You listed some reliable sources to establish notability above, I noticed—thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are clearly important relations between these two countries. Further source [35]. TerriersFan (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak delete - "The close proximity of these countries should also be a clue that the Belarussian and Hungarian people have a long and significant history of relations" --- not convincing given that Belorussia has not existing as a sovereign nation for very long. There may be something there with NATO expansion --- needs sources and evidence. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That assumes that people and this article should only identify with the current nation state. There are other examples in similar articles where the relations between peoples predated their government and were found to be worthy of inclusion. (See France-United_States_relations#France_and_the_American_Revolution where neither the government of the United States, nor the democratic government of France existed at the time of relations between the French and American people).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point --- but Belorussia is unlikely to be a good case for this phenomenon --- it was just one of the several Russias (Little Russia, Red Russia, White Russia etc) before the Soviet Union and never enjoyed even puppet status under German occupation. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. Please note that "obviously notable" is WP:OR and not applicable on WP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with the sources provided in the nom-statement? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I saw the name of the article listed at AfD and I thought, "These relations must be notable". But then I looked at the article itself and this discussion a saw that the only sources identified thusfar are either non-independent or provide only trivial, non-significant coverage. And then I looked for sources on my own and didn't find anything else. For those reason, it doesn't meet the bar set in WP:N. If someone can demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, I'll change to keep. Yilloslime TC 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An embassy doesn't make it notable. And an agreement to prevent double taxation is hardly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Market, to Market (M*A*S*H)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
To Market, to Market (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While I suspect I'm going to catch holy hell for nominating episodes of MASH, with a few exceptions I feel that they fail to meet with notability requirements as individual episodes of a series. I'm going to stick up separate lists for each season, but most of the episodes really ought to be condensed and dropped, as is the case with the vast majority of other TV shows. As it stands, sufficient episode summaries exist in the season episode lists. While MASH was a particularly notable show, not all of the hundreds of episodes are deserving of separate pages, as the season pages cover this stuff more than sufficiently (per the TV show guidelines, as best I can interpret them). This is the sort of information that belongs on a dedicated wiki, not here.

Shows condensed into this AfD:

Exempted from this list is the Pilot episode; others which I can see exempting from deletion are "Chief Surgeon Who?", "Cowboy", "Bananas, Crackers, and Nuts", "Sometimes You Hear the Bullet", as three of these won awards and the fourth is listed as a classic episode by TV Guide. However, even some of the awards don't cut it in my opinion (one is for editing). Tyrenon (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I get your point about the TV guidelines, but it's a slippery slope when certain episodes are AfD and others not. By whose criteria are the episodes chosen better/worse? Certainly an award winner would qualify, but then you split hairs with the "not the best editing award" decision. Even though I'm a MASH nut, I probably wouldn't even have thrown my two cents in were in not for the fact that I discovered today that there are complete pages for every episode of the 1985 revival of The Twilight Zone, for crying out loud. The original I could see - maybe. Someone's started in on Land of the Lost. Every episode of every Star Trek series (including the animated one) is apparently worthy of a full page, just because there's a rabid fan base out there to do it. But to me it should be all or nothing. How do you build a consensus? PacificBoy 08:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't gone to each of the pages in question, but I wanted to chime in with my two cents on the concept. To keep it short, it seems like people who may be spending all their off-WP time in front of the TV are getting out of control as they try to immortalize every aspect of their favorite shows. Every episode needs a page. And then every minor character needs a page. Because the topic isn't notable, there are no reliable sources cited -- if any sources are cited at all -- leaving an unverifiable page filled with original research. I would love to see this trend reversed, but it seems that the fanbase of whichever show is involved will usually turn out to protect their pages in contravention of WP best practices. — Bdb484 (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Bdb. An encyclopedic treatment, IMHO, involves only noting the bare bones of a given episode unless it is something akin to the last episode of MASH and notable in its own right. Most episodes are not notable outside that context, and in that vein I've put the episodes of one of my favorite shows on the block further up the page. Every episode of a show is not notable, and frankly it can border, or even cross into, on "fun craft" at times.Tyrenon (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that every show has at least one primary source, itself. This isn't enough to establish notability, but the show itself is an easy authoritative reference of its own content (plot, etc). So in that sense, an unsourced article about a TV show (and not just TV shows, books and other media are the same way), isn't as bad as some other classes of unsourced articles (like biographies, history, etc). They might not meet notability, but as long as they lack synthesis, they would generally meet verifiability. Gigs (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right and wrong. Each episode has a primary source, but I don't believe that watching the episode to write an article is any more appropriate than adding something to a biographical article based on your personal interactions with the subject of the article. The point of requiring reliable secondary sources is that it keeps non-notable fluff and garbage of all types out of the encyclopedia. I brought this up on an AfD for a Law & Order character, and people started griping that my definition would require the deletion of numerous articles, which was kind of my point. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go into notability and the necessity thereof, but there are such things as reliable primary sources, when used properly. Watching an episode to write an article is more like using a picture of a celebrity to write that she has a prominent scar on her left cheek. Forbidding the use of the works themselves in making <lawyerspeak>uncontroversial, descriptive claims that are apparent to the audience without specialist knowledge</lawyerspeak> would be needless masochism. Have you ever tried describing the plot of Romeo & Juliet entirely from reviews and academic publications? Neither have I, and I'm not keen on starting. Anal as always, Kizor 18:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ALL Again Its been less than two weeks since the last AFD. Dream Focus 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all they will need more real world context and criticism, but there is plenty of commentary on this, one of the foremost serials of its time, like the Simpsons is now. Deleting it smacks of recentism, and the existence of entertainment wikis is irrelevant. Hiving off knowledge to specialized wikis sets a dangerous precedent and i am reluctant to see WP carved up. Two weeks post close is not really in the spirit of collaborative editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Each episode has significant independent coverage and thus meets WP:N. Many of the listed episodes have mulitple independent sources referenced within the article itself. And, as is acknowledged in the nomination, some of the listed episodes won awards. The episodes are all notable and thus should be kept. And I question the purpose of a 2nd AFD just days after the 1st AFDs for many of these episodes were concluded. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on record for deleting, but I could be swayed on individual episodes. Would you mind providing some examples of specific articles that get significant coverage in those sources? All I'm seeing are basic synopses of the entire series. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all consider sanctions against nominator for disruptive behavior to make his point. This is a clear attempt to game the system. None of the contributors to the articles have been notified. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all again. Thank you for at least listing them all together this time. I tend to be what some call a deletionist, but I like episode articles for TV series that are very notable (like MASH, Sopranos etc). Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all For the record, I'm with ya on this, Tyrenon, though it looks like we're Klinger trying to get a section 8 here. Granted, M*A*S*H had more notable episodes than the average TV show (the nominator has avoided those), but the advent of entertainment wikis has made episode articles obsolete. The only nice thing I can say about such articles is that they give people an opportunity to hone their writing skills on a topic that they feel comfortable with. However, if this is accomplished elsewhere, we don't need to host a counterpart to an entertainment wiki. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect All to the appropriate season list of episodes. As standalone articles, these become magnets for excessive in-universe fancruft. The real-world notability, such as it is, can be easily covered at the LOEs. Eusebeus (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to season one. Each of the articles is cited to the same list of sources, which generally give a synopsis for each episode rather than giving any of them a meaningful treatment. Futhermore, has there been any actual assertion of notability for any of these articles? — Bdb484 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion of references citing coverage in multiple independent sources is itself an assersion of notability. Plus, several of the articles listed note awards won by the particular episodes, such as Writer's Guild Awards. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references are there, but the sources address the series, not the individual episodes. I don't think anyone here would deny the notability of the series, but until I see an independent, reliable source that treats an episode as notable, I can't agree. And again, if they won awards, let's see it. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources address both the series and the episodes. I am not sure I understand the comment about awards, since the awards are already addressed within each relevant article. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Procedural issue. Discussion doesn't enter into it. Namely, the previous AfD was closed as "keep" on May 22th. Several other nominated articles that I checked were also closed the same way, except for one where the AfD was withdrawn on the 18th. Consensus can change and all that, but hammering on articles until they give is a very different thing. --Kizor 18:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per 2 weeks is hardly enough time to improve the articles in the time frame allowed by Wikipedia, and flys in the face of policy itself granting that Wkipedia is imperfect and does not expect to be, and acts contrary to the policies dedicated to building an encyclopedia. The nom might have sought a DVR had he thought the closer 2 weeks ago was wrong, but simply diagreeing with the consensus is no reason to nominate over and over until one gets the results one personally wishes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All The recent AFDs demonstrated consensus to keep these articles for the good reason that these topics are notable so these hasty repeat nominations are disruptive per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A renomination 2 weeks after a keep is pointy and disruptive. I think some sanctions might be appropriate. The best way of preventing this sort of thing would be a firm rule that there must be at least 3 months after a keep before renomination on the same or similar grounds. DGG (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator is unlikely to have known any better. A firm rule is attractive, so Devil's Advocate: one more rule is one more rule to be gamed. Would it result in a sudden increase of AfDs three months and a day after a keep? Also note that the current vague, community-enforced standard at least forces people to consider others' reactions. --Kizor 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep on procedural grounds. We just did this less than two weeks ago. If this is not closed in short order, I'll return with more detailed consideration of each page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, it's been a few days and nobody's closed this, so just in case: keep due to established notability. As I said when this came up just a few weeks back, notability on Wikipedia is defined as ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These episodes are all covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including both episode guides and scholarly treatments, so the notability requirements are met. The articles could still be improved, of course, but the sourced thematic analysis in pages like Requiem for a Lightweight#Themes is exactly what television episode articles should contain.

      As an afterthought, in my opinion the nominator should not have bundled the award-winning and award-nominated episodes with the others. In the prior deletion debates for these episodes, many of the editors who supported deletion of other episode articles said that these should be kept, as the awards, etc. demonstrated especial notability. I happen to think that notability is established for all the episodes, by Wikipedia's definition, but I recognize that other editors disagree. But there seems to be a wider consensus about award-winning and -nominated episodes, so these really shouldn't have been lumped in with the others. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
  • Snow speedy keep. And a trout whack for nom. These were all just cleared weeks ago so this is a textbook example of why we don't re-nom so soon. Also we're not in a rush here. Many fine articles grow with time until the right editor(s) come along to improve them. If yo must add clean-up tags then go for it but perhaps actually creating some content would broaden the perspective on how writing encyclopedia articles can be challenging and time-consuming. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's a reason time is left between nominations and a random check on one episode showed plenty of sources to meet the WP:GNG thus meeting notability criteria. If you still think they should be condensed into the season articles, then you should be aiming for a redirect instead of full deletion since the episode titles are going to be the likely search terms. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Too soon after previous nomination. At least some of the episodes are particularly significant and need time to expand. --skew-t (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above args. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per all above. Granite thump (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Biomechanics[edit]

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

The article has the distinct feel of original research and/or being an indiscriminate collection of links vaguely associated with one another. The topic is not exactly notable; it is a stub with little purpose as it stands, and it's been sitting there for a month without any improvement. Tyrenon (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Tyrenon. Non-admin closure SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea burns[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Roles are almost all minor ones (either understudy roles or as an extra; none appear to be lead roles from what I can tell). Withdrawn. Some things don't come up on a cursory search (such as the album), and some things aren't clearly shown in a basic database. I would, however, recommend redirecting to "Andrea Burns" (capitalization fixed) if it isn't already. Tyrenon (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Post 1999 roles are mostly leads or replacements as leads (not to be confused as understudy). Article's subject has 2 award nomination as lead actor and as originated the role of Daniela in the Tony award winning musical "In the heights", therefore her performance will be used as a template for what an actor's interpretation of that role should be. For these reasons, I believe she is a notable actor and her bio should remain on record for future reference. - Added "Stage Credits" and "Awards" section to article for more clarity - Broadwayjo (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that this article should be kept. Although the article does need some edits, Andrea Burns is definitely a leading actress who deserves a page. Her role in In the Heights is in no way just a chorus role, as Daniela is the owner of the "neighborhood salon" and has a large supporting role. In addition, she was one of only four members of the Jason Robert Brown musical Songs for a New World, definitely a significant accomplishment. She was also lead in the Stephen Sondheim musical Saturday Night in its off-Broadway production, of which a cast recording was made. Although it is not mentioned, she is also featured in the John Bucchino album It's Only Life[37] and This Ordinary Thursday - The Songs of Georgia Stitt[38] However, if it is at all possible, I would fix the title so the her last name is capitalized. -Broadwaylover 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To add on, she was featured in 8 other pages, including one of the notable alumni of French Woods Festival of the Performing Arts. She also produced her own album in 2007, called Andrea Burns: A Deeper Shade of Red[39]. Broadwaylover 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Will Redirect as per Tyrenon suggestion. Waiting for AfD status change so not to overwrite the current AfD notice. Added album cursory search, will clarify database Broadwayjo (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you say redirect, I hope you mean Move, so that history is maintained. Also, please look at removing some of the unnecessary blue links. It doesn't make the page look particularly good. I'm not a bio-writer, so I don't want to do it and mess things up on that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Shapiro[edit]

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

No real notability. One minor source. Doesn't meet notability criteria for any category I can figure. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kaprielian[edit]

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

Non-notable local weatherman on a local station. Awards are minor, local in nature as is his coverage. Not much different than 1000 other local weathermen Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Execept that's he's a local legend in New England, and has 25 years of longevity at one of only two commercial stations licensed to the state of New Hampshire carrying programming targeted towards that state. The sources are there and I'm sure many more will be found by the end of this nom. Nate • (chatter) 07:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local being the key word to me. I'm sure there is plenty of local coverage or mentions of his name. What makes him different frm any other local weatherman? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't aware that national or global coverage was a necessary requirement for notability? The coverage is given by daily publications. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
trueHistoricist (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of weathermen, per station, in almost every market in the US. Each one goes and does his job every day. Some stay in an area for a long time. That is not the notability that qualifies. If I wrote a recap of high school sports every day in the local paper, it would be "daily publication", but that wouldn't qualify me for an article. I simply can't see how some mentions in local human interest stories and telling people what the days weather will be meets the criteria for wp:CREATIVE Niteshift36 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false analogy. The Boston Phoenix is not comparable in any way ot a high school newspaper.Historicist (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say a high school newspaper, I said high school sports. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and sigh All I had to do was type his name into google. Right on the first page there was an article in the Boston Phoenix (not in his local area) explaining why this weatherman is different form all other local weathermen. But my larger point is, why be so eager to delete the article. Suppose the guy was merely a beloved local figure who tells the weather and explains meteorology to the local kiddies. Why not give him a page? What, we're short of pages? We don't even have to chop trees down to get paper. and big sigh it would be nice if USER:Niteshift36 and others who do AFD tags would think before they type. A high school athlete whose friends put up a page for him is one thing, but when there is a chance that the chap is notable (this one is on TV, why not help the newbie authots (DON'T BITE THE NEWBIES]] to create better articles? Instead of immediately hanging an AFD on the page, send instructions to everyone who has created or edited an inadequate article explaining what kind of sources they need to bring. Or run a quick google on the name. I believe that the aggressive tagging with AFD's is so unpleasant to new editors that many give up in on editing. We need to be a little more patient with one another. And - dare I suggest - some people who hang a lot of AFD tags on plausible but inadequate articles could actually add a little content to the encyclopedia in stead of tagging plausible but poorly sourced articles with an AFT.Historicist (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh to you too. The fact that we don't need paper and the idea of "murders have pages" so why not nice hardworking guys is a strawman. There are notability guidelines for a reason. If you bothered to read the article (which you apprently did not do very carefully), you'd see that his station is carried on cable into the Boston area. In fact the very first sentence of the article says it is carried in the greater Boston area. I'm not sure how you managed to add content but miss the first line, but it appears you did or you wouldn't say a Boston paper is not local. It is in his LOCAL viewing area. Further, Derry, NH and Boston, MA are less than 50 miles apart (even fewer air miles). 50 miles isn't exactly "not local" now is it? Now, to address your not too subtle comments to me. If you bothered to look, you'll see that I've nominated less than 15 articles for deletion in the past 2 years. Probably less than 10. So to make it sound like I do nothing but look for articles to delete is not only factually wrong, but certainly not wp:AGF. And what is this "newbies" bit? The article has been here since January. It's not a 2 day old piece. Further, it looks like the article had been deleted before since the edit summary on the first entry is "he's been on the air for decades for gods sake.. how more notable does he need to be?" So I must not be the first person to question his notability, just the one who actually acted on it. Now if you have a further gripe with me and my activities, feel free to move them to my talk page and not litter the AfD discussion with your personal views on the handful of AfD nominations I've done over the past couple of years. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR, but I think the basic argument is that the person is covered in non-trivial terms, in multiple non-trivial sources, which appears to satisfy general WP:BIO guidelines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so Historicist (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look at a "lifestyles" piece in a free newspaper (Boston Phoenix) that calls itself an "alternative weekly newspaper" and consider it trivial. I also consider the Weekly New England Travel and Vacation Gazette (which is essentially a blog) to be trivial. The Boston Globe (which is not trivial) article is not about Karpielian, it is about the station. He is mentioned in it, but not the subject. The New Hampshire Union Leader article is no longer available online. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Phoenix is one of the grandaddies of alternative journalism in this country. It does investigative, political, and, yes, and serious lifestyle reporting. Why the snarky attitude? Why the need to run down highly regarded newspapers? Do you know anything about the Phoenix, or did you dismiss it form ignorance. I really. truly beleive that this kind of nastiness is very discouraging to people who might make good editors.Historicist (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked. The Boston Phoenix has the typical, lousy Wikipedia article that gives the reader little hint of the newspaper's history, reputation, and importance. A poster child for the need to encourage people to edit here by being nice to them a, and helpful. And good heavens, we're being nasty and dismissive about a television weather forecaster. Why cannot Wikipedia be collegial and supportive?Historicist (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being old makes the Phoenix more relevant? Why snarky? I'll address personal comments on your talk page and request (again) that you do the same and keep them out of the AfD. Notability guidelines are POLICY and there for a reason. I'm sure Kaprielian is a nice guy, works hard and might be entertaining to watch. That is not what makes someone notable for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that being old makes the Phoenix relevant. Grandaddy means that the Phoenix and a couple of other papers in the sixties begat modern alternative journalism in this country. What I wrote was the Phoenix is a serious newspaper that does important "investigative, political, and, yes, and serious lifestyle reporting" A profile in the Phoenix is a reliable index of notability.Historicist (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated why I disagree. I'm not here to debate the history of the Phoenix or it's place in alternative journalism. I don't feel a lifestyle piece in a free weekly paper (regardless of its history or size" is that notable. And it still goes back to local coverage, which I find less compelling than national coverage. You disagree. Fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I'm from New Hampshire, so that probably doesn't count, even though I don't watch the TV station that he's on. The Boston Phoenix is as notable and influential a free weekly lifestyle newspaper as The Village Voice. Perhaps an article in there would also not be notable enough? --Ken Gallager (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting the incluson requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO by even a cursory G News search. Whether for a few dozen million or a few hundred milion, notability is notability if it meets guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure if there hasn't been some canvassing going on with respect to this nomination.[40] Rlendog (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes asking someone to render an opinion "canvassing"? Have you read WP:CANVASS? The request was neutrally worded. It simply asks the editor to look at the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason, you chose to leave your note to an editor who claims on his user page to be a "proud deletionist/reductionist," who makes no claim I can see to a particular interest in the particular topic of the nomination. See the "Votestacking" section of WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." But if there is some reason you chose to inform this particular user of the AfD for some reason other than the view on deletions he expresses on his userpage, then I apologize for my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out on your talk page, I listed several AfD discussions for him. 2 are contested, the others are well on their way to deletion. You ignored that and only left your "warning" on the 2 that are contested. No warning posted on the ones that the community is clearly voting to delete. There is no logic in your selectivity. If you feel there was "votes stacking" on 2, it should have been on all of them. If the same neutrally worded message was not "vote stacking" for the others, then it isn't for this one. In other words, your actions betray your excuse. Further, I didn't even look at the editors userpage, I went straight to his talk page, having seen him involved in several of the AfD discussions I participated in today. Feel free to check and see that I've OPPOSED some AfD's from that particular editor and haven't ever posted to his user page before. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only left comments (not warnings) that I am "not sure" if canvassing is occurring on the pages for which any canvassing would be relevant. For the 2 that are obvious deletions, who cares whether or not any canvassing is occurring? Why bother leaving a comment on those? And I don't see why you would want me to - if my comment was incorrect (or even if it was correct), I wouldn't think you would want me to repeat it to an even wider audience. Since you state that you did not read the editor's user page and say that you were unaware of his clear deletionist sympathies when you left the note, then there was obviously a misunderstanding, and I retract my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty simple. If "vote stacking" was happening, then it was happening on all the ones listed, not just the 2 that are contested. The fact that I listed several, including ones that, by your own admission, didn't need his vote at all, should have given you pause and reason to WP:AGF instead of selectively making assertions of wrong-doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nate's comments. I don't think Niteshift's comments about the sources being local (or even the guy's reputation being local) is an issue at all. There's a very active debate on WP:NLI and I know I and many other editors feel the same way that I do--that local topics and local sources are just as valid. The issue in notability, as I see it, is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so as long as the sources are reliable and the coverage significant (and it's hard to argue against this when there's extensive coverag in the Boston Globe), then he meets WP:N. I also did my own search and found more sources, it's very easy to find them and they point to this guy being solidly notable. Cazort (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the WZMY article: "WZMY is well known in New England for Al Kaprielian. His quirky, offbeat style has made him a minor celebrity in Southern New Hampshire. As a result of his popularity, he was a "Guest Meteorologist" on The Weather Channel's Abrams & Bettes: Beyond The Forecast on November 10, 2006." ( Disclosure: I'm a NH resident). hydnjo (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Strong Keep. This message is late, but I felt I must include my opinion. I haven't logged in in some time, and I find a message that the article has been afd'd. Nightshift- do a google search before nominating articles again. This article WAS deleted once prior. I was the originator of the article, and was the one who re-created it. Noghshift said he's not that much different than 1000 other weathermen. Well, I disagree, and have the facts to prove it. His voice is a huge appeal. It's high-pitched, gritty, excitable, and different. He has an approachability- a very down to earth guy. He has a genuine love of the weather, and his job. His wild gesticulations- flailing his arms, jumping, screaming "woop woop woop" like Curly from the 3 Stooges; that is impassioned. He grew up in New England; and as such, knows the topography, currents, storm tracks, etc. It's rare to find a home grown meteorologist of note. He's not a "stuffed shirt"; he's the real deal. His on-air ad libs and catch-phrases set him far apart from the pack. He is charitable- taking part in causes for the MDA and Amer. Heart Assoc. Finally, he's a long-standing New England tradition. An institution. In changing times, call letters, and employees, Al Kaprielian is virtually the only thing that stays the same on WNDS/WZMY. Mr. Kaprielian is very, very well-known in New England, and like any above par meteorologist (not weatherman), notability is easily found and provable. Yes, a lot of cruft comes in on Wikipedia; this article is not cruft. Do due diligence before nominating in the future. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you like to hear yourself talk. You posted the same condescending, long winded post on my talk page. I did my research. For you to claim otherwise is not only lacking WP:AGF, but simply rude. I disagree. I still think he is non-notable. But I don't have to come to your talk page or post on already closed AfD's to insult you because you disagree. Learn to accept that everyone doesn't think like you sport. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 23:28, June 4, 2009

Michael Theodoulou[edit]

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

No sources. No assertion of notability. Just seems like a guy doing his job and little more.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (expected, as I created the article stub). It is notoriously difficult to find information about rather than by journalists. This one has been prolific and highly active for decades, reporting on important topics for top-notch news outlets (see http://www.journalisted.com/michael-theodoulou for recent activity in UK-based news sources). His articles are quoted in numerous books (see http://books.google.com/books?q=%22michael+theodoulou%22&btnG=Search+Books). What this article needs is expansion, not deletion. Consumers of media are interested in the backgrounds of correspondents, and Wikipedia should endeavor to include such information. Bongomatic 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in the article you can show (with sources of course) what makes him different (therefore notable) from hundreds of other journalists without articles that are just doing their job. I might withdraw the nom if you could show that. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made an extensive attempt to identify sources (Internet-based and otherwise) before creating the stub, but failed. I don't have a policy- or guideline-based argument for keeping the article other than (what I think is) WP:COMMONSENSE in light of a systematic sourcing problem. If the article gets deleted, I'm not overly bothered, Either way, I will continue to search for sources. I have actually e-mailed the journalist at the address given on one of his articles (no idea if it's valid) to ask if he has ever been profiled, won awards, or the like.
Many of the subject-specific guidelines operate under the conceit that certain indicia are evidence that sufficient reliably sourced coverage actually exists, just has not been identified. Don't know what the correct ones would be for journalists, but (even without awards) could imagine that being widely cited and having written hundreds of articles for top newspapers would suffice. Bongomatic 07:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Bongomatic. Nobody writes about journalists, but their work can be extremely influential. One way to tell that a journalist is significant, is having an impact, is (if he has a reasonably unique name) to type his name into google books. Ordinary journalists reporting routine stories will have only a handful of hits. A long list of hits means that the guy's stories are unusually original, important, insightful. This guy has lots of hits. User:Bongomatic should go to those books, he will very likely discover that some of them describe Theoloulou's work and explain why it is significant. And, by the by, it is guys doing important jobs (like journalism) well who matter in the world. Wikipedia is filled with articles on low-lifes who robbed a bank or blew up a church. We could use a lot more articles on guys who do their jobs well. Especially if those articles link them into the context of the industries and professional fields in which their work has made difference.Historicist (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the link to journalisted that Bongomatic provided. One thing I noticed was he wrote more than the average number of articles, but that the length of the articles was significantly below the average. Are most of his pieces shorter in nature? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that this is a matter of editorial discretion of the newspapers in which his work is published. Articles on what's up in Iran simply don't get the same airplay in Scotland as Britain's Got Talent. Bongomatic 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sympathize. I really do. And I am looking into as (as is obvious since I bothered to search your link) and I'm considereding withdrawing the AfD because of professional reasons, not over the hollow WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning about bank robbers having pages that Historicist put forth. Apparently Brits aren't much different than Americans. Average Americans can tell you who the final 5 are on American Idol but don't know their own congressman's name. Sad, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't have a policy- or guideline-based justification that the article should be kept. I have no objection to the article being removed and recreated when (if) I can find more citations for the subject. This person is notable, but Wikipedia is all about WP:V, and not about what's true—a distinction I strongly agree with. DGG noted (in a talk page comment solicited by me) that citation and productivity are accepted in WP:PROF, but unfortunately, there isn't the same sort of database of news article that would permit a quick count, nor do I intend to do a search of sufficient quality to reliably estimate the number of articles that Theodoulou has written (easy to both over- and underestimate). Bongomatic 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? Because I do sympathize with your position, I'm going to withdraw the AfD. I agree, there needs to be more clearly defined criteria for what makes a reporter notable and I'm not entirely convinced this guy would make it with a reasonably strict criteria, but I do recognize the lack of coverage of those who cover the news (it happens in other professions too) and I appreciate the civil and reasoned way you've presented yourself (unlike some who decided to lecture me). Now I just have to make sure I remove the AfD correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galatic adventures[edit]

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

I propose a deletion with a redirect to the primary Spore article unless and until the expansion becomes independently notable. Tyrenon (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spore Galactic Adventures already exists, this needs renaming and history-merging there, or something. Someoneanother 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main Spore article there already includes what this one does, but in better context. I think turning this into a (spellchecked) redirect rather than an independent page is the best solution at this stage (though as I said, if the expansion becomes a big enough deal on its own, its own article would make sense then).Tyrenon (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a big enough deal, the number and size of sources above would validate an article on any standalone video-game, a couple of sentences will not adequately cover a departure in game mechanics, development and merchandising or reception details. Genuine expansion packs generate enough information and secondary sources to support articles, as has been the case for years. Someoneanother 14:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Someoneanother 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, I'm an idiot who didn't understand things as well as I thought I did. At this point I'd suggest a merge to the main article, but it does appear that the expansion meets notability requirements, so keep with a recommendation (for now) of an editorial merge. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name of the article contains a spelling error. I took the initiative and redirected the page to Spore Galactic Adventures, duplicating all the key information in there. — Rankiri (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fenrich[edit]

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

Article has awaited translation at WP:PNT for two weeks without progress Jac16888Talk 06:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it can't be translated. JIP | Talk 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Time's up. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Slijepčević[edit]

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

Article has awaited translation at WP:PNT for two weeks without progress Jac16888Talk 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CSD#A2 as there is no hope for translation in the foreseeable future. I WP:transwikied it to the Serbian Wikipedia[43] (hopefully I got it right), as Jac16888 suggested at WP:PNT. There already is an article on Vladan there[44], but it is a stub, perhaps they will find this more useful.Synchronism (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a user at the Serbian Wikiedia didn't seem to find it very useful, it was redirected to the existing page, however AndreasJS posted the content to the talk page. So, the page has been "duplicated on another Wikimedia" project, and qualifies for A2 in my opinion—I'm not going to tag it, though, I would agree with such a tagging.Synchronism (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content was deleted moved to the talk page at the Serbian WP by sr:User:Dungodung without an explanation.  Andreas  (T) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC) because it did not comply with wiki standards.  Andreas  (T) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously the involvement of the subject does muddy the waters, but it is vital we focus on the key aspects of Mr. Beale's notability. Many of the deletes stated they were affected by Beales involvements, others stating the overblown version was deletable but a small stub would be acceptable. One or two of the keeps manage to demonstrate why they believed the subject met the notability criteria, but the amount of editors who disagreed was enough to constitute consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale[edit]

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

This bio—started in 2007 by User:Chiinners (an account with very few edits)—was written by the subject, who edits as User:NBeale. The earliest version of the article is deleted; see here.

Beale recently co-authored a book about science and religion, Questions of Truth (also created by Nbeale) with John Polkinghorne, a former academic turned vicar. Beale maintains Polkinghorne's website.

The bio is based almost entirely on self-generated source material, much of it from one of the websites under Beale's control. Few of the claims he makes about himself are independently verifiable; those that are have been puffed up to the point of being unrecognizable. Many of them sound wrong-headed e.g. that he is a "social philosopher," when there's arguably no such thing (at least not in academia), and given that he has no qualifications in philosophy (he studied mathematics as an undergraduate; no graduate studies). Wikipedia:Verifiability allows self-published sources to be used so long as they're not self-serving, and so long as the article is not based on such sources. [45] Nicholas Beale fails on both counts.

I've written a description of the sources here.

Deletion history is: first AfD, deleted as non-notable on April 30, 2007. Beale took it to DRV, so a second AfD was held; the article was deleted again on May 11, then userfied. NBeale and a couple of accounts with very few edits kept restoring the article to mainspace. [46] [47] [48] Beale appealed for people to do this on his blog. AN/I discussion about it here. David Epstein added a speedy tag under G4, [49] DGG removed it, so here we are. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The co-authorship of QoT, being the co-lead speaker at special meetings at the AAAS, RS and RI, radio interviews in the US & UK incl a whole radio programme of on-air dialogue with a notable philosopher are all new since 2007 and confirmed by incontrovertibly reliable 3rd party sources, easily googled. NBeale (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are numerous reliable, third-party sources on Google about your accomplishments, please provide links to those articles. I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There certainly seem to be enough reliable sources to verify the key facts of the article - now given on the talk page here. Are these enough or would you like more? NBeale (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is notable is that those are not clearly reliable sources - a bio which in the normal course of events will have been at least sourced if not written by you, and a publisher. The fact that it seems so hard for you to come up with reliable 3rd party sources concerns me. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So I've spent the last hour reading through all this info. I read through the source description write up by Slim and essentially agree with his/her assessment of each article. The best the article seems to have is 2 very weak secondary sources. There was once a mention of him being a professor on the talk page which I was interested in but, as was also pointed out on the talk page, there's no actual mention of him being a professor in the article. Even if there was, he would need to fulfill some part of WP:PROFESSOR which I don't see any verifiable information to prove that he does. From what I can tell, the book would be the best chance of a claim at notability but I don't see how he would fulfill WP:CREATIVE as a co-author of the book. As a side note, I don't believe that NBeale was originally out of line in editing his own article but it's becoming apparent that he has an agenda besides creating a decent Wikipedia article. I find the post on his blog to be a flagrant proof of that. While I (and no one else seems to) have no concrete proof that he has meat/sock puppets, his defense of them is interesting. If I was accused of sock/meat puppetry, I'd be defending myself and not the puppets. I guess if I had puppets though, defending them would be defending myself. I think that this AfD should be closely monitored for possibly sock/meat puppetry and his blog watched for signs of meatpuppetry. I'd say snow but there's certainly the possibility that he will become notable but it should be made clear that Mr. Beale shouldn't be editing this article in any space. OlYellerTalktome 06:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I must declare an interest as the subject, but then SlimVirgin is doing this because she does not like my edits so perhaps she should declare an interest as well?). Debretts People of Today and the Faraday Institute are reliable sources. And if Onora O'Neill describes someone as a Social Philosopher that is surely a reliable source for this claim as well. As for what has changed, it's not just the co-authorship of Questions of Truth it is also co-presenting in major forums (AAAS, Royal Society, Royal Institution) about it, at specially convened meetings chaired by Jim McCarthy, Onora O'Neill and Stewart Sutherland and a fair number of media appearances. Certainly John Polkinghorne is far more notable than I am, but none of his other books has had this treatment. NBeale (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into Slim's profile after I saw how much work she had done. She's an administrator and a very highly praised one at that. All I see is that she's very dedicated to making Wikipedia the best it can be and I have no reason to think otherwise. I may be inclined to change my opinion (about the article, not Slim) if you could show how co-presenting in those forums fulfills an inclusion guideline. As of right now, I feel that Slim has given a good reason as to why presenting in those forums is not grounds for inclusion. Also, while the chairs of those meetings are certainly notable, I don't see how that would make you inherently notable. OlYellerTalktome 07:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'highly praised' by whom? other Wikipedians - for anything outside of neutral subjects such as the chemical makeup of pigements, wikipedia is not taken seriously because of its agenda driven bias. There are plenty of articles which go into some of the more outrageous examples, but suffice to say, a groupthink praise for slimvirgin doesn't add much to the credibility. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her peers think highly of her. I'm sorry if you've perceived that all of Wikipedia is out to get you or go against your beliefs (I still don't understand what they are or how they're being put down). From all the warnings on your talk page, it seems that you seem to be the one pushing some POV. Or is everyone out to get you? OlYellerTalktome 15:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to NBeale: I have no opinion on your edits; I'm only slightly familiar with them. Regarding Debrett's and Faraday, you wrote those biographies, did you not? That means we can't regard them as independent sources. As for Onora O'Neill calling you a "social philosopher," she almost certainly did that because that's what you call yourself, and she didn't know what else to call you. That meeting was held by the publisher to promote the book, and therefore I'm assuming the panel appeared because they received a fee—and nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't use the eminence of the panel as evidence of your own notability. There's no question that John Polkinghorne, your co-author, is notable, and that therefore the book he co-authored is too. The issue regarding yourself is twofold (two related but separable issues): first, whether you're notable in your own right; and secondly that there is no source of biographical material about you that does not rely entirely on material provided by yourself, which leaves us with nothing solid to base the article on. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks for clarifying your concerns. The meetings at the AAAS, the Royal Society the Royal Institution and Hay on Wye were not organised by our publishers, no-one received a fee and to suggest that a distinguished philosopher who is President of the British Academy might be induced by a fee or otherwise to mis-describe someone as a social philosopher is odd, to say the least. As for bio-material my major publications, my speaking at these gatherings and other solo media appearances are readily verified from completely independent sources. Incorporating additional bio-details from sources like Debretts and the Faraday Institute is perfectly standard practice and WP:BLP specifically allows in addition web material authored by the subject. Can we therefore agree that the only issue is notability? NBeale (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a tricky one. I think Nicholas Beale is probably borderline notable. He has helped write a couple of books, one of which is the subject of a WP article, and he does appear to be engaged in various somewhat notable activities. But it is striking that the WP article on the book has been largely written by none other than NBeale himself, as has the article on Nicholas Beale – not to mention almost all the sources on which the article is based. In other circumstances I would say weak keep, but his own actions as User:NBeale go a long way towards pushing me to conclude delete. Probably worth a short article, but it would be very different from the present overblown and puffed-out version. Disturbingly, however, I think we are being taken for a ride here. Wikipedia is being used as a platform for self-aggrandisement, as an extension to the subject's blog and/or his resumé. Is such misuse of the WP project, and abuse of editing privileges as a WP editor, sufficient grounds for deletion? If NBeale could bring himself to stay away from this debate, and to stay away from editing the article, then I'd say no, and that an article about him (but not this one) should be kept. But based on his track record I'm very doubtful that this will happen. GNUSMAS : TALK 07:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the subject seems to forget that The Meek Shall Inherit the Encyclopia, but that does not mean we have to forget about turning the other cheek and considering the content independently of the contributor. Vesal (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination - this person does not meet neither Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria nor Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals. The article is mainly about him speaking or coing-this or coing-that. Even if Debrett's is a reliable source (questionable), what notability deos the article there give? The Royal Institution sounds posh, but the only criterion for joining it, according to their homepage is "...an enquiring mind." Is there a book about N. Beale? Are there a number of newspaper articles specifically about him? Is John Polkinghorne so famous that co-authoring a book with him confers notability? I would suggest not. As for the Faraday Institues reliability - the biography there is short and contains little to establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. -Duribald (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I would vote weak keep if the article were trimmed down so that self-promotional fluff is removed. There is a clear lack of coverage directly about the subject in independent sources, but my question to people concerned about the sources is the following: if the current sources were used for non-controversial facts only, would this be workable? Vesal (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends what you mean by "non-controversial," Vesal. WP:V says we may use material the subject has written only if it is not unduly self-serving and the article doesn't depend on such sources. The problem in this case is that, if you were to remove the self-promotional material, there would be very little left. Debrett's has just confirmed by e-mail that they don't fact-check entries, by the way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Slim is relying on his "analysis" of the sources which I happened to have been the only one who responded to. See my rebuttal here: Considering these facts, I'd argue you've over-stated the issue of notability. In my opinion the article fails to meet deletion requirements. It is seems there is a persistent yet unjustified preclusion of NBeale's relationship with very notable professors such as John Polkinghorne and how it promotes the challenge of importance in his field of study. I also would like to point out a rather unfortunate usage of begging the question to further an argument by Duribald. I'm sure this was unintentional as it is a common method of persuasion. There are 3rd party sources in the article and essays authored by him have been published in the Harvard Business Review and the Sunday Times. He was also referred to directly in a review by Publishers Weekly. I do not dispute the obvious issue of self-promotion and a dire need to control questionable references but Beale certainly meets, in the least, minimal notability requirements. I feel the article discussion has been a victim of wikipedia legalism which has distracted from the core concern: Is the subject (Nicholas Beale) notable? Yes, he is. To what degree I cannot say because I am not an expert in BLPs and have had my share of losing AFDs but in my opinion this is a no-brainer. I encourage a no-consensus resolve and would hope those who endorse a delete make an attempt to collaborate within the article discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A biography of a living person can be deleted if it significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy and the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. This article blatantly violates the neutrality policy - it's, in fact, a vanity article created by the subject of the article himself. It would need to be substantially rewritten to become encyclopedic. This in itself would be grounds for speedy deletion. Most of the material is poorly sourced, violating WP:V. It violates BLP over and over again. Maybe a case could be made for including an N. Beale article on Wikipedia, but then it should be completely rewritten, and not by the subject himself, and be checked before publication, so that all of it complies with policy. -Duribald (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (and not in any sense a !vote, since I have not yet given sufficient consideration to the matter to !vote): The above debate is defective in a number of respects.

    1) BLPs do not default to "delete" and the burden of proof is on everyone to examine the sources.

    2) AfD should not consider the current content of the article, but its potential. You should !vote delete if, and only if, you consider Nicholas Beale should be a redlink on Wikipedia.

    3) WP:COI is not in itself sufficient reason to delete an article. It is an argument ad hominem and as such a logical fallacy. If Barack Obama had written the article on himself, he would still be notable.

    4) Puffery is a reason to rewrite from a NPOV, but it is not a reason to delete.

    I would also like to point out that SlimVirgin is not a "he".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see any evidence in how the article is a self-promotion or advertisement of Beale's accomplishments and published work. Plenty of articles on active wikipedia editors could be accused of self-promotion, such as Elonka Dunin and David Eppstein. Self-promotion implies fact-picking and relying on information that only promotes a positive POV. As far as I'm concerned, the article is not unique in such respect. While the content may appear to be spun depending on your perspective, considering it is a rather new article and has been a target of deletion since the get-go it would be unfair to subjugate the article to the commonly applied policy-as-usual argument. We should all ask ourselves, does the article have potential? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree strongly. Policy-as-usual absolutely applies to this article.

    The questions we should consider in this AfD are the normal ones we would consider for a biography of a scholar: What influential papers has he written? How frequently are they cited? Has he been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources?

    Until these questions are addressed thoroughly, we shall not have had a proper debate on this article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By policy-as-usual I'm referring to the common tactic of citing typical policies with little rationale outside of the policy itself. (i.e, articles fails x because of [insert weak/vague justification].) Then after a response another policy is brought up and the vicious cycle continues without end. Uh, in terms of work...we have Questions of Truth and the multiple RS that have given the book a platform. He has written a moderate number of essays which have been published in popular magazines and academic mediums as mentioned in the discussion and here. And, he has developed strong relationships with influential doctors/professors/etc...that have played a role in his actions. I'm simply reiterating what has been said before. I really don't see the reasoning behind this extremely hostile attempt to delete outside of personal POV. Wikipedia has settled for similar articles with far less notability. Oh wait, let me guess...WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I believe that the article's subject may come close to being notable, the current article does not contain enough appropriate evidence of this (in spite of considerable edits by the not-put-off-by-WP:COI editor NBeale). Slim's analysis of the article's sources is pertinent here, and she is to be commended for taking the time to produce this (by contrast, my eyes had rolled out my head at the shamelessness of the sources before I had perused all of them). As already noted above, claimed expertise in social philosophy would be expected to be backed up with appropriate evidence from the literature, rather than a passing comment made by a speaker (however name-droppingly eminent) at a promotional event for a book published by the subject. And there's a lot of co-this and co-that going on in the article. Collaboration is a key feature of modern academic life, but the specific contributions of the article's subject need to be clearer. Finally, it's not relevant to this forum, but to echo several other editors, the behaviour of this article's subject in essentially drafting the article, soliciting off-Wiki for its restoration to mainspace, dogged self-promotion and his refusal to bow out of WP:COI-situations, all contribute to the feeling that Wikipedia is being bullied into providing advertising space. This all makes cool, objective assessment of notability difficult. --PLUMBAGO 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he's notable as you say, then your !vote should be "stubbify and keep". A !vote to delete an article on a subject you admit to be notable is, I think, clearly incorrect.

    I agree that SlimVirgin's analysis of the sources is very pertinent. She has done a lot of the work of this AfD for us already.

    I think SlimVirgin has shown that most of the article's current sources are deprecable in some way. They could be used, provided there were secondary sources as well. What SlimVirgin has left for us to consider is whether other sources could be found.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and Cunard is the winner! (Cunard didn't mention the google scholar search he doubtless did, but google scholar doesn't come up with anything either).

Delete. Not because the article is promotional, not because it's puffery, not because of who the author is, and not because the sources presently in the article are dodgy. Delete it because insufficient sources exist to write this article properly.

I would also support a redirect to Questions of Truth as a possible outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • S Marshall — Erm, perhaps I was being overly courteous and needlessly unclear when I said "may come close to being notable" (my emphasis). I am unconvinced by the article's current sourcing that the subject is notable; I doubt (from my own limited searches) that reliable sources currently exist that would change my mind; but I did not wish my words to rule out notability for all time. My apologies for being mealy-mouthed. --PLUMBAGO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there really are enough reliable sources within WP:V to establish the basic facts - now described on the article's talk page here. NBeale (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you, NBeale. But WP:V isn't at issue here, we're looking at WP:N.

    I'd like to refer you to User:Uncle G/On notability for an excellent essay on the subject.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - I thought you were saying that insufficient sources exist to write this article properly - not that the subject was non-notable. However I'm now on Wikibreak (see below). NBeale (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the case. My position is that it is verifiable that Nicholas Beale exists, is a professor, and has written books, but he is not notable enough to have an article because insufficient secondary scources exist. Therefore the article cannot be written properly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage in 3rd party sources of the subject is lacking, and while he has written books that are notable it does not follow that he is notable because of this. Redirect to Questions of Truth is fine too. Nableezy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am impressed by the arguments of Gnusmas and Plumbago, above. Attempts at objective assessment of the merits of an article on Nicholas Beale are undermined by NBeale's determined and persistent efforts to plead his case. I am amazed that he seems not to realise that each time he does this he makes it appear less likely that he has genuine notability. If he were really notable, he would not need to keep on digging up scraps of evidence to impress us, and we would be able to find something better than the largely self-generated evidence of notability by association that he offers on his own behalf. I appreciate that the article should be judged on its own merits, and not on the behaviour of its principal author, but the frenetic activity of the subject's alter-ego NBeale tends to provide compelling evidence of Nicholas Beale's non-notability. It also prompts us, perhaps, to take some account of the motives behind such eager self-promotion, and that is bound to colour our assessment of the article. And I'm sorry, but I conclude that this article is not an honest attempt to add value to the encyclopaedia but a hijacking of Wikipedia for personal ends. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am really of no opinion on the deletion of the article, although it should certainly rely less on NBeale's own work if kept. However, I am troubled by the re-occuring and consistent tendency of NBeale to create, edit, and advocate for articles in which he has a direct connection. Pastordavid (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nick, I strongly urge you to heed Pastordavid's wise words here. (I should declare a — not very significant — interest, as Nick and I are members of the same running club) NSH001 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks - I'll take a wikibreak If the community wants "Wikipedia Legalism" and an "extremely hostile attempt to delete" to succeed, in blatant violation of WP:NPA and common sense, then by all means continue. We all know that what Wikifan says is true - it is up to others how they will act. I'll take a wikibreak for a week or two. NBeale (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the arguments placed by Nbeale regarding the veracity and applicable gravitas that the sources used by Nbeale to establish notability and concede that as a whole there may be an element of independent third party verification of notability; however I am very concerned that nobody but Nbeale is inclined to "mine" such evidence of notability, that no-one has apparently decided that Nicholas Beale is worthy of an encyclopedia entry and exercised the dilegence and resources in assembling a variety of marginal third party sources and references and amalgamating them to provide a semblence of notability. No one, other than the editor who is also the subject. That the sources may have gained much of their content and viewpoint from similar efforts by the subject is an implication that carries much weight with me, and one that Nbeale has not answered sufficiently in any way. I argue for Delete on the basis that should Nicholas Beale have notability established, then an editor other than Nbeale will desire to create an article from sources that are readily available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the above discussion and the article and don't see notability per WP:BIO. In particular, the analysis at Talk:Nicholas Beale convinces me that while the subject may have many virtues, none warrant an encyclopedic article. The article info box says the subject is known for "Science and Religion [and] Corporate Governance", but the article seems to say that the subject's contribution was to arrange discussions, make suggestions, and appear in radio interviews. There are some minor publications, but they don't support notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Questions of Truth. GNUSMAS : TALK 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a strong note of concern about a hybrid concern of the borderline obvious COI mentioned (the editor has a name remarkably similar to the article's name) and all the drama surrounding this. I'm very inclined to suggest at least a temporary salting per the issues mentioned per nom.Tyrenon (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about suggesting a salting but the subject could very easily become notable in the future. I believe that NBeale should be barred from editing this page (regardless of whether he is or is not actually Nicholas Beale). OlYellerTalktome 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace While I still support a Keep it is clear that a delete is most likely in order. I endorse a redirect to QOT and moving the article to NBeale's userspace for further revisions and rewrites. NBeale could re-submit the article at a later time if it meets the notability requirements posed by policy and interpretation. I certainly think there is enough to allow the article to be hosted as a sub-page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern with this article is that it keeps coming up again and again. I hate to say it, but we have an article of questionable notability (at best) being constantly re-tendered by the person it's about (or it at least looks that way to me). I have trouble taking an article with borderline notability and the definite feel of a vanity page seriously, particularly after the drama here.Tyrenon (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record NBeale does claim to be Nicholas Beale. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then this makes this particular page all the more agitating. The article is borderline at best on notability; the fact that it has been put here by Mr. Beale and has all the aforementioned issues, not to mention the fact that the article has been deleted before, undermine the credibility of any arguments towards notability. Were the article solidly notable this would not be an issue, but as I said the article is borderline at best.
Also frustrating in this case is the amount of hyperbole involved, not to mention the suspected meatpuppeting as evidenced above. As such, if the article is deleted, I believe that preventing recreation unless and until such time as the notability factor ceases to be questionable and the article is created/added by someone not either the subject of it or a friend/acquaintance thereof. Tyrenon (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he meets notable requirements, particularly in this field. In addition, I agree with the comments concerning 'legalism'. it's this sort of 'activist' editing and asymmetrical application of standards that is has seriously undermined wikipedias rapidly diminishing credibility. edit? sure, trim? sure. Delete is sorry attempt to stifle discussion. Disgraceful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between legalism and citing legitimately related Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For people to take your comment seriously, you may want to back up your claims with sound reasoning. If you're concerned with Wikipedia's credibility, don't you think that someone making a page about themselves is detrimental to that credibility? Also, you wouldn't happen to be a meatpuppet would you? I ask because you've been gone from Wikipedia for a while and have only come to AfD once before. I'm not saying that you are, just asking. OlYellerTalktome 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no i am not a 'meatpuppet' i have been gone from wikipedia because of my disgust with the bias. Sound reasoning, like calling me a 'meatpuppet'? I want to see an objective application of standards. I don't see that in wikipedia, I see an abusrd, agenda-driven bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment – Note the subject's latest off-wiki attempt to canvass support for his cause. What on earth have Dawkins and atheism to do with it? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As the one who recently moved this page back to full status, I feel that I should comment again. I feel that Nicholas Beale's work on "Questions of Truth" is reason enough to merit an entry on Wikipedia, and that his work with John Polkinghorne in other areas further supports that. As one who reads frequently on science and faith, I was surprised not to find an entry for N. Beale, and was further surprised to find that anyone felt the need to delete his entry in response to my move. I don't agree that this entry should be deleted. Sofsonline (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Sofsonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It was not deleted after you moved it from userspace to mainspace; it was simply moved back because you did it without a deletion review. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea. First, let me state that I do not feel that Mr. Beale is notable per our standards. However, since a large part of the problem with the article on Mr. Beale is Mr. Beale's repeated (and frankly somewhat irritating) tinkering with the article on him as well as canvassing off-wiki, I would like to make a compromise proposal:
    • The article can stay in a reduced, NPOV-checked form, but with the proviso that Mr. Beale will disbar himself from any edits to the article other than reverting vandalism, etc.
    • He will also not campaign in any way, shape, or form, on-wiki or off-wiki for anything concerning any article on him or his works as a conflict of interest (unless it is concerning defamation, vandalism, and whatnot).
    • If he is caught (or his friends are caught) trying to inflate the bio again, it goes as being unnotable and as being unmaintainable in an NPOV condition.
While I hate to let in an article that I honestly feel doesn't belong in here (i.e. it's on the "delete" side of the borderline), the borderline nature of the article combined with the many objections centering around Beale's involvement make it untenable in my mind. If Beale is willing to walk away, then the article might be maintained with an NPOV, but as long as he is going to be editing his own article then an NPOV will be nigh on impossible to obtain. In a major article this wouldn't be an issue, but considering the borderline status of the article I would rather not have an article that we can't NPOV (and have to worry about the subject writing and/or rewriting) than keep it. If it can be neutral, I'd be willing to give the article a chance for improvement, but as of now that's impossible and as such we're substantially better off without it than with it IMHO.Tyrenon (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I will support any rationale that ends in "Keep" your idea is less than orthodox. It would be unfair of us to give the article special privileges that are not explicitly endorsed by BLP policy. Many articles on active wikipedians have gotten trashed as a result of self-promotion (or accusations of such action) and COI. Nicholas Beale cannot be an autobiographical narrative of non-notable accomplishments. No precedent has been set outside of official mediation where judgments are made in how an article is edited that goes beyond policy. In other words, for your idea to work, the article would have to be submitted to MEDCAB or in the least mediated by an experienced BLP admin and only then could restrictions be dealt. This is all under the assumption that Beale is kept which appears to be highly unlikely. I strongly recommend a move to userspace and then re-submit the article following an intense rewrite. Beale needs to get out of his own article and let other people edit, this could be done in a non-encyclopedic sub-page. That seems like a more than fair compromise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the same page in general. As long as Beale is involved in his article, beyond reverting vandalism, slander, etc., the article will never be NPOV. I agree. If this article were to be kept in some form (and I do suspect that if it gets deleted it will be back before too long), though, I do think mediation might be in order as you described.Tyrenon (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse a move to userspace as long as it's not to NBeale's. OlYellerTalktome 05:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I have now trimmed the article to the extent that it is close to being neutral. The sources are not as good as one would want, there is no significant coverage in third-party sources, but also see this footnote from Uncle G's essay. That Debrett's and the Faraday institute decided to publish his more or less self-supplied bio does weigh something towards notability; and if these are used for extremely uncontroversial facts, then I don't see a problem. Note that I've utterly eradicated any mention of him being a social philosopher. Finally, that Grayling and Baggini has engaged with the subject has weight with me, and I've added citations to their blog postings. Vesal (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use the Debrett's or Faraday entries, because he wrote them and they weren't fact-checked. What is needed is a reliable source who was written about Beale independently of him, both to establish notability and to base the article on. In the absence of that, practically everything in this article would have to be removed. That we're forced to rely on blogs, which are not normally allowed in BLPs, would suggest we're going to make an exception for Beale, and I really see no reason to. It sends out the signal that persistent vanity editing will pay off eventually. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that having to resort to criticism on blogs (although they are fairly decent blogs) in order to establish notability indicates there is a problem, and I certainly don't want to commend NBeale for his vanity editing. In particular, his portrayals of editors concerned with notability issues are effectively personal attacks, and he should be firmly warned that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. As for myself, I seem to have a slightly lower standards than others on what is useful to keep and what is not, but I'm certainly not making an exception here due to being impressed by his self-advocacy. The case for delete is very strong even without him complicating things, but leaving behavioral issues aside, I personally believe the encyclopedia is better off with a short bio than without it. The article needs even more trimming, but I think my edits gave an indication of what a more neutral article may look like. If this is deleted, I certainly won't object. Best wishes, Vesal (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. What reliable sources there are cover the book, and the article on that subject was created by Mr. Beale also. So let's leave it at that and move along. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Plumbago and Slim. There's a real lack of independent third-party sources that attest to Beale's notability. If this is the best he can come up with, then it's pretty clear that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia bio. The book appears to be notable, but notability isn't inherited (and mind you, Beale is second author with a far more notable co-author). Guettarda (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep on balance, primarily because of the book with Pokingham, though I'd be much happier if he were the major author and it could be demonstrated. I said very week keep at the 2nd afd, but I think the role in the standards work is now better elucidated. DGG (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After all the work on this page, if this is the best we can collectively do, I don't think he's over the threshold, independent of all the COI issues - Vartanza (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the COI issues are ultimately any different from those that exist for the User:David Eppstein (who has been involved in this AFD process in various ways) and his own wikipedia article David Eppstein. Beale seems as notable as Eppstein (if not more so), only Eppstein's article claims to fame are more ivory tower and Beale's are more real world. Beale meets notability guidelines for a range of activities including co-authoring a book with John Polkinghorne. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Baker Library's physical collections include approximately 600,000 printed volumes, 4,000 working papers, 186,000 annual reports, over 1 million microform items, 23,000 linear feet of archives and manuscripts, and 31,000 photographs. Baker subscribes to nearly 4,000 serial and periodical titles." [50] I don't believe that all 600000 volumes were carefully picked , based on notability... Being in a library is not a notability criterion. -Duribald (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how many people can claim to have a book in both the Stanford Business School and Harvard Business School libraries? Both Stanford and Harvard randomly selected this book to include in their libraries? Not likely. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is: A lot of people. The bigger the library, the wider the range of books it possesses, obviously. -Duribald (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sufficiently well-funded specialist library will acquire almost everything on relevant topics. WorldCat shows 13,549 books just within Library of Congress class HD that are held in both those libraries. Of books specifically about "Corporations – Investor relations", there are 20 in both libraries. When those 20 books are ranked by the number of other libraries in which they're held, Beale's comes in at number 19. EALacey (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are tens of thousands of business books published every year. a library like Stanford or Harvard only a acquire a small fraction. And the ones they acquire are important to note.--Firefly322 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger the library, the more books, the less selective they have to be. The fact of the matter is that both libraries are likely to have books by thousands of less notable authors and considerable overlap. -Duribald (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really true. I've actually had several conversations with librarians at Stanford Business School and they are quite selective. AtStanford Business School they give much less weight to student book recommendations than to those of faculty. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not relevant to this AFD but I have to explain that the David Eppstein article exists because the subject unequivocally satisfies WP:PROF (the relevant guideline). Anyone with the remotest understanding of Eppstein's field can see at a glance (from the sourced description in the article) that he is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And which criterion in the notability guidelines does having published an article satisfy, exactly? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Read that guideline. It's not about getting something published, it's about having your publications cited and recognised as important. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As further note of Beale's "notability", I'd like to paste a quotation from Nobel Laureate Tony Hewish, written in the introduction to Questions of Truth: "Nicholas Beale has an outstanding reputation as a management consultant with particular expertise in information technology and was elected Freeman of the City of London in 1996. He is well known for his staunch support of Christianity". Sofsonline (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Sofsonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
What a surprise! Someone who is asked to contribute a foreword to a book says nice things about the author! Wow! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE is again satisfied. For the physicist and nobel laureate Tony Hewish regards Nicholas Beale as a peer who is important. It's subjective to discount such a peer endorsement simply because one thinks certain occasions call for someone to say nice things about another person. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been responsible for soliciting forewords to books from dozens of well-known people, I humbly submit that comments made in such a place are not independent sources on the notability of the subject, and therefore do not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, based on your lack of trust in others, it's unlikely that your experiences give any guidance in how to deal with forewords given by Nobel Laureates such as Antony Hewish. I'd be willing to wager none of your books can be found in highly selective locations on par with the selectivity of a Stanford Business School's or a Harvard Business School's library. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firefly, you seem over-enamored of that. It's a relatively easy matter to get a book into these libraries—by sending them a copy, for example. What is needed here is not a list of libraries who stock a certain book, but a reliable secondary source who has written about Nicholas Beale. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Firefly322 an invitation to withdraw this irrelevant and unwarranted personal attack. I will simply note here that he/she would lose that wager. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir. Using personal experiences to justify an AFD positioin and then claiming that criticism of that position is a personal attack is simply abuse of policy: i.e., wiki-lawyering. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a criticism of the position. But I do object to ignorant and irrelevant comments about me and my experience. I will leave this now, as it is getting ever further from the point at issue. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have edited Beale's entry to incorporate substantial coverage of Beale's publications in the mainstream UK press (The Times, Sunday Times and the Independent). For his work to receive such coverage would be reason I believe to consider him sufficiently notable for a WP article on him to be useful, let alone his more recent prominence due to the book he has co authored with John Polkinghorne. I have not added the numerous press articles covering this book as their focus is on Polkinghorne, not Beale, as the more famous of the two.Laura H S (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Laura H S (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Nothwithstanding all the history, serious people voting delete above, blog appeals, deletion reviews etc I have read the article as it stands now, followed some of the links and think that it reaches the standard normally required for notability. Actually I came here because I saw a note from an editor I respect looking for support to delete. It is true that the article came about the wrong way, that arguments over it are rather tedious and probably that the subject has irritated people. It is true that poor process was followed. By we are not about punishing people for what they did and I am sorry on the neutral question of notability, I think Wikipedia is better off with this article, notability is at least as good as many articles we have kept and it is a clear keep. --BozMo talk 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor, but notable according to our standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on which sources with substantial coverage? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no need to delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen-24[edit]

Oxygen-24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another isotope; again, delete it and redirect to isotopes of oxygen. Tyrenon (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. A merge proposal has already been made and the article tagged. Therefore, that discussion can take place on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen-15[edit]

Oxygen-15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A slightly more useful isotope of oxygen; I would be inclined to redirect and merge with the isotopes of oxygen page, noting the use of this one as such. Tyrenon (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you wish to merge it into the isotopes of oxygen page, I'm not sure that starting a deletion discussion is useful. Just go ahead and merge it. Just make sure that wherever you merge it to gets all the relevant information added. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isotopes of oxygen 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom.Synchronism (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into the isotopes article. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Merge}} does not require AfD - just go ahead and propose it or be bold. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep O-15 is used in PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and is therefore notable enough. I would prefer to merge it into isotopes of oxygen but that is a separate decision that can and should be decided outside of this process, in my opinion. As noted above WP:AFD is only to be used for articles that satisfy the deletion criteria such as notability or having ONLY bad (such as slander or copyright violation, etc.. ) information. 164.58.59.20 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's used and it's mentioned in hundreds of books, therefore it's notable. --Itub (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable by itself, or if needed, Merge with Isotopes of oxygen. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Isotopes of oxygen is my !vote. I think these can be usefully covered in the one article. A.C. Norman (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying it is a "more useful isotope of oxygen" is a reason to have an article about it, not a reason to delete such an article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Thoughts[edit]

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

Self-published work with zero third party coverage. Work is not even sold by Amazon or any other retailer as far as I can tell. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - self-published through Lulu apparently http://stores.l u l u.com/baylorsstore. No evidence offered or found to indicate awards or significant critical review to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Awol[edit]

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

I don't feel that a character speaking during the queue to people waiting for a ride meets with any degree of notability. That's all this character is. Tyrenon (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I feel that Albert Awol plays a vital role to the experience on the Jungle Cruise attraction at Magic Kingdom. The entire loop is meant to set up what is about to be experienced on the attraction. He may be a fictional character but it does not make him less important. In addition Albert Awol vocalizes a lot of information and refrences to the attraction itself that is otherwise unmentioned. The article is still under construction, there is much more info to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoorsfan71 (talk • contribs) — Thedoorsfan71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Do you have sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would offer a courteous disagreement even if all of the above is true. In that instance, I would suggest that adding information about the character at that attraction's article would be a better place for it. A separate article for a character such as this only makes sense in my mind if there is something else that the character is connected to.Tyrenon (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article will be expanded enough to stand on its own. The character plays a vital role in the park as well. He is a lead character in the setting of Adventureland, establishing a time, place and attitude of the area. Also, Albert Awol will be a character in the Jungle Cruise film.
  • agree. Albert Awol is an important character that sets up the style of comedy presents on the ride by the skippers. His announcements tie together all Jungle Cruise show scenes, the boats and show characters. He has become legendary by his humor and witty comments among cast members and hundreds of thousands of guest.As a contributing member of the Wikiproject Disneyland and the wikiproject Walt Disney World, I feel that this article will be expanded and be able to stand alone when completed. Alber Awol is a character vital to more than just the Jungle Cruise.Sfadisneyfreak (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Sfadisneyfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been on the version in Florida, I'm pretty sure that this could be rolled into the main article. The character is something akin to a minor character in a movie, if you will: Prominent enough to bear mention in the article, but not enough so as to get a full page on their own. As to the film, that seems to be caught in development hell. Stuff related to that will become notable if/when the film does come to pass.Tyrenon (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lack independant sourcing and even they dosn't support the claims of the people voting Keep. A minor character with no independant notability that might barely be worh merging, but doesn't even seem likely as a redirect target. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Disney Characters have article outside of their parent article. Take any Disney villain for example, or Tom Morrow 2.0. We have updated the Adventerland article to express the importance of Albert Awol to all of WDW's Adventureland. His broadcast is not limited to The Jungle Cruise, and is heard by an estimate of 55,000 a day. His character is also referenced in the now defunct Adventurers Club on Pleasure Island at Down Town Disney. As the Imagineering tale explains, the Jungle Navigation Co. (Jungle cruise) acquires the artifacts in association and with the Adventurers Club characters. These acquired artifacts are evident in the beginning of the Jungle Cruise queue where many cargo items are tagged for the Adventurers Club, and were also in the defunct bar. The article is not finished, but Albert Awol pertains to much more than just a queue loop.Sfadisneyfreak (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In research it has been discovered that a character named Albert Awol introduced Adventureland on the show, Wonderful World of Disney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfadisneyfreak (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I've added in a section on Mr. Awol in the main Jungle Cruise article. As to the Adventurers Club, I went there on several occasions (and I have several friends who went there regularly) and never heard of him there. Could we get specific sources for these additional claims?Tyrenon (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am contacting some of the actors from the club. From converstions with them, I have understood that Albert Awol is a character in their Operation Guide Script of Operations (OGSOP). Many skippers that I have worked with have brought up Albert in the show, and they will talk about him. Because the club shows consisted of so much improvisation, chances of being there while someone brought up the character is slim. I am also contacting a Skipper who managed to photograph every article in the club, with their descriptions. As I recall, Albert Awol is mentioned on some of the article's plaques. I do know for sure that many of the queue announcements by Skippers involved both Albert and the club characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfadisneyfreak (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do recall Albert Awol on the show. I agree that Albert's broadcast plays a major role in the atmosphere of both Adventurelnads in DL and WDW.Junglenav. (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Junglenav. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I mean I recall it on the Disneyland show.Junglenav. (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Existence isn't sufficient justification for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Deletion is overkill, but it's obvious there are insufficient sources to write a full article on the character. There's simply nothing to say about him from an out-of-universe perspective beyond perhaps a paragraph. By all means, include that paragraph in Jungle Cruise and maybe Adventureland, but a full article? Completely unnecessary. And I say this as a card-carrying member of WikiProject Disney, so put away the pitchforks. =) Powers T 20:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous. No notability asserted, no independent coverage. Eusebeus (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain smoking[edit]

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

The article has absolutely no references and has been tagged for lack of references for over a year. It is really not encyclopedic, but more of a dictionary definition. The largest part of article is simply a list of notable people the article lists as chain smokers. But the list has no references and could present a wp: BLP issue for some of the living subjects. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dictionary definition and unsourced BLPery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chain Delete. Sir Winston in this lineup of "rich and famous" ... what a disgrace. NVO (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We already have it on wiktionary and I fail to see anything this article can add beyond the definition. And the BLP issues only add to my opinion. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed the potential BLP issue at the beginning of May, but it was re-added when I wasn't paying attention. Removed it because, well, it's a potential BLP issue. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources can be found here, here, and here. Sebwite (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't so much about a lack of reliable sources. Chain smoking really does exist and nobody disputes that. What IS at dispute is whether an article needs to exist on it, rather than a dictionary entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The main problem with this article is that it is short; it simply has not been written. But there is a lot that can be written based on the hundreds of available sources. Being a stub or otherwise a short article is not grounds for deletion. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline when it comes to page construction. Deleting this article would be demolishing the house while it is still being built. This is a classic case of an article that needs to be given a chance. Sebwite (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article is 5 years old. I submit that it has certainly had a chance. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter if it is 5 or even 10 years. That is not the issue. People have to know that an article exists in the first place to be able to improve it. Sebwite (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just saying.....5 years, links to nearly 100 articles....not hard to find, so the "give it time" reasoning isn't really resonating with me. And my reason for the delete isn't that it's short, it's that this is better suited to be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedic topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of reliable sources available to take this way beyond a dicdef. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NAD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything useful to Smoking, an article that mainly covers the smoking of tobacco - recent additions seem to indicate some encyclopedic value, but not enough to justify a seperate article. Pedro :  Chat  22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator wants references? I just added a couple - it was easy as there are thousands of sources out there. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, the nominator doesn't really want references. Of course there are references to it. It's more a matter of this not being an encyclopedic topic, but instead being better suited for a dictionary. I thought I was pretty clear about that in the nomination, but maybe the bold print will get your attention this time. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some citations to encyclopedias to demonstrate that your contention is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't change my nomination. I stick by it. For example, your "source" about chain smoking being a symptom of addictive behavior....a symptom. Counting the number of steps you take every time you walk somewhere is a symptom of illness too, but I don't think we need an article on that either. Just because someone uses the phrase, you want it to be a "source". Your response almost borders on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, just in other books. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know WHY one might count steps, but that article is about a DEVICE that does that function, which is different. Either you completely missed the point (which I doubt) or you are being something else. Further discussion with you will clearly not be productive. Obviously I wasn't the only person who though deleting it was a good idea, so regardless of the outcome, I am fine with my nomination. I just did what others are thinking. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about you, but since you raise the point, please note the correct process to be followed when you feel an article lacks merit. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Smoking Keep or merge into Smoking (new sources found; see below). The mentioned "sources" don't seem to provide any actual information about the phenomenon. "was drinking beer" returns 525 Google Scholar and 2,450 Google News results. According to that logic, was drinking beer would also easily pass both WP:N and WP:V. If there are no sources that specifically address the subject—and I couldn't find such sources myself—I'd say it clearly falls under WP:NOTDIC. — Rankiri (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "was drinking beer" is a sentence fragment. Sentence fragments are generally not notable for articles. We all know that. But "chain smoking" is not just a term. It is a concept, and the sources show it is a concept. Concepts if properly sourced or even if they can be are by far notable for articles. Already, this article, though short, describes some aspects about chain smoking. This goes beyond simply defining it. It is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. That alone with the other sources should make it notable. True, the article is short, but an article being short is not a criteria for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point being that if a concept is unsourced, it's not a notable concept. Most of the Google Scholar and Google News results use the term in a manner very similar to my earlier "was drinking beer", to describe excessive use of tobacco in general and not some specific medical term in particular: "her eyes stared into space; anxiety was manifested as hand-twisting, leg-crossing, lip-biting and chain smoking", "in front of the television, chain smoking, immobile, passive", "she was chain-smoking while talking and occasionally laughed nervously." This is not not what I would call reliable sources and nontrivial coverage. Additionally, if you don't like "was drinking beer", "excessive smoking" returns 2,600 Google Scholar and 1,470 Google News results. Trivial results like that don't establish notability. — Rankiri (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a lot of them may have some trivial mention. But being in the DSM-IV is not trivial. In other words, it is an actual medical disorder, and medical disorders are generally notable. If you were to google the term "violent crime" for example, you may get a lot of hits in which the phrase has some trivial meaning. But the phrase Violent crime refers to an actual cultural phenomenon and a social problem, just like "chain smoking" does. Before ruling this out as "trivial," I would look at each and every one of those hits. All it takes is just a few to be notable. Sebwite (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm not claiming that notable sources on the subject don't exist. I'm saying that indiscriminate Google Scholar and News results cannot be counted as valid replacement for actual nontrivial sources and that I wasn't successful in finding any of such sources myself. If the only thing we can agree on is the definition, then WP:NOTDIC does seem to be the most appropriate guideline. — Rankiri (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's issues were: 1.) BLP, 2.) no refs, 3.) dicdef. The BLP issue has been solved with the removal of the list of names. The ref issue has been solved with several reliable sources being added. And the dicdef issue has been solved, as several facts, that would not be contained in a dictionary, albeit short, have been added. Being short does not automatically classify something as a dicdef. If you read the article as it is, it does not look like what you would find in a dictionary. A dictionary simply defines a word or phrase, and perhaps tells about its origin. A dictionary will not provide info like the causes of a disorder. Sebwite (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, what reliable sources are you talking about? I just rechecked all five references given on Chain smoking and none of them indicate notability. Please, correct me if I'm wrong:
Reference 1 is restricted, but from what I can see, the author clearly makes no distinction between compulsive smoking and chain smoking and only uses the phrase once, in a highly colloquial manner: "The chain smoker is another example. Dr.Mandell believes that the truly compulsive smoker's body craves what will really harm him the most."
Reference 2 only seems to contain the following quote: "Even in nonsmokers, co-use of crack and nicotine results in chain smoking."
Reference 3, one trivial mention: "In the DSM-IV chain-smoking is given as an example of a great deal of time being devoted to substance use. But chain-smoking is usually combined with other activities...
Reference 5 places its only actual, highly insignificant mention of chain smoking in quotes:"...a "chain smoker" (continuous smoking and therefore not realistic for long time periods) requires a high rate of ventilation air to maintain a low concentration of RSPs in a perfectly mixed room..."
Reference 4 is the only one that could possibly be considered as a viable source, but, from the bits and pieces I can see, it only gives the term a very brief introduction and then goes on to define it in a very specific context of its own clinical research.
   One disputably applicable source is not a sign of notability, and I still see no good reason to treat the term as an encyclopedic concept and not an common idiom it so convincingly appears to be. From WP:NOTDIC: All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way... Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted... — Rankiri (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: DSM-IV contains two highly trivial uses of the phrase and does not address the subject in any significant detail. As seen on Amazon, the book's index doesn't list the term at all. — Rankiri (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDIC was solved? Really? In your OPINION it was solved. Others here seem to feel this is nothing more than adding to something that is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Please don't confuse your opinion with a "solution". Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When coming across an article with no references, it is best to find references for the article and add them rather than moving to delete the article. This is a legitimate term, and a great deal can be written about with sources. Kingturtle (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, when trying to defend an article with no references, it is best to search for references by your own instead of voting keep with no regard to the fact that all previous attempts to find reliable sources have failed. Besides, I don't see how classifying the article as WP:DICDEF can make any impact on the legitimacy of the term. — Rankiri (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure if there hasn't been some canvassing going on with respect to this nomination.[51] Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes asking someone to render an opinion "canvassing"? Have you read WP:CANVASS? The request was neutrally worded. It simply asks the editor to look at the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason, you chose to leave your note to an editor who claims on his user page to be a "proud deletionist/reductionist," who makes no claim I can see to a particular interest in the particular topic of the nomination. See the "Votestacking" section of WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." But if there is some reason you chose to inform this particular user of the AfD for some reason other than the view on deletions he expresses on his userpage, then I apologize for my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out on your talk page, I listed several AfD discussions for him. 2 are contested, the others are well on their way to deletion. You ignored that and only left your "warning" on the 2 that are contested. No warning posted on the ones that the community is clearly voting to delete. There is no logic in your selectivity. If you feel there was "votes stacking" on 2, it should have been on all of them. If the same neutrally worded message was not "vote stacking" for the others, then it isn't for this one. In other words, your actions betray your excuse. Further, I didn't even look at the editors userpage, I went straight to his talk page, having seen him involved in several of the AfD discussions I participated in today. Feel free to check and see that I've OPPOSED some AfD's from that particular editor and haven't ever posted to his user page before. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only left comments (not warnings) that I am "not sure" if canvassing is occurring on the pages for which any canvassing would be relevant. For the 2 that are obvious deletions, who cares whether or not any canvassing is occurring? Why bother leaving a comment on those? And I don't see why you would want me to - if my comment was incorrect (or even if it was correct), I wouldn't think you would want me to repeat it to an even wider audience. Since you state that you did not read the editor's user page and say that you were unaware of his clear deletionist sympathies when you left the note, then there was obviously a misunderstanding, and I retract my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty simple. If "vote stacking" was happening, then it was happening on all the ones listed, not just the 2 that are contested. The fact that I listed several, including ones that, by your own admission, didn't need his vote at all, should have given you pause and reason to WP:AGF instead of selectively making assertions of wrong-doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct. If vote stacking was happenning, it was happenning at all 4 AfDs. But I only chose to bother commenting on the 2 where I thought it mattered. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it wouldn't make sense to stack it in the ones that aren't even close. And now that editor has voted as merge and re-direct....which kind of hurts your theory.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to smoking. The article has morphed from primarily being a random list of names of chain-smokers to primarily being a content fork.Tyrenon (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Cleanup. Yes, the article needs improvement but I say NO MERGE for multiple reasons. (1) The page on Smoking is already very long and I will not stand by making it any longer. (2) This topic is clearly notable as a topic in and of itself: [52] shows 4700+ hits, [53] shows ~21,500 hits. There are scientific definitions of chain smoking and the topic has been studied extensively in scientific work published in peer-reviewed journals. This is FAR above and beyond coverage necessary to justify a standalone page. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this topic needing a stand-alone page. Let's turn our discussion on how to improve the page and not get lost in misguided ideas of deleting material just because it's bad. Cazort (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please point me to those scientific definitions of chain smoking or any of scientific works published in peer-reviewed journals that discuss it? If you can't, please take a look at my earlier comments about irrelevance of the search results you just mentioned. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you were the one who introduced the reference, I assume you can also give us more details about its coverage of chain smoking? "Chain smoking" "Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior" shows no evidence that the article uses "chain smoking" as a concept and not an ordinary synonym for "continuous smoking":
Effects of chain-smoking, a 15-h smoking abstinence, and the nicotine yield of cigarettes on puff indices were studied in eight healthy smokers by using a controlled crossover study design. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1631188) — Rankiri (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it could get any more explicit and directly relavant than this--The effect on expiratory flow rates of smoking three cigarettes in rapid succession.--in terms of studying chain smoking. And that article does use the term. That's one article of many. Cazort (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count 6 delete votes, 5 keep and 2 redirect. How do you read that as "overwhelmingly in favor" of the topic being a stand-alone? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. I said the evidence, not the "vote" count, was overwhelmingly in favor. People arguing to delete have made comments about the page being unsourced, but have not addressed the fact that a wealth of good sources exist. And people arguing to delete based on BLP concerns? What relevance does this have? That's grounds for removing BLP material from the article--and I totally agree with these concerns and the offending material has already been removed--so it's a moot point. Given the fact that the article has been changed those comments seem to no longer apply at all. Cazort (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not imagine things. The reason I've been so active on this discussion is because it's ridden with WP:ATA arguments like WP:GHITS or WP:IKNOWIT, personal opinions, "hit-and-run" votes, false referencing and other misleading fluff that had no verifiable supportive evidence behind it. Most editors voted keep without examining the Google Scholar results, even though it's quite clear that most of those results don't acknowledge "chain smoking" as a concept and only use it as an loosely defined colloquialism. Since false references and unsupported claims of alleged notability can't be counted as legitimate sources, the article link you provided yesterday leads to the first actual source in this entire conversation. It's not perfect but it's a good start. I'm changing my original position to Keep or merge with Smoking. — Rankiri (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that google hits alone doesn't ever argue anything, and that merely a phrase occurring in many reliable sources doesn't mean that it's a useful and notable concept. Now that you have explained your arguments, I agree that this is not as clear-cut as I thought it was...yes, it's a colloquialism, but its use in peer-reviewed journals, certainly not always exactly consistent from one article to the next, usually corresponds rather roughly to the common-usage of the term. The way I see the scientific articles is that there's a rather loose concept, which is hard to pin down exactly, but is nonetheless an important topic in and of itself, important enough for researchers to study it--although researchers typically choose their own definition to fit their needs of what they are trying to study. I do see the room for argument here--that it's not quite well-defined enough; it is a bit nebulous I admit. But I think the different usages of the term fall close-enough together that it's worth keeping. Cazort (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous topics which are difficult to define exactly, such as socialism, and many of these are scientific, such as dark energy. There is no policy argument for deletion on these grounds. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say it was a vote. It was a short way of summing up what has transpired so far. Others here have been disputing some of those "good sources". It's not "overwhelmingly in favor", no matter how you try to spin it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty notable, goes far beyond a dicdef. Cleanup, don't merge. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You can expand this article, but it will just be a lot of writing over something that can be explained in just one sentence. Put it in adictionary and leave it. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.3.53.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Damn! I make an edit and it takes 30 seconds for someone to come in and start labelling me a SPA. I've made 20 other edits today about 20 other topics. How many does it take before I'm not a SPA? 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on this discussion. — Rankiri (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at the account, ......you templated him/her 4 minutes after his/her first vote. Then went to something like 15-20 different articles and posted the same tamplate. I've looked at them and I saw more than the one you claimed that was WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:JNN. These are something more than JNN: [54] , [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] and this article. In all those I listed, the editor did more than just say "not notable" and in NONE of them did the editor do a WP:JUSTAVOTE. You also failed to add that he/she voted to keep or redirect in 3-4 of them too. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brandy's sixth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. While in the works, it is as yet untitled and with only a vague release date. I'd drop it with no prejudice to recreation upon the announcement of a solid release date (or at least a name). Tyrenon (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3 by User:Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towns in North Western Province, Sri Lanka[edit]

Towns in North Western Province, Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Empty list, no content. DonaldDuck (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notable episodes in a notable series. Malinaccier (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cha-Ka[edit]

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

Much like other series, individual episodes of Land of the Lost are not inherently notable. I propose that this and the following other episodes be merged into the List of Land of the Lost episodes pages and deleted as non-notable.

Other episode pages:

Delete. not notable.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a batch of episodes just after you tagged. Sorry for doing so; this page auto-created, and it took about 5 minutes to add all the episode titles in and get the links working.Tyrenon (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Above listed articles are purely recap of the show and encyclopedia is not the place to find such information. No real world notability established for the episodes. Corpx (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#PLOT specifies that "articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context", not that they should be deleted. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pending the lack of any real world notability, these articles cannot be improved beyond their plot summaries. Corpx (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ruigeroeland (talk) I don't understand: why are episodes of other series notable? I mean, all episodes of "The Office" are featured on wikipedia. Why are these notable and these are not? The Office is a hot series right now, but this one might have been back in the day. If it is not notable enough though, I guess the hard work this user put into this must be preserved by adding the info on the page with the episode list.

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ruigoreland, I've been wondering the same thing. I honestly don't think every episode of any series meets the prescribed standards for being encyclopedic. Some shows will have a few that are encyclopedic, some will have a decent number (MASH probably has a decent stack, for example, but nowhere near the 200+ episodes the series had).Tyrenon (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe making a list featuring all the info would be the best thing for most series, but I guess same thing would apply for "The Office", "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons". Making an article about every episode because the series is popular now and not doing so because a series is older seems a bit unfair. I mean, if Seinfeld or the X-Files would premiere this year, it would have an article for every episode, but because these are older series, it is not allowed to make an article about every episode. This seems somewhat strange to me. Ruigeroeland (talk)
  • Comment / Keep all. I have to agree that there is an unfair standard for articles depending on whether they are recent or older. The argument that there are no third party sources is only because not much appears on the article. But undoubtedly in 1974 reviews were written, statistics taken, and of course every episode had its own creative conception. The problem is that such information all came out before the internet, and finding all of this is no easy task. I tend to agree that some episodes should be kept for each TV series…for example, in this series, the episodes "Cha-Ka", "The Stranger", and (the not yet created) "Circle" all deserve recognition. But discussions about Wikipedia policy are not going to be decided here, of course. And I tend to think that, as Ruigeroeland said, if other television series get every episode, why not Land of the Lost, which is a cult classic? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question of whether or not to merge these is primarily a matter of style and has no place here. Myself, I do not care all that much, as long as the content is kept. In practice, that means keeping the articles to avoid gradual removal down to tv guide status. NOT TV GUIDE and NO TEASERS is violated much more by the excessively brief episode sections, not by the separate articles. DGG (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles may be wanting in content and quality, but the solution is obviously not to delete them.--Jpwrunyan (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but also admit that NPOV is a total sham The one TV episode in history that might be notable enough to warrant its own article is the episode of Maude where she get an abortion, although I'm probably dating myself with that one! This article is not notable at all and should be deleted. But also look at Tomorrow Is Yesterday and tell me it meets notability. The implicit reason other posters have not suggested cleaning house is because they know the fan community would defend even the most inane Star Trek article. Let's just admit that we keep un-notable articles on shows we like, but not on ones we don't. And this is one we don't.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree with you on this point. There are a lot of episodes that really ought to be merged into seasonal lists, both because they're not notable in and of themselves (paper or not, there is a line somewhere) and because there are dedicated wikis to load the details into. Alas, to quote someone else, it's like Klinger trying to get a Section 8.Tyrenon (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable show written by some very notable science fiction writers. Since the articles are being lumped together We can't discuss individual episodes. I would recommend redirecting them to a list, and working on the more notable episodes there. This could be handled without going through AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cha-Ka and The Stranger (Land of the Lost); Neutral, leaning towards merge on the rest. I did a Google Books search to see if there was any critical discussion of the episodes of this series; I found this book, which has substantial discussion of the series but not much on individual episodes. While I'm generally inclusionist, the apparent absence of reliable sources discussing these episodes means that I don't oppose merging them into a list of episodes. However, there was some material for "Cha-Ka" and "The Stranger", which I have added to the articles; I think these establish notability for these two episodes. (The Erickson book also has some material which could/should be added to other episode articles, but I think these are the only ones in this batch which get close treatment.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two that Josiah mentions, merge the rest unless sources can be found for them as well, in which case keep those too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources to The Sleestak God, Downstream (Land of the Lost), Album (Land of the Lost), and Skylons. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (my vote is above ^). According to information I found while searching, the DVDs all include commentaries, interviews, and other information — of course, this is second party, not third party, sources, but the inclusion of this material would merit "Conception" or "Production" sections to the articles, making them more encyclopedic. In other words, the sources everyone is asking for are out there, they just take someone willing to dig deep. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are notable. This was a very popular children's series. Most children episodes are listed. If you delete these, you need to delete ALL.... General Eisenhower (talk · contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete but there is a consensus to merge. Since there's already a merge tag on the page, I see no point in adding another big purple one. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen-13[edit]

Oxygen-13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All of this information can be found on the Isotopes of Oxygen page (or could be added with ease). I cannot find guidelines on whether "minor" isotopes (i.e. ones that are not regularly discussed or regularly used for something) are notable, but the stub-like nature of this article and the easy condensability into a single isotopes article suggest that the inclusion of this article is superfluous. Tyrenon (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-direct and Merge with oxygen. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isotopes of oxygen 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, to Isotopes of oxygen. There is no need to bring this here, be bold and do it.Synchronism (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the isotopes article. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Merge}} does not require AfD - just go ahead and propose it or be bold. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete: I could not find anything remotely notable (after a quick search to be certain) about this isotope. On the other hand the rationale given for delete is invalid. (It is a very good reason for merging and redirecting the information, though.) As noted above, permission is not needed to merge and redirect this. 164.58.59.20 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct and Merge with Isotopes of oxygen. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or just redirect to isotopes of oxygen. In my opinion, the "stub-like nature of this article and the easy condensability" are not sufficient justifications for deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then discuss merging. AfD is not the method/place to discuss merging. This isotope is also notable on its own and deserves a separate article.Biophys (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is prime candidate for merging: full of useful data about a larger topic, itself reasonably short. Thus, on procedural grounds cited by Biophys, keep. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Goldberg[edit]

Michael L. Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Relevent google search: [61] turns up some resume websites, but no substantial content about this person. Google News turned up NO hits at all. Therefore, it is likely that this person does not meet the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N and WP:BIO. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 yet another Nickelodeon hoax article. ... discospinster talk 13:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular! 2[edit]

Spectacular! 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax - references used don't talk to this in any way. NrDg 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkleberry Shortcake[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ORG, and may well be a hoax. Tyrenon (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7, as no assertion of significance or importance was made in this article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Pack Comedy Troupe[edit]

Wolf Pack Comedy Troupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college comedy group, with no evidence of any achievement as entertainers. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Their claim to notability is "pioneering the rise of college comedy troupes in the city of Reno, Nevada.", which to me is not a very good claim considering the lack of coverage Corpx (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Limousines (band)[edit]

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

WP:BAND a signed band on a notable label, however no releases yet. Lets wait for those first. Gigs (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Simply being signed to a notable label isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sadly - because the article has been rewritten really well - the arguments for deletion, as summarized by Megeboz, are compelling and I must give them determinative weight per WP:DGFA. While the article is now verifiable, the thorough discussion shows that notability (as determined by significant coverage in reliable sources) is lacking. I'll userfy this on request.  Sandstein  05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIRCStats[edit]

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

Non notable software with no reliable sources to back any potential claim to notability Theserialcomma (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is only one book source listed here, and it is a single, trivial mention. not exactly WP:Notable material. the other book you listed, doesn't have mIRCStats at all. you also put a third link, which is really the same exact url as the second. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial mentions do not make for substantial coverage of the subject. Miami33139 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the added references. I still say this does not pass notability. Miami33139 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've rewritten and expanded this article and it now makes a firm assertion of notability. It now contains more than enough references to satisfy WP:N, including a college textbook:
    Gaise, Ted J.; Schreiner, Anthony E. (2009-04-01). A Guide to Conducting Online Research (1st ed.). SAGE Publications. p. 165. ISBN 1412922909.
    The nominator clearly did not attempt to fix this article when plenty of references are available. Google.com alone turns up almost 85,000 results[65] and Google images turns up over 1,700 results[66] Contrary to User:Theserialcomma and User:Miami33139's assertions above, plenty of information is available for this subject but it is clear neither individual desired to actually improve the article. WP:BEFORE states: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." The WP:GNG also states: "Multiple sources are generally preferred", but it does not state that they are required, only that they be reliable.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those give "significant coverage", as they're all mostly just trivial mentions. Which references specifically give this script significant coverage? Corpx (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this isn't a script, this is a standalone program and in fact this was the very first statistical program ever written to process IRC logs (many other similar programs have since been written but only a handful have become popular enough to meet WP:N). The textbook I've referenced and mentioned above and the information in the Critical reception section of the article make it very clear that this software is very much notable. Tothwolf (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, none of those qualify as significant coverage from a reliable source. Corpx (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite by Tothwolf; the book reference, as well as the section entitled "Critical reception" indicate to me that this is notable enough for inclusion. NW (Talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no notability has been shown. all these 'sources' are self-published, or irrelevant download links. where is the independent notability? a single trivial mention in one book? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment for closing admin: no notability has been shown. There are still no reliable sources. The article has been filled with self-published fluff in an attempt to make it look legit. Please keep this in mind when counting votes vs counting the valid points of the voters. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, thanks. I really don't appreciate being called a "per above" voter; I really don't think that was necessary. As for the article itself: I saw notability in Tothwolf's comment about how this one program revolutionized IRC logging, which when backed up even with one book, is enough for inclusion in my eyes. That textbook there certainly fulfills WP:Verifiability. NW (Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
of which text/book are you referring? the one with the single, trivial mention? does that really count as substantial coverage? a single, trivial mention, only one time, in some random book == notability? Theserialcomma (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the previous version was in a sorry state, and could be deleted for lack of context/unclear notability, the recent expansion by Tothwolf is very well written, neutral, and gives context to users unfamiliar with the program. I'm frankly surprised at the 52,000 downloads for an IRCstat program (and that's from one source only), which seem to be huge numbers for a program like this. This, coupled to the references mentioning mIRCstat as a tool for doing online research, seem more than enough to establish notability. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a clarification to TheSerialComma who seems to misunderstand what reliable sources mean. Reliable sources don't necessarily excluded self-published sources. If that's what it meant, then you might as well tried to delete all infoboxes on the various processors out there who uses manufacturer datasheets. Primary material is even desired when it comes to technical details. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you misunderstand WP:Notable, the part about significant third party coverage. mircstat's website is not significant third party coverage. a trivial mention in one book is not significant third party coverage. notability has not been shown per wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't established through mIRCstat's own website and I never claimed that, so I don't know why you're bringing that up. Third party coverage is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, due to the technical nature of the program, the third party coverage shown here (CNET, mIRCLog, scholarly endorsement) is sufficient. I also wonder why you're so concerned about deleting this page. You're trying to dismiss primary sources as "self-published fluff" (which they clearly aren't in this context), and you're trying to directly influence the closing admin because things don't look like they'll go your away after the expansion of the article. Wikipedia doesn't gain anything by deleting well written and neutral articles about an IRC stat tracking program (which seems to be as notable as psig). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNet merely lists the file for download and the "description" comes directly from the author of the program. That is not significant coverage from an independent source. MIRClog is seems to be another log analyzer and I'm not sure how that warrants any "significant coverage" to MIRCStats. A study used a log analyzer to aggregate some data, and that's it. That is not significant coverage. Significant coverage means the study was about the topic in question (MIRCstats). I searched the PDF for MIRCStats and was unable to find even trivial mentions of MIRCStats. It's definitely a well written in its current state, but it is also advertisement for a program that doesnt pass wikipedia's notability guideline. Even with the rewrite, absolutely no "significant coverage" of the program from independent, reliable sources have been found. The whole point of the notability guideline is defeated if an article is written solely from references from primary sources and trivial mentions Corpx (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. In spite of the earlier assurances, I wasn't able to find any reliable sources with nontrivial coverage. None of the references provided on MIRCStats help to establish notability. "A Guide to Conducting Online Research", viewable through Amazon[67] does not seem to include any references to MIRCStats. Software depositories like CNET only offer trivial program descriptions and cannot possibly be considered reliable sources indicative of notability. Several Google searches didn't reveal any in-depth program reviews or other sources of significant coverage. This book cannot possibly be counted as a valid source (in fact, I think it should be banned as a reference), since, according to its own preface, its review of MiRCStats was taken directly from Wikipedia. — Rankiri (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Either you didn't read the article or you are attempting to be misleading.
      Amazon [68] does not index even a fraction of this book per the restrictions from the publisher. They include the covers, TOC, parts of the index, and a random sampling of pages. This is standard practice due to the fact that this is a textbook and the publisher wants students to buy the book vs printing screencaps from amazon.com.
      While Google Books also does not allow for viewing the individual pages, this search result for "mircstats" turns up result #4 A Guide to Conducting Online Research page 165.
      This book that you linked above was not used a a reference for the article and is not included in the article in any form or fashion.
      The "CNET" link is for Download.com, which is a reliable in the context in which it is used: "...with Download.com reporting over 52,000 downloads since August 05, 1998." As of right now that count is up to 52,790, which is massive for this type of software. It isn't that surprising really, given that this was the first IRC log statistics program ever written.
      --Tothwolf (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the ~3600 channels that produces and publishes their stats. Is that notability enough? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a registered customer of Amazon.com, I'm perfectly able to search throughout the entire book. The book contains the following quote that has nothing to do with the software in question:
"Some applications, such as mIRC, allow you to create logs as text-only files.These logs are easily identifiable as #yourchannel_160 222007.log (http://www.nic.fi/~mauvinen/mircstats/mircstatsfaq.html#multifiles, accessed 9 April 2007). In addition, you can search through log files..."
Page 165 is the "web links" appendix that only lists the same URL. As for your other objections, I suggest you take a look at WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:WEB and WP:PRODUCT. — Rankiri (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... oh, that's how they do this! Definite keep. DS (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about them, but that's how I do it when I see somebody working his way around WP:N and WP:RS. — Rankiri (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • there seems to be an influx of editors who are voting keep without addressing the notability and reliable, third party, independent coverage issues. this is very strange behavior, almost as if some people are voting keep regardless of wikipedia's policies. i hope that the closing admin will see that some votes here should not be considered as valid as others when they do not address this article's failure to achieve notability, which is a core standard of a wikipedia article. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 52,000 downloads isn't much. Far more popular software of this type out there. But it is mentioned in different books. [69], so that counts as notable, according to the suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guidelines want books about the subject. Nor merely being mentioned in one paragraph of one book. Miami33139 (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read the guidelines as your statement above seems to indicate that you are not all that familiar with them. The guidelines want reliable sources, which depending on the context and material could contain anything from one sentence to a page or even a whole book. References do not have to be print, and given the subject of this article, many of the references will not be in print. As Headbomb already mentioned above, a self-published source is not necessarily an unreliable source. On the contrary, when dealing with technical subjects, and in this specific case, software, is it perfectly acceptable to reference primary material when describing the operation or features of something. The information in the current article is very much verifiable, accurate and is written from a neutral point of view. Tothwolf (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reread my earlier objections. The books you mentioned borrow their information from Wikipedia and cannot be viewed as legitimate sources. — Rankiri (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and the Websters books you are objecting to were not used as references. It could be said however, that the Webster's editors felt the original WP material reliable enough to include in print, although using those particular books as references would have been akin to Ouroboros. Tothwolf (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recommendation was based on the false assumption that the abovementioned books may be used as legitimate sources. WP:V clearly states that texts that mirror Wikipedia's content are prohibited. — Rankiri (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and again, the Websters books were not used as references. You should note however, that the Websters books are not mirrors of Wikipedia content; they tend to use said content as a base but they are usually summaries and are often quite different from the article that they use material from. They may also include other content not present in the Wikipedia article which they took material from too. Tothwolf (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mabdul 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there. Thank you for expressing your opinion here. Per WP:NOREASON, could you please give a summary of why you believe the article should be kept? Votes without reasons are likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. NW (Talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources contained in the article are not independent sources, and therefore can't be used to establish notability. Other sources (such as A Guide to Conducting Online Research) contain only trivial mentions of the software. Without coverage focused on the software itself in independent sources, the article does not meet any notablility guideline. –Megaboz (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of city parks of Allentown, Pennsylvania[edit]

List of city parks of Allentown, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of non-notable parks, including several play lots. There is nothing to merge, since it appears none of the subjects meet Wikipedia standards for notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment unsourced; but seems to suggest that use of those city parks is limited to city residents, which would be unusual for the US and probably, therefore, notable. But maybe I'm reading too much into an unsourced one-line introduction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misread the opening line. It states they are public parks, which would make them accessible to all people. If they were private parks, access to their grounds would be limited. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a travel guide or a city guide. Corpx (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me expand by adding that Wikipedia is not a directory of parks/hospitals/police stations or other public utilities in a town. This kind of information belongs in a phone book, and not an encyclopedia Corpx (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Items on a list don't have to be notable, just significant and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individually, the parks of a town the size of Allentown are likely to have some good sourcing, such as these book references to West Park: [70], [71], . But collectively, they have certainly been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, such as the New York Times: [72] or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: [73]. The book [74] mentioned earlier has significant coverage of several of the parks. The list could be improved by adding additional data fields such as date established, size, and special features, along with an introductory paragraph. Edison (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the work done by Edison to show relevent sources. Well done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the list is verifiable, it is helpful for Allentown, Pennsylvania#Parks and recreation article. It should be improved with more detail by area of the parks or even tree types. Public spaces aren't within Yellow pages category where time dependant professionals' being listed. Kasaalan (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand introduction, add a bit of detail about the parks (e.g. size, location, notable features, etc) and add cite the sources for all of it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll userfy this on request.  Sandstein  05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thracian anthroponyms[edit]

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

Indisriminite list Mblumber (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indiscrminate? This is very specific. I just started, see the talk page for my response and explanation. It will get long and detailed with text & etymologies. You can't handle this with categories like you can the superfluous list of illustrators. Delete that. Not this. Thanks, Alex (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List of names is indiscriminate, if you ask me. To me, this is no different than List of Chinese/Japanese/Indian names. WP is not a list of indiscriminate stuff Corpx (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Thracian is unattested in writing and no longer spoken, if it has a linguistic descendant is unknown. It's not indiscriminate, it's very discriminate. Unless you're a cookie-muncher. Alex (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need detailed articles on these topics to educate the people. Otherwise you will have situations like the one currently at Illyrians: which has to be protected from certain editors, most of whom don't know much about the Illyrian language or Thracian language, they just have ethnic/nationalist/patriotic fervor. Articles like this will show people what we know about these languages. It will be too much to merge into Thracian language. Alex (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the happenings of the article, but making a list of names used by people who spoke a certain language is indiscriminate in my opinion. I dont want to see wikipedia become a database of names used by people across the centuries. Corpx (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the article, there will be no original research. The information will be taken from the "linguistic literature". It's a list now but there be referenced etymologies (more than one in many caes) and text. Text about suffixes, common components in the names, etc. what parts of Thrace they were found in etc. Alex (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no references now. That's why I say articles like this are best birthed in user space. You don't really want anyone messing with it while you construct it anyhow. You're probably going to have to use a table instead of a simple list. It's going to take quite some time to put it together. Drawn Some (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, it will take me like two months (5 months) to get it looking more like how I want it. So on those grounds, a deletion would be fine, but why bother deleting it? I will create it again later, next time having it together, and it will be called Thracian anthroponyms, with a lot of text. Alex (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I copy-pasted it to a user subpage. Alex (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, of little use and almost no context. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it is of much use, and has a lot of context, you're just not familar with these articles. People are such cookie-munching wikilawyer wannabes at this website sometimes. Alex (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be indiscriminate when I recreate the article. Please delete all those articles on individual Pokemon characters and MASH episodes. Alex (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You biscuits should delete List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) etc. Alex (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be completely honest with you, I think that this stuff (although unsourced) is way more encyclopedic than the Pokemon stuff, but it's impossible to delete the fan site stuff from here because the fan club will be up in arms about it. Corpx (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't really mind if it gets deleted this time around (I copy-pasted it), but I will raise a ruckus to protect my built up version once I have it. Alex (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - article author clearly wants to improve it some time in the future, and it cannot stay as it is per Niteshift36. --Pgallert (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment It seems like it is problematic for some. If I were you, I would ask for advice and guidance from some other editors also knowledgeable in the subject area before spending two months on it only to see it deleted after a day of hot back-and-forth at AfD followed by another six days of your stomach burning. Surely there is not the first article of its type. Ruckuses only get inappropriate articles saved in rare circumstances and I doubt this one would be able to get saved that way from what I've seen. To be clear I don't see any problem with it, on its face it would seem to be no different than a list of Etruscan anthroponyms, etc. and I never would have imagined it could be controversial. You might consider dropping the "list" name and concept, they seem to be somewhat more controversial than regular articles. I always like reading articles like this, they're what make encyclopedias interesting to browse so I look forward to the finished article. Drawn Some (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have plenty of text. I'll be working on it now & then in user space but the references are so hard to find I don't think it will be ready for 6 or 8 months (to have it survive AFd for sure), taking into account how much time I'll have to work on it and the availability of the references for the etymologies and morphological features etc.. Till then I'll just improve the Thracian language article. Alex (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)d[reply]
Oh I didn't mean to discourage you that much. Why don't you line up some references and then use them to start an article? Drawn Some (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland – Saudi Arabia relations[edit]

Ireland – Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination noting that Saudi Arabia has no embassy in Ireland. real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, only multilateral and football, a lot of coverage of the match the 2 countries played in 2002 [75]. I found this on the Irish foreign ministry website but it doesn't say much for relations. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Recreate the page if/when something diplomatic happens Corpx (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and this bilateral relationship lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant discussion of the relationship as such. Edison (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without commenting on the entire class of articles, THIS specific relationship does not appear to meet the specifications set out at WP:N for inclusion into Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And delete all these random pairings of countries for articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. What is there to rescue? The majority of these are completely non-notable and could easily, well not quite so easily, be made into a table on the Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland page. ww2censor (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's little more I can say that hasn't been already. This relationship is unremarkable, and there is nothing on the overarching topic promised by the title that says otherwise. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Their relationship is so unremarkable that Saudi hasn't bothered to put an embassy or even a consulate in Ireland. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again this is marked for rescue with zero attempt to save it. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as hoax, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew blomberg[edit]

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

Non-notable person Mblumber (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media editor[edit]

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

prod declined without comment. I'll repeat my prod comments here: Synthesis/collection of somewhat unrelated factoids about video editing, audio editing, graphic design and so on. I'm not sure what this article is about. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry if AfD is a little borked; as far as I can tell this is only a first nomination. Hairhorn (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric[edit]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Not notalbe
  • Conflict of interest
  • Self promoting

--Memming (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bit too early, perhaps? In response to Memming's editor assistance request, I tagged this article for expert attention and mentioned it on the talk page for Wikiproject Mathematics, but that was only a couple of hours ago.

    Still, now that we're at AfD: I agree there's every indication of a WP:COI author. He's apparently named the metric after himself, and I know of no indication that anyone's cited this paper, which is apparently the author's PhD thesis. So I think Memming's nomination is absolutely correct as far as it goes.

    For AfD to consider here is the tension between WP:N, which this fails (contrary to what I said earlier, but I've looked a great deal more critically now, as I should at AfD), and WP:PRESERVE, which I think enjoins us not to delete scholarly content. I would therefore be looking for an outcome of trim heavily and merge; this should probably be a small section or footnote of some broader article (and hopefully a mathematician will come along to suggest which).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion on how to make an AfD nomination, you've skipped 2 of the 3 steps. Hairhorn (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ops. I'll fix that. --Memming (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name is Szymon Łukaszyk I am the first author of this article, which I initially created as probability metric to disclose the concept that was developed in my PhD thesis and enable its further development according to Wikipedia standards (cf. Notability_issue). I feel like changing the article's name to include my surname was a trap set by Memming, who first alleged its WP:NOR (Lukaszyk-Karmowski_metric#Original research?) than switched to WP:Notability but after being unsuccessful in his efforts to prove that this concept is any kind of plagiarism or wrong in its essence behaves - as I see it - overemotionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never suggested to change the article name to include your name. I never said it was a plagiarism. --Memming (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My general feeling is that research mathematics concepts can be kept if there are three or more independent groups of mathematicians working on them, a pretty low standard. In this case, Google search finds only the author's paper, with zero citations. MathSciNet finds the paper but declines to review it and also lists no citations. This is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not get side-tracked by accusations as I think everyone is trying only to be helpful. It is difficult to judge from very little background but I think it might be the case that work by "Guswen" is concentrating on is a special case of a "Karmowski metric" idea (where the special case is "independence"), in which case it would be best to have a "Karmowski metric" article, with the present article supplying a useful basis for illustrating a special case. Melcombe (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable subject as per wikipedia guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, move article to editor's user-space and move back to mainspace once this has gathered more independent attention. There is a lot of content here, so I wouldn't want to lose it if it may be useful in the future. I also like the idea of using this as the core of a more general article, as suggested by Melcombe. Tim Vickers (talk)
  • Delete, based on the above, it doesn't appear to be a particularly notable or widespread concept within mathematics. No objection to a userification so that the article can be preserved in case it does become a more notable concept. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Issawi[edit]

Omar Al Issawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, more specifically WP:ARTIST. Google returns little of use. The only hit that seemed useful was a blank page. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've coverted the external links to references. I think it is now one of the better short articles we have. Fribbler (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rensselaer County, New York#Government and Politics. Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rensselaer County Legislature[edit]

Rensselaer County Legislature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Run of the mill. Yes, you can find plenty of reliable secondary sources, but there are 3,140 other county governments that are in the same boat. This is an average, non-notable county, as far as counties go. Gigs (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The scope of notability for something like this is so narrow that it doesn't warrant inclusion to WP Corpx (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think everything here is already covered in Rensselaer County#Government and Politics. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rensselaer County, New York#Government and Politics. The relevant information already exixts in Wikipedia so a redirect is in order as a plausible search term. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect as above. I disagree with the nominator's citing of the WP:MILL essay, which lists good examples of genuinely unencyclopedic topics such as unexceptional streets and shops, and is not an agreed guideline. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of records, so we don't only cover the exceptional cases, and we are not paper. If every member of a particular class of topic is notable then we have room for articles on all them (e.g. named species). In this case, however, nearly all of the encyclopedic information here is already covered in Rensselaer County, New York, and that article is by no means too long, so we can merge in anything here that is encyclopedic and not already in the county article (by which I mean one or two sentences from the history section, not the recent events) and have this covered in context. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kuso[edit]

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

Contested prod. TV character with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator, NAC. Gigs (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of the Nile[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTFILM Gigs (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~fl 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major factories of Tabriz[edit]

Major factories of Tabriz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely subjective list consisting of almost nothing but outside links. How do we define "major" factories? Are those major enough to have articles on WP? If not, should they be included on the list? All questions which undermine the validity of this list before you even notice that it reads as spam. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The original author has transferred a whole list that was removed from the Tabriz article as spam.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepthe article lists major factories in one of the main Industrial centers of Iran. It is informative.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you cite some kind of policy or decent rationale in that? "I like it" and "it is informative" aren't really accepted as valid keep rationales. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles which list things. Aren't there those lists in wikipedia?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that we allow lists generally doesn't mean every possible list is acceptable, especially when the list contains no content except external links, and when the content is only there because consensus said it couldn't be included somewhere else. Ironholds (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no clear criteria for the definition of major factory. If one is provided then I'd think the list would be worth keeping. as it stands almost all of the links are external, a list is usually made to link internal articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmzadeh (talk • contribs) 02:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While there are a few sources, there is nothing to show they are reliable, or that the developer is indeed notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warp Pipe (software developer)[edit]

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

My position from the last AfD, which ended in no consensus, stands; completely unsourced and therefore non-notable software. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While someone may type Warp Pipe looking for information on the Warp Pipes in the Mario Series I doubt anyone typing Warp Pipe (software developer) would be looking for that. It would make more sense to have this redirect directly to the Gamecube article.--70.24.180.177 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles contain any information on this subject or the Mario Warp Pipes; it therefore would be misleading to link to such pages. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote amended to include merger of relevant information as part of redirect. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's this "relevant" information? It's certainly not relevant if it's not notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant part is to be determined by whoever preforms the merger. I would assume that it's at least notable enough to mentioned in either article, if only in a paragraph or so. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify - which I should really have done after the last AfD since there were no !votes to keep the material. Unsourced does not mean non-notable. The two interviews in the ELs satisfy WP:N. The current, uncited, content needs stripping down to a stub, which then can be built up using those souces. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I've started rewriting the article from scratch, using the two interviews as sources. If this subject is kept, I recomment renaming to Warp Pipe Technologies. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article now has verified sources proving notability. --Taelus (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only a couple—how are either of them reliable sources? For a start, WP:VG/S says almost nothing about them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both sites seem to feature full editorial staffs which display a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nintendojo's editor-in-chief is a managing editor over at IGN. MuZemike 22:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't assert notability, and please delete, I don't want to see this get relisted again just because no one knows what to do with it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see what you think these following web search hits - to me they all look like press releases, or speculation about press releases. Has a reliable source actually sat down and looked at the Warp Pipe or Demasked software? [81][82][83][84] I'm not familiar with N-Sider or Nintendojo, so I'm unfortunately still sat squarely on the fence. Marasmusine (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, they seem to contain very little independent coverage of the subject—the other two sources above seem similar to these, too. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources consist of two interviews, featuring a lot of hand-waving and techno-gibberish about something which apparently never went anywhere.. the crux of WP:N is that sources independent of the subject need to do the reporting in detail. The interviewers are not in a position to analyze the software, instead relying on sketchy details from the developer, that's no basis for an article. No prejudice against restoration if something should come of it in the future and it receives the necessary analysis, but there's currently a whole load of nothing to build an article with. Someoneanother 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. There's an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 8#Warp pipe (disambiguation) which is pretty much based on the outcome of this discussion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. References provided show that the artist did chart, thus satisfying the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Malinaccier (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gathania[edit]

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

Ninth place finish on Swedish version of Idol is a far cry from notability. Only sources on article are a trviail mention on a blog (can't tell if it's official or user, as it's in a foreign language) and what looks to be her own website or marketer's website. Would need multiple independent reliable sources with nontrivial coverage to demonstrate notability enough for an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blame it on you is gettin heavy airplay. she will be big. keep da page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.76.224 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can you provide any evidence of that, such as links to radio station web sites? If it can be verified then the subject might pass WP:MUSIC criterion 11. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Linnea94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suppose you and Jennavecia either didnt read the WP:ENTERTAINER or the article itself because that guidline say See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. Gathania is a musician and not an entertainer. And she fulfills point one and two on WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Linnea94 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see "Blame it on You" in either the UK or Swedish charts (UK, Swedish 1, Swedish 2) so I'm not really seeing how WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 apply - she's "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" in her capacity as a contestant (hence WP:ENTERTAINER), not - so far as I can see - in her capacity as a musician. WP:MUSIC 2 would apply if she'd charted, not simply by being signed to a record label (which you suggest above makes her notable). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No not Blame it on You but Get It Out is in Swedish 1, week 7-8. And here [85] on your third link. There are two non-trivial references in her article from Realtid and The Sun. Linnea94 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27th on a Swedish chart is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. What, are you kidding me? DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, merely noting that the article achieves notability according to WP:MUSIC. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Comment: My understanding is that being signed doesn't make a subject notable per se (WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles); it's charting or media reports that do. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Bosco[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. Sources are iTunes, YouTube and MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Atkinson-Lord[edit]

Rebecca Atkinson-Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Art director at a minor theatre in London, does not seem to be particularly notable Passportguy (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre 503, Southwark Playhouse, Baron's Court Theatre (amongst others) are all theatres of a similar level in London and all have wikipedia pages. Atkinson-Lord is the founding director of the theatre which is totally groundbreaking in it's support of emerging artists in London. Notable enough I think. Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. - Admittedly, Atkinson-Lord is probably not famous outside the UK, but her work at Arch 468 is significant and unique in London Theatre culture. It's also worth noting that Phil Willmott has a wikipedia entry and was the Artistic Director of a Theatre company operating and a similar level to Arch 468. Goodgreif (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Baron's Court Theatre is a redlink, so that argument doesn't wash. And the importance of the theaters has no bearing on the importance of the art directors. Are the art directors of the other theaters you cited in Wikipedia? In fact, there is nothing in the theater's article which indictaes its notability, and it probably should be deleted, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability isnt transitive. Even if her place of employment is notable, it does not mean that she is. Corpx (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, she had a short profile in The Stage, but that if you read it it just seems to be a human interest story about someone having difficulties starting her career. I know that Google hits don't equate to notability, but I can't see how any truly notable person in 21st century theatre in a Western country could possibly get only 54 web hits and these two from Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I Don't Have You[edit]

AfDs for this article:
If I Don't Have You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete A song that does not assert notability, only has youtube videos listed as refs Dougofborg(talk) 12:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red (Ultimate)[edit]

Red (Ultimate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Non-notable local frisbee club, fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage. Most links relate to the sport in general and those that don't aren't independent. ~ Amory (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for retention simply asserted that existence means it should be kept - this is not a compelling argument Fritzpoll (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Independence Party[edit]

Scottish Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This party is decidedly not notable. A Google News search turns up four results, three of which actually concern the SNP. The remaining story is about the Free Scotland Party, which is another microparty in Scotland (with apparently similar views). Their website is currently listed as being under construction, and according to Archive.org, it would seem to have been in this state for about two years.

This particular party contested three seats at the 2005 election, but even with three candidates they failed to cross the 500-vote threshold for inclusion in the 2005 results list. I am willing to consider that this is the Free Scotland Party under a different name, but it does seem to be a separate, even less notable, entity. Tyrenon (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that a candidate (Joseph Rowan), who when researched does declare that he stood for the Scottish Independence Party in 2005, found himself with 337 votes, this is enough evidence to suggest that 337 members of this constituency understood that the Scottish Independence Party existed and were willing to vote for it. This evidence alone displays that, regardless of the number falling short of the 500 needed to be displayed on the results list, enough people accepted the party existed to vote for it. Such a point can not be denied, and the party a) exists, and b) should remain on Wikipedia. Twbanks (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (Weak keep) to Scottish independence. I agree that Twbanks brings up a good point there is a level of notability in that the party has recieved votes in the past and continouesto exist today and some of these sources exist apparently as secondary sources Which by definition of WP:ORG satisfies that A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. However I was reading this [[86]] which seems to be their financial picture which doesnt shed a very notable view of the party and seems to be in decline. They are mentioned in a secondary link at [[87]]. I dont think the article should be deleted but a redirect merge would be approporaite as a worse case scenario if it cannot be expanded or sourced properly with enough secondary sources. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Scottish independence. Despite the small number of supports and its status as a minority party, the party is still legal and registered in Scotland. Its influence with Scottish independence movements and limited information may be better to merge the article with Scottish independence. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr (test management system)[edit]

Zephyr (test management system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product or service (can't really tell which). Article is overly promotional, and does not mention any competing products. The only independent, reliable sources cited only mention the subject in passing. No relevant Google hits found. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Mesa Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable recording studio. Article writer (the owner) asserts the studio is well known but nothing major comes up on Google other than apartment rentals and their own publicity. They assert that they are a major studio, apparently because some of the equipment is second hand and was previously owned and used by Bruce Swedien. WebHamster 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Notability is not passed on by garage sales. Hairhorn (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles (book)[edit]

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

Series of books with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Author not listed at Worldcat or Amazon. Prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability; poorly written. JJL (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability, probably because it doesn't really exist. Why is it that so many articles on 'fictional' books are so poorly written? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the sudden and suspicious influx of new users, there is a pretty broad consensus that this fails inclusion criteria. In recognition of the last-minute addition of possible references, I would suggest that interested editors may consider producing a properly sourced version in userspace and re-creating when it is up to standards. Shereth 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agilo for Scrum[edit]

Agilo for Scrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a software program, but I can't find any reliable sources that support its notability. Links provided are either to an official site, press release, or articles written by the software's maintainer. TNXMan 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well also Trac is about a Software Program, and all the pages belonging to Open Source and Project Management Tool are Software Programs so what? Agilo is Free, and Open Source, has a Growing Community of people and is enlisted on Open Source platforms as well. 80.153.177.13 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable, secondary sources seem to be available to demonstrate the notability of this software. None of the claims have reliable sources (other than the subject itself) backing them up, so the result of this discussion should be delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that provide any evidence this is notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails the GNG. When oh when will we have an A7 speedy for software? On further reflection I think it's a borderline G11 speedy with a big dollop of WP:NOTMANUAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have at least 2 sources which establish notability: [88], [89] Unomi (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Borderline G11 for non-notable software; the above references do not suffice to establish notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one of the most used Scrum Tools (and the best Scrum Open Source Tool for sure). I think there was also some article in the well known German iX magazine about it. But the article needs some love for sure. If we can keep this a bit longer, I can try to improve it. --Robjenssen (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)user has made one edit outside of this AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What software is notable enough? Why not add basic information about younger software, especially when based on Open Source? Unless there are specific rules about these issues, I would keep the article, and only require a neutral re-write if needed. Largus (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) user has made no edits outside of this AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've included another external link to the current edition of the Germans IX magazine regarding Agilo for Scrum erikman001 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Account created today --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think notability is about providing consistent references on the existence of the product and on the fact that there is a user community that publicly recognizes the value of the tool. I would like to point out that there are companies that are trying to "eat out" references of the competition in every community site. Agilo has been under attack from ScrumEdge since a couple of weeks, they entered blunt advertisement and links to their sites in ohloh.net, freshmeat.net, getsatisfaction.com and in other places, may be they have a feet in this door too? ANdreaT (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I vote Keep? I also just joined today, but I use this tool daily and I love it. Also I removed the marketing speak as good as I can and translated the introduction of the german article which I think is much better. --Marne Hitacker (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask - *where* are you all coming from? The only time this happens is when a) the same person registered multiple times or you are directed to come here from a forum. Which is it? please don't waste my time with "oh it was random chance" - 6 new editors on an afd? it doesn't happen by chance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nizam-e-Adl_Regulation_2009. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nizam Adal Regulation 2009[edit]

Nizam Adal Regulation 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are two existing articles for this topic. (See: Nizam-e-Adl Regulation 2009) This article contains multiple issues including grammar and no verifiable sources. RDavi404 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and oppose merge. This article is an unreferenced stub so nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted above, nothing to merge. Pahari Sahib 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_4&oldid=1142644311"