Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 1

< 28 February	2 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Memory bus. yandman 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAM bus

Page is a thin uncited orphan, duplicative of other entries. Basically, the page has no meaningful content except a list of SDRAM speeds, and little hope of ever having more. Nobody's even cared enough to fix the spelling of "electronical device". Bus (computing) is far more informative, and SDRAM says the rest. My WP:PROD was contested, so I'm doing it more formally with an AfD discussion. I could go on in more detail, but I think it's fairly obvious. Note that this is not the Rambus article, which is actually informative. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. This deletion discussion was created by the IP on the article talkpage. I have created a discussion page for him/her. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rambus as a plausible search term. The article creator seems to be using the term to refer to the memory bus, and it may be worth merging some of the information on this article there, but I've never come across anybody else using the term in this way, so I don't think disambiguation is required. JulesH (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged some of the examples into Memory bus per your suggestion. And added the {{DRAM types}} sidebar. Still neither is very useful. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a common name but it's still a name that both is and was used, both informally and in the literature. (I knew what it was as soon as I read the title.) Build your own multimedia PC (ISBN 9780079122261) has a section entitled "The CPU and the RAM bus" on page 61, for example. I don't think that a disambiguation article is required, for a different reason: Redirecting this to memory bus as an alternative name for the same thing, per Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, seems to be the answer here. One can always use {{redirect}} at the target to disambiguate mis-spellings of Rambus, if necessary.
No deletion is required. And, in fact, 71.41.210.146, you had all of the tools to fix this, since it only required editing the article. It didn't even require the article renaming tool. You have even done the appropriate merger with the tools that you possess. Be bolder!
By the way: There's more to be written on this specific subject that not only isn't in bus (computing) but isn't general enough for that subject. For starters, there's no information about how direct memory access relates to memory buses, no information on address decoding and multiplexed addressing on memory buses, no information on differentiating memory and I/O cycles, no information on data transmission on memory buses, and no information on memory refresh and how it relates to memory buses. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there couldn't be a good article on the subject, just that there isn't one, and what is there is singularly useless. I've been picking away at the general area (my current project is to merge CAS latency, Memory latency and SDRAM latency; anyone want to help with that?), but am not inspired to write about RAM bus. Judging by the edit history, nobody else is, either. So get rid of the thing in the meantime. But yes, when I proposed this, I didn't even know about Memory bus, and redirecting there seems reasonable. I'll leave it unmodified for a few more days of debate, and if nothing more comes up, I'll do the redirect and add . And yes, I know about [[WP:BB]; see the edit log for Template:Cleanup-reorganize. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get rid of things because editors are not inspired to write, nor because they are incomplete. See our Wikipedia:Editing policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Perfection ab initio is not required. There is no deadline. And vast areas of the encyclopaedia are currently incomplete, even after all these years. If something can be solved even with the tools that editors without accounts have (let alone the tools that editors with accounts have), a deletion nomination isn't the way to go. The simple truth is that most of our content is written by editors without accounts, sometimes incrementally, and many problems require no more than the tools that such editors all possess to fix. I already saw the other articles that you've been working on. Keep contributing. One suggestion: If you want to not tell people about yourself or protect your privacy, creating an account actually gives you more privacy and reveals less information, as well as provides several extra tools. (This is a point that I didn't fully appreciate myself for a long while before I created my first account, so I pass it on.) Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to agree that redirecting this to memory bus would probably be a more appropriate move. Matt (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to memory bus; I agree that this is a duplicate article under a less common name that is better covered at "memory bus". – 74 01:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Press Organization

Copyvio, promo, COI, not notable Troyster87 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd argue that this is notable, even though it's just a press release mill, it's quoted by other organizations, like the WHO. Nothing a bit of copyedit can't fix. §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable in Africa and this is not Wikipedia USA editoion. --hnnvansier (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons mentioned by the two people posting keep above me. Dream Focus 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News agency UPI, AP, and Reuters would be far easier to source for us, but that's because they're western press organizations and have been around so very long. It would seem that the APO is doing the same thing but in a different hemisphere. Any concern with content can be corrected with WP:CLEANUP. So tag for expansion and let the article grow within the WP:DEADLINE set by wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, do we have only 5 days to do so with a brand new article? I do understand that new articles are sometime lacking, but if it notability can be sourced, isn't it in the best interests of wiki that we allow time for it to be done? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, five days is more than adequate; the article shouldn't have been created at all without establishing notability. No, it's not in the best interest of a project which strives to be a legitimate resource to allow unreferenced information to remain. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FreeRangeFrog. — Reinyday, 07:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I'm unconvinced by any of the reasons given for keeping this (but willing to be convinced). Searches for reliable sources in English and French find nothing substantial [1][2][3][4]. I'm a very strong advocate of countering systemic bias, but I don't see why we should give any particular leeway to an organisation based in Switzerland, a country that has very good internet coverage. In fact we would be perpetuating systemic bias by keeping this, by implying that a European organisation claiming to represent the African press is more notable than African organisations. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seems to fail in some areas, but I'm sure there are sources somewhere. Versus22_talk 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable organization that fails WP:N. WP:N doesn't discriminate either way based on nationality, and we should not assume that there are magical sources out there that are invisible to our eyes if we can not find them. Themfromspace (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Apparently, they organised the press relations for Kaddafi's visit to France: [5]. Alain Joyandet, Minister of State for Cooperation and Francophony, met with the head of the APO last month: [6] (It's a google cache, so I'm not sure how long the link will last). This seems to indicate some notability, albeit minor. However, I haven't found a single reliable source (searching in English, French, German), so it's going to be impossible to do anything but repeat their press releases. yandman 08:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google returns evidence of notability. Is a real and a significant organisation. Need to consider countering systematic bias against non-western non-internet subjects. The bias reflects the people interested in, and of interest of the organisation, not the location of its offices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webucator

Falls under WP:NEO, written like a tutorial. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing anything to back up that horrible neologism. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO is not a reason for deletion, only for possible renaming, but this is original research, and WP:BOLLOCKS to boot: "website development is a young field at around 20 to 25 years old"—if the article author was aware of the World Wide Web over 20 years ago then Tim Berners-Lee doesn't deserve the credit that he has had for initiating it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil Bridger. Original research. Versus22_talk 09:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Mood

Unnotable band. CSD removed as it has two "albums" under a notable label, however the albums are "mini" albums, not full albums, and contain only a few tracks either (basically a max-single). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I despise this point in the WP:BAND policy, it's there, agreed upon (until it's hopefully change), and must be followed. Point 5 states, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." Vanilla Mood is under Avex Group which is notable and has produced two records under that label. While, like I said, I don't agree with this policy point (for exact cases like this), that's the policy and I'm stickin' to it. As for the "mini-album" issue, thefreedictionary.com defines an album as, "one or more recordings issued together." It's more than one song and therefore an album.OlYeller^Talktome 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - OlYeller21 said it best. That clause in WP:MUSIC is used to create walled gardens where non-notable bands are promoted on Wikipedia simply because they release non-notable albums trough record companies that have just one or two notable artists (in turn claiming notability because of said artists). The policy is broken there, and needs fixing. §FreeRangeFrog 05:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep as well, per WP:MUSIC#C5 (p.s. OlYeller21, have you got a ref for that?). I personally don't believe the policy of broken, since any article on a record label who's only claim is a couple of blue linked bands fails the WP:CORP criteria; "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". AfD the label, and the walled garden comes crashing down. IMHO of course. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a ref for the notability of Avex Group if that's what you're asking. I doubted the labels notability but I guess I'm following the rules again by assuming its notable until an AfD finds otherwise. This probably isn't the place to say this but I think that every band, album, song, artist, etc. should have to prove notability just like everything else, by showing coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I guess that's where I see the policy being broken. I don't care if Sony has a band under their label. If they don't prove notability through coverage etc., they aren't notable. Just my opinion. I should probably take it to the discussion on the policy. OlYeller^Talktome 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Avex Group is one of the biggest labels in Japan, having published some of the best-selling artists of recent decades and many with international recognition (such as Ayumi Hamasaki, the pillows, Namie Amuro, Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra and so on). The walled garden argument is, to say the least, a bit misplaced here. As for the group in question, articles and sources are harder to find because of the language barrier and seeming barrenness of Japanese music journalism but if I find anything I'll bring it up. Poechalkdust (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to support and add to Esradekan's comment on walled gardens falling. The criteria states "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" not a notable label so even a label which passes wp:corp but only has a few blue linked bands is not enough. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands delete. The article clearly states mini-albums. That is less than an album, regardless of what that dictionary says. The music industry differentiates between singles (which that definition calls an album), eps, mini albums, demos, albums, etc as should criteria dealing with the music industries. The criterea mentioned above from wp:music requires two albums, here we have less than two albums. The criterea is there for a reason, most press is not online. When an important label releases albums they send out copies to media outlets for reviews, media outlets take important labels seriously and review the albums but most are not online. It is safe to presume coverage exists in these cases. The criteria is not a problem here. It simply does not apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rules don't state a difference in what kind of album it is, be it mini or regular length. Dream Focus 16:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - WP:BAND is a guideline and not policy. Interpretation of the guideline should be tempered with WP:COMMONSENSE. Wikilawyering with the exact text is not productive. A mini-album is less than a regular album's worth of works. As creative effort, it is less substantial and should be treated accordingly. Having said all of that, being a Japanese group, it's unclear for the notability based on searching in English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some albums considered notable, because of a few hit songs on them. Would they be less notable, if the unpopular songs on them were eliminated? The length of an album is not relevant. Musicians shouldn't feel pressure to just add lower quality songs to fill up space. And all wikipedia policies are guidelines, there no set laws, it all left to consensus of whoever is around at the time to discuss it. Dream Focus 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I will never hear this music nor spend a penny to buy one of their albums... but they are notable per guideline and have coverage in reliable sources. NOTE: article need be tagged to ask for additional sourcing. Perhaps also tag for input from Japanese wikipedians? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No reason you can't! Mellow, classical-pop stuff. At least they can play their own instruments, always a plus for pop musicians. Poechalkdust (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG yet. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Just Can't Wait to Be King

No indication that this is a notable song from the movie. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A9. No indication of notability. pablo_hablo. 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A merge with the soundtrack makes some sense, but since this has now been covered by other bands and such an article seems appropriate. Definitely not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I don't get the "speedy delete" either, although it's refreshing if there's somebody out there who never heard this song. I see some notability here, in that The Lion King is not just a Disney film, but also a Tony award-winning musical. In truth, I think this is more well known (and thus more notable) than most of Elton John's compositions. Maybe you can nominate The Bitch is Back or Song for Guy instead. Mandsford (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. By the way, I wouldn't recommend nominating The Bitch Is Back or Song for Guy, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Question~~ Keep - I'm tempted to say Keep because I like the song, the movie and the musical, but in an effort to be more objective, I'll ask this first. What are the relevant Wikipedia guidelines that would address the notability criteria of songs from movies and musicals? --mwalimu59 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing WP:NSONGS and doing a little websearching to get a feel for the notability, I'm going to make it official. I found at least one cover version of it other than on any movie or theatre soundtrack; it's been parodied at least twice, appears on multiple compilations of Disney songs, and was ranked #24 in one survey of the Top 100 Disney songs. --mwalimu59 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, hasn't charted, no awards, no covers by several notable artists, and the big one, no reliable, third-party, sources. The only notable band to cover it do so in a Disney themed restaurant. While it is true that The Lion King is a Tony award-winning musical, notability is not inherited. I'm just not seeing enough to justify a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found at least one source [7] (a cultural analysis from an English professor) where the song is mentioned as a significant part of the work, since it illustrates the very flawed and immature ideas the child Simba has about rulership. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the movie article; no independent notability: didn't chart as a single. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say that this is probably well-enough known to keep as an entry; I can see this as a bona fide encyclopediac entry. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. Definitely notable outside of the movie per all above. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned above. Dream Focus 07:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As one of the more well known Disney songs I would have thought this would notable enough for its own article. A search finds are some sources out there, including quite a few on the analysis side of things, though many that might have quite a bit on the song are behind pay walls unfortunately. At worse, the article should be merged and re-directed into The Lion King. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known Disney song. Needs more sources though. Versus22_talk 09:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InnoExecution

Seems to be a management theory and a neologism, developed by a Mr. Ka-Keung Chan. Few mentions on the web for either him or the theory, and no hits whatsoever from Google news. Most of the page is instructional rather than informative - an introductory course in "InnoExecution" that would be better off on a "how-to" wiki. pablo_hablo. 22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement for non-notable theory. Possibly a valid speedy as promotional (G11). DGG (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with DGG, this is an advert for a non-notable niche theory. §FreeRangeFrog 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable advertising. --Lendorien (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, it looks as if PowerPoint slides were put up from someone's presentation. Rather than describing or explaining the topic, it looks as though it is a lecture or introductory course, and this is not the place for that. Vincent Valentine 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. is a guide, or a how-to. Refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm unsure how "non-notable" can be considered an insult. Unless you've got a politician's ego, of course. yandman 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Ray Hall

Non-notable mediator and unsuccessful political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No WP:RS that his mediation efforts satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Google search reveals an obit for a different Jerry Ray Hall, but nothing else that I can see, save his unsuccessful candidature. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to add that the article creator's response has been to attempt to blank the Afd and then insult me and Wikipedia on my talk page. Not terribly reassuring from someone whose user name is User:Amediator. Remind me not to hire him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no references for a biography. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing on the net about his work with Panama, apart from a Yahoo! groups thing I can't get into. I can find his unsuccessful candidature. I can find nothing in connection with mediation. There may be more in the name of his company, but I can't find this. With no references given in the article, I have to judge on what I can find, which is very little. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable beyond a very narrow niche, and that's assuming any of that is actually true, since he gave no sources whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that you would insult the subject by calling him a "non-notable mediator" and then get upset when the article creator insults you in return. Good for him, frankly. However the subject does seem to fail the relevant guidelines, so we still need to delete the article. RenegadeMonster (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, good for him. Actually, I'd considered whether this article was written by Hall when nominating it for deletion and decided it wasn't: it seemed to be too poorly written for someone with his claimed academic background. Obviously, in retrospect, he did write it. I will be more careful in the future in how I describe articles when nominating for deletion, especially if I suspect they're vanity pieces. No point in adding insult to injury. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought mediators were supposed to mediate not insult. The author is 'Amediator', which says something to me about the whole subject. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete recommendations. TerriersFan (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys

~~Grammar schools are generally not considered notable without significant coverage in 3rd party reliable references.~~ This article ~~has only primary sources~~needs additional good sources. Rtphokie (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Needs better references, and the infobox is of the wrong type for a UK school, but I thought any UK secondary school with an Ofsted number was automatically eligible for an article. It will appear in all the league tables and the Ofsted reports will be on-line[8], which counts as coverage. That said, I can't find a guideline on this. Can anybody point us in the right direction? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know about a guideline, but AfD precedent has long been that all post-primary (US: post-elementary) schools are notable. This is a secondary education establishment (US: high school). ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is probably what I was thinking of. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grammar schools in the UK = US high schools, and as secondary schools, are essentially always found to be notable if sufficiently investigated. Therefore, we have the convention to simply keep them, as 99% would be kept in any case.DGG (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC) However, the article needs some rather drastic evidence to remove insignificant & promotional material.DGG (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are very few grammar schools remaining in the UK and those that do are highly distinctive with long histories. Plenty of sources including [9][10]. Many notable alumni including sportsmen and politicians. Needs cleaning and sourcing not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grammar schools are generally considered notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but overhaul (as I notice TerriersFan has already begun to do). Secondary schools in general are all notable, and the last remaining grammar schools particularly so. The majority, unfortunately, remain largely based on original research/primary sources, but as TerriersFan states - they need cleaning and sourcing rather than deletion. DJR (T) 10:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discussed above, passes WP:N; continue cleanup. Radiopathy (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know it's not a valid argument, but there must be thousands of school articles on wikipedia more deserving of deletion. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - it's snowing and has been made clear that this is likely a notable article. Some better sources have been added but it could still stand some improvement there.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction equipment broker

No evidence of the notability or importance of this job. It appears to exist and be mainly the domain of one company. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. StarM 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, unnotable and cannot be searched up on google. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and relatively new subset of the purchasing brokerage business. §FreeRangeFrog 05:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - fails everything. Versus22_talk 09:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sagg Taqwacore Syndicate

Non-notable band. The New York Times and Guardian articles linked do not mention the band at all. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, thus unencyclopedic. MSJapan (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be Honest 'RingWorm' You just have a problem with me, It has nothing to do with the band. Because your being inconsistant. Because theses articles do include the band: Indian Express https://www.iexpressusa.com/new/articles/archive_news.php?id=4124&from=news Pangea Magazine http://pangeamagazine.blogspot.com/ Plus the Theme song to the new 'The Taqwacores' film is written and recorded by the Sagg Taqwacore Syndicate. They are included on the soundtrack. When I read the Wiki page on requirements they meet the standard. So Im not sure what your beef is other than trying to pick on a new member. Its a case of you thinking your better than others, That what you think is more imporatant and valid than what others think. And thats not anyplace in the Wikipedia criteria, Thats just your ego getting too big. Not fair to the band or to people who use wiki! Papasagg242 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papasagg242 (talk • contribs)

Comment - It's not a matter of simply what outlets these sources are from. It's also about "non-trivial coverage" per WP:N. A passing mention in an article is simply trivial. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile. §FreeRangeFrog 05:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. As stated by Rwiggum, the band isn't mentioned in the ref's. Oh, and Papasagg242, it's "you're" not "your". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I don't see how they meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wylie_Independent_School_District_(Collin_County,_Texas)#Elementary_schools_.281-4.29. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitt Elementary (Sachse, TX)

non notable elementary school. Article lacks reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wylie_Independent_School_District_(Collin_County,_Texas)#Elementary_schools_.281-4.29 per normal practice and precedent, doesn't need AfD StarM 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought there was sufficient precedent as well but another editor disagreed so I brought to AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment what I see in the history is someone undoing the speedy, which is correct since schools aren't eligible for speedy. I don't see evideence that a re-direct was undone. Can you point me to what I'm missing? Otherwise this shoud probably be speedily closed and re-directed. I won't do it since I've already commented. StarM 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per StarM. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, as no independent sources can be found. --Unscented (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wylie_Independent_School_District_(Collin_County,_Texas)#Elementary_schools_.281-4.29, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wylie_Independent_School_District_(Collin_County,_Texas). Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest word in Spanish

Orphan. Only one source. There is an AfD for an article on the longest word in Turkish, so I thought that I should create one for this too. Cssiitcic (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as, I dunno, WP:NONSENSE? How about WP:DICDEF? WP:TRIVIA? I dunno, but WP:SOMETHING. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's just like other stubs. Let it have its own page. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to see a sourced article about the longest words in other languages, rather than stubs for one word in Turkish (muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine), whatever that means, and for one word in Spanish. I'd note that the article asserts that "superextraordinarísimo" is the longest word, and it cites to a source that says that "superextraordinarísimo" is actually not the longest; the stub doesn't mention that the source also lists superextraordinarísimamente and superespectacularísimamente and anticonstitucionalmente and electroencefalografistas. Other than being inaccurate and uninformative, and determined to list only one "longest word" and screwing up even when it comes to that, this is a really really good article. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, please assume good faith. It is certain that the editor who made this article will improve it. 18.96.6.238 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're supposed to assume good faith with regard to everyone in the discussion... including ME, and anyone else who says something you might not agree with. There is nothing wrong with criticizing an article. With the exception of hoaxes, everyone creates an article in good faith. It's easy to see that you created the article, since you say that it is certain that it will be improved. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings, but the source cited doesn't support the statements made in the article itself. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken my friend. Though I didn't make this article, I am assuming it will surely be improved because I'm assuming good faith of the editor who did. My original comment wasn't directed at you specifically as you will note by its indentation so please, WP:AAAGF. 18.96.6.238 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Merging Longest word in Spanish, Longest word in Turkish, Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft, and the longest word in any other languages people drum up to Longest words? Articles can be broken out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE if they are ever merited. It seems to me that the longest word concept might be notable even when individual longest words are not. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support this. There's no sense in having separate articles for each word when one article could cover the subject comprehensively. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest word in Turkish on that point. Is this only-English-gets-special-treatment, not systemic bias on our parts? Do we have any reason to think that there aren't sources talking about Turkish, or Spanish, or Hungarian, longest words, longest placenames, and so forth, as there are sources talking about English language words and names? (Hint: I'm not mentioning Hungarian at random. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you're saying, but if I understand correctly, nobody is saying that we have "Longest English Words" article and a "Longest Words in Other Languages" article. I think that if we had a comprehensive article of "Longest Words" that covered each language's longest words, then that would better serve each word than having a bunch of stubs that will likely never progress beyond that. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's actually the nub of the question, though: How do we know that longest word in Spanish, and longest word in Turkish don't have the potential to be standalone articles with the amount of content that longest word in English now has? Is assuming that they don't, because they currently haven't expanded beyond stub status and are badly written, and because one doesn't speak the languages and so isn't in posession of the knowledge of this sort of thing that a native speaker would be, not simply systemic bias? Is longest word in English a stub? Is the fact that more is (currently) written there than for other languages simply a reflection of the fact that English speakers know the English language, and so can easily write about it, rather than a true reflection of the extent of actual knowledge to be had in these areas? Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's surely a systemic bias problem here, because of a relative paucity of English content on the longest words in non-English languages. That systemic bias will exist if we retain a fleshed-out article on the English word and a bunch of orphaned stubs on other words, and it will remain if we have a comprehensive parent article from which we split out individual languages when they are ready (right now Longest word in English is the only one that would qualify). The source of the systemic bias is lack of content, not article structure. The question is, which structure is best suited for the maintenance and expansion of the content? Baileypalblue (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the source of the bias that is the issue. It's the effect of the bias. Look at what we're doing. We're considering deleting these articles because of it. Observe that when longest word in English was created, it was created at that very title. It wasn't created at longest word or longest words and then renamed to be language-specific. Those came four years later. I suspect that the editor who created the article had more foresight back in 2001 than we are applying now: that xe expected there eventually to be a "longest word in" article for multiple languages, of which English would be but one. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say your concerns about deletion are a reason to support merging the material into a parent article -- it's less likely to be deleted there than in a series of marginal stubs. It's a means of protection. I think you already support the idea of having such a parent article -- do you think we have enough material now to flesh out such an article without merging in material from its constituents? Baileypalblue (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure trivia. I see this being in a sourced list of some sort, but not in standalone article form. §FreeRangeFrog 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The longest word in Spanish may belong on the Spanish Wiki, or conversely, we could have a Longest Word in Each Language-type article. But there is no real point I see in having a longest-word article for an individual world langusge on the English wiki. Eauhomme (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the same concept for Turkish. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced. It is not a dictionary definition, but rather a description of what is the longest word, not the type of info you would find in a dictionary. It would be worth creating a List of longest words in each language. It could list Antidisestablishmentarianism (English) along with this and those of every language for which this could be sourced. Sebwite (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is sourced, useful for college student users, and encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is sourced, encyclopedic, and the subject notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would not object to merging into Longest words, and splitting out when and if enough reliable source material is found to make this more than a stub, like Longest word in English. DHowell (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge, and Rename. Merge all the "Longest word in _____" articles into Longest word in English, then rename it "Longest words." Macarion (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a mention in Spanish language. Not suitable enough for its own article, and the information belongs within its proper context. Themfromspace (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Beach

Actress who appears to have a number of small roles, but little of importance. Gsearch and gnews search not coming up with independent, reliable sources that show notability. Prod contested with comment "meets notabiliy[sic] criteria", but I'm not seeing how she does. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Passes notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Over a 40+ year career, this actress has numerous and significant credits in numerous notable films and TV roles. Esasus (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could point out some of the significant roles for us? I see a lot of appearances in single episodes of series and parts without a name. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure whether or not she has had "significant roles in multiple notable films". However, that's a mere pointer. Reading above that, you'll see that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Basically, we need significant coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Currently, we do not have that. Imdb is not a reliable source and the yahoo link doesn't cut it either. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Single episodes make someone nothing more than a bit player. I also have to say that from having deal with Esasus on other articles and seeing his edits, I have to question if these votes and actions are even made in good faith, as he just claims everything he sees is obviously notable yet never gives any reason for it that comes anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia standards. Frankly, I think an admin should look into his behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep Her role as Sonia on Fresh Fields is notable--she is the primary supporting actress on a British sitcom that ran for 27 episodes from 1984-86. IMDB and the article only list her in 2 episodes--this is an error. She appeared in most,if not all, of them. Eauhomme (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure supporting actress in one show is in itself notable, but before that's even a consideration perhaps you have a WP:RS to back up your claim? DreamGuy (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Again, we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We don't have that. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply And we may not. I have looked online, and there is very little information on a series that was popular in the 1980's, but has not aged well. If you look at general information, it will show the cast list generally as Julia McKenzie, Anton Rodgers, Ann Beach, Ballard Berkeley. So it should be clear that getting third billing consistently on a cast list means you probably appeared in more than simply a minor role. I personally own six episodes of the show, and she is in all six. But, as I previously stated, she is listed only in two episodes on IMDB because the cast list there is incomplete. Another reason for my call for a keep is because, while she has not particularly had significant roles, she has had so many of them that she qualifies as a significant character actress. Eauhomme (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment That doesn't looks so much like third billing as it does only having two stars and the rest always being in alphabetical order (Beach before Berkeley, etc.). Moot argument anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You are continuing to argue that she might meet under "significant roles in multiple notable films". However, this ignores the "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This explanation is there because WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline. Official policy, WP:V, makes it clear: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." We do not have reliable, third-party sources featuring significant coverage of Ann Beach. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To which I would cite WP:IAR because the issue is the inadequacy of a reliable source (such as IMDB), not the lack of one. Eauhomme (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment - Since imdb is not a reliable source for anything beyond some screenwriting credits, I see no reason to ignore any rules. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not persuaded that she does or does not meet the guidelines being cited. However, the article and my own searching do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (GNG). As a result, there is nothing that can be confidently said about her in a biography of a living person. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The criteria for WP:CREATIVE is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". Over her 40 year it is clear that she meets this criteria. Even if her British TV and film roles may not be well known to an American audience (USA attention is not a criteria), but even in the USA one can admit that her role in King Ralph is significant. Esasus (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To repeat: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Basically, we need significant coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Currently, we do not have that. Imdb is not a reliable source and the yahoo link doesn't cut it either. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those clearly are NOT significant roles. Not even close. I mean, for crying out loud, you use King Ralph as an example, but the overly detailed, 1,200+ word plot summary currently in that article doesn't even mention the character she played. That's beyond not significant at all and well into totally insignificant. I mean, come on, how can you even be seriously making these arguments? DreamGuy (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am seriously making the above reasonable arguments; and User:DreamGuy, as you have been reminded so many times before, please be once again strongly reminded that WP:Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles.Esasus (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those arguments are not at all reasonable, as they directly contradict the rules that establish notability. Frankly, I thoght I was being civil in assuming that maybe that was a joke and not an intentional attempt to mislead people by asserting a notable role that clearly wasn't one. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Unionsoap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep - long time British actress. Lots and lots of credits = a significant body of work = notable actress. Unionsoap (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, another brand new editor as of only a few days whose only edits have been to participate in deletion votes and who instantly create a user page so the red link on his name goes away. Same thing happened recently over on some other article being defended by the same guy. Curious. The messages on the user page seems to be a copy of that other user. That user was determined to be a sockpuppet and stricken, doing same here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DARE YOU STRIKE MY VOTE. Your accusations are are false and your action is unjustifiable. I may be new to these discussions, but I know that your unilateral action to strike my vote is unacceptable behaviour and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I note that you also struck my vote here [11] and in that instance your complaint was investigated and found to be baseless - resulting in you receiving a reprimand. I notice that you are sarcastic and argumentative with all editors who have a different opinion than yours, but I also notice that you hypocritically did not strike my vote when I agreed with your nomination for deletion here [12] and shared your opinion here [13]. Unionsoap (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK, so an anonymous IP "reprimanded" me -- LOL, like that means anything. To claim that it was investigated and proven false is an outright lie. I notice that after I pointed out the similarity that you went to change your user page so it was different from the other identified account engaged in vote fraud. Brand new users' votes typically don't count in AFDs specifically to avoid fraud. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I unstruck the !vote per WP:AGF. Even if you were an SPA, the proper course of action would be to apply the {{spa}} template, not strike the !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA tag is a little vague and not an exact fit for "new" users suddenly going around voting, but since you object to the strikethrough that used to be standard procedure, I've gone and tagged it that way. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive to a discussion if one editor feels the need to try to win every point. It is more so when one editor adds into a discussion his opinions of the motives behind each editor's comments. It is even more so disruptive when an editor enters into uncivil behaviour (such as negatively labeling a new editor and striking out his vote). I would think that DreamGuy, who has a long history of of socketpuppetry and uncivil behaviour (see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 .... I could go on), would have learned by now to be more prudent with his comments. Esasus (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 40 years Britisch actress. She's role in Tales of the Unexpected is good. There are many other articles should be deleted before. The article needs only to be improved. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a REASON to vote keep that actually fits our rules? DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Given the longevity of her career, I suspect print references may exist offline. Most of the online sources I found were primarily about the death of her daughter and naught but passing mentions, but I did see hints of notability in an except from this New York Times article from 1958 ("Ann Beach was chosen for the star part of a problem teen-ager.") but it's behind a subscription shield so I can't say for sure how significant it is. Poechalkdust (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have no significant coverage in reliable sources. That sources might exist is hardly the point. If sources are discovered, we'll have something to write. Until then, we have nothing. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rigging For Oils

Protologism. Ghits. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most this term deserves is inclusion in a list of slang – and then only if independent refs can be found. Richard New Forest (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As original PRODer. Non-notable neologism. §FreeRangeFrog 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clever elaborate slang, reasonably concincing for what undergradauates might devise-- but without any actual references. If it can be authenticated, its almost certainly better off in Wiktionary. DGG (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who prodded this one recently, only to see the prod promptly reverted. I can't find any online evidence that this phrase really is popular slang, but even if it is (and there are reliable sources to verify that fact) it belongs in Wiktionary more than it belongs here. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Whittington

This and redirect Art-o-mat were both prodded as they were both duplicates (apparently involving cutting and pasting) of a Cigarette machine#Art-o-Mat. I seconded the prod of this article and prodded the latter with Unsourced article seems promotional in nature and is a duplicate of similarly-prodded Clark Whittington article. The last paragraph (which was removed from the other article) is clearly a promotion. There appears no reliable source independent of the inventor or Artists in Cellopane that demonstrate significant coverage and discussion per WP:N and WP:V. At the time the prod on this was contested, both either had no references or nominal references connected with organization that is trying to promote Art-o-Mat. There is still no reference separating Whittington from Art-o-Mat, and nothing to indicate that he would be noted for anything else. Both articles and the section are still promotional in nature. B.Wind (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have twice pointed out to the nominator the many reliable sources available from a Google News archive search that show notability. The lack of sources separating Art-o-mat from Clark Whittington is a reason for redirecting one article to the other, as the nominator has perfectly correctly done, not for deleting this information altogether. This isn't something that belongs in the cigarette machine article, other than possibly as a brief mention with a link to the article under question here, any more than the article on J. M. W. Turner should be merged with paintbrush - the cigarette machine is simply one of tools of his trade. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources: [14], [15], [16].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The google search above provides a great deal of sources. That most seem to report on this as a novelty says a great deal about the long-term notability of the project (nor is this artist the first to come up with this idea). However, that's not part of our discussion. As it stands, there is some notability for this artist around the Art-o-Matic concept based on the coverage alone. I'd be interested to see where this all stands in a few years. freshacconci talktalk 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those Google News results span 12 years [17][18]. How much longer do you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, that's one source for 12 years ago, when Whittington apparently started this. I don't see how that's important. Is this all he's done in 12 years? That in itself brings up some issues of notability. Were he a young artist starting out and receiving all this press, trivial as it is, that would be impressive. It's actually not much to show for 12 years of work. freshacconci talktalk 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But there are 88 more reliable sources from the intervening years, as I pointed out in my post above. Your argument for the weakness of your keep position was a lack of long-term notability, which those sources show. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why this is so important to you. I've !voted for keep, but I feel it's a weak keep. Yes, there's 88 sources over 12 years. But those are mainly trivial sources (i.e. passing mentions, fluff pieces, etc.: the sources are not in question, just the tone). Add them all up, sure it's notable. But, as I've said before, it's for one work of art and that's all Whittington seems to have done in 12 years. And as I have already said, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. If there had been some more substantial coverage over the past 12 years, or the artist had accomplished more, this wouldn't be an issue. But as it stands, this artist's notability is weak at best. freshacconci talktalk 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't particularly important to me - I had never heard of this artist or his work before I saw the article. I was just replying to your point about long-term notability. If this has had continuing coverage over twelve years then why do you question where this will stand in a few more years? Just how much coverage does it need to make notability more than weak? And how long does it take for something to no longer be a novelty? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. Notable for its novelty, not problematic for commercialization, in my view. Richard Myers (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. We are only concerned with one thing, which is whether this subject has achieved notability according to wikipedia requirements through sufficient coverage in secondary sources, which it clearly has. I would like to see some more of the sources used as references in the article, however. It may be that the article would be better titled as Art-o-mat than the name of the artist, but that is a secondary consideration. Ty 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed this originally; I found hits for Art-O-Mat, so I didn't PROD it at the same time, but searching g-news for something about Whittington that doesn't relate to Art-O-Mat yields nothing. His only claim to notability is the press generated by the Art-O-Mat. Art-O-Mat as its own article I'd say to keep, but not the article about its creator. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't that an argument for reversing the redirect made by the nominator (which I would fully support) rather than for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could put it that way; my "delete" was referring to Clark Whittington since it's the nominated article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to change your !vote to reflect that, as we don't delete valid content just because it's got the wrong title. We change the title. I would also support that. Ty 09:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title wouldn't need changed- the other had text which was changed to a redirect. A simple revert will bring it back. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Ample reliable sources, showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered in reliable sources and over a long period of time so it negates any on-event aspect. As for the notability of Whittington verus the art-o-matic, an artist is known by his work, and his notability is inextricably linked with it. As it seems the art-o-matic is them main claim to fame, then a single article about him and his major work along with a redirect is a perfeclt reasonable approach to addressing the content. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and tag for sources, as they are easily found with even the laziest of searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just added a couple sources. Needs expansion. Perhaps a name-change to Art-O-Mat might be discussed on the talk page/ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at Art-o-mat already. It's a redirect right now, but there is content from before it was redirected. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect to Art-o-mat. This "biography" has no biographical information, rather only details regarding this novelty, therefore there is no assertion that the subject is notable independent of it. Adam Zel (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Edwige Vincent de Bourbon

A very elaborate hoax, with blogs, spam comments on internet forums, and even a website, but no reliable third party sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No book hits, from supposed royalty born in the 50s? WP:HOAX. Nice try. §FreeRangeFrog 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'tis a hoax methinks. Impressive, though. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Choess (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Billion Ernies

Non-notable band, fails WP:V. Has a number of Ghits, but all seem lyrics and other trivial mentions. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete fail of WP:MUSIC as far as I can see. The two album articles should be A9'ed as soon as the band is gone. §FreeRangeFrog 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. The albums will look after themselves via A9. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be self-promoting the group (especially the trivia section). Matt (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cordova Academy

For the same reasons I mentioned in Mohamed Jebara, and because there is no indication that this institution meets the notability criteria. Board55 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with the other article, no indication of notablity, all "sources" self-referential pablo_hablo. 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Academy has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore does not meet the notability requirement. --Megaboz (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Megaboz. This has the looks of an incipient WP:WALL.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations Untrue: Notable community newspapers and other websites cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Board55 Has not contributed anything to Wikipedia: Please, note that user Board55 has made no contributions to Wikipedia, their first and sole acts have been trying to have my articles deleted under false and unfounded allegations. User Board55 has not specified under which article of Wikipedia's deletion policy their false allegations stand. Their first so called 'contribution' to Wikipedia was made at 19:31 on March 1, 2009, and that action was the unfounded act of wanting my articles deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As IP editors cannot nominate an article for deletion, the fact that the one and only action of this registered account may be due to the desire on the part of the editor to nominate for deletion, and not some other nefarious purpose. Sourcing int he article is very weak. The references are not to specific articles, but rather the main website. That's useless for sourcing as it tells us nothing. My own search for sources turn up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Megaboz, no evidence of the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question This academy is supposed to have been founded by Jebara in 1994. According to his bio, he was born in 1981, so he was 13 at the time Cordova Academy was founded. Is this really serious? --Crusio (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy was not fully established in 1994. Rather it was FOUNDED in 1994. There are students (many of them) who have studied with him during this time. Please see his website: http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx, and you will find that it is written:

While at their home, the family inquired about Mohamad's religious education. Impressed by his knowledge at such a youthful age, they asked him to begin teaching them and their extended family and friends. Soon, Mohamad, just twelve years old, would be teaching many in his neighborhood, he had a class of 60 ladies, with their children. They had weekly classes crammed in a small townhouse. This was the dawn of Mohamad's teaching career. --Hafsah02 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, in regards to what was mentioned about the references not going back to specific articles, I wanted to direct your attention to 3 articles:

http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07oct.pdf -- page 15

http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/08jun.pdf -- page 2

http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07dec.pdf -- page 26

The last 2 talk about the founder, the first one talks about the Academy and states:

the Cordova Academy has been in operation in an informal capacity since its inception in 1994, and officially since 2005 --Hafsah02 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somebody teaching at home is not an academy. The exagerated claims in this article and the arguiments being brought forward by the "keep" !votes convince me that there is not enough notability here to meet WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody teaching at another person's home is an academy if they are teaching under that name. The fact remains that it has never been argued that Cordova Academy was a full established academy in 1994. I have already quoted the reference for that above written by staff writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.136.114 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC) --Hafsah02 (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my contribution to wikipedia since you people seem to be so vigorously against my articles, I have removed their entire content. Please, use your time to contribute to the betterment of this world instead of wasting your time indulging in and slandering something you have no knowledge about. I am truly sorry that wikipedia is like this, I actually though it had some academic weight to it. I have lost all respect for its so called credibility. A person who contributed nothing to it sparked all this, due to some envy they may harbor for this great institution and its honorable founder. Dear Moderator, please delete all my contributions to Wikipedia immediately and let everyone get on with their lives. an-Nadeem —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A9. Martin^msgj 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winter EP

Apparently nn album by a nn band (deleted at AfD in December 2008 here) released by a red link record company. "Controversy" comes from possible foul play around their recording. StarM 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band and label don't even have articles, how could this album have one? Also delete [Category:Photo_Incentive_albums] Belasted (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category taken to CfD, thanks for the heads up. StarM 20:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also noting the GFDL is not revocable. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Jebara

I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted along with Cordova Academy. Board55 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator - neither he nor the Cordova Academy are notable, and the sources for the references are weak. pablo_hablo. 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Basis for Deletion Request All material in this article is verifiable and well cited. Please feel free to check the citation. The request for deletion does not conform to the deletion guidelines. Thank You. An-Nadeem —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
note An-Nadeem & anon IP 74.13.69.170 each removed AfD notice from Article once, similar actions at Cordova Academy Afd, including blanking the AfD page. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Zero citations on Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, no entries in Google Books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Board55 Has not contributed anything to Wikipedia: Please, note that user Board55 has made no contributions to Wikipedia, their first and sole acts have been trying to have my articles deleted under false and unfounded allegations. User Board55 has not specified under which article of Wikipedia's deletion policy their false allegations stand. Their first so called 'contribution' to Wikipedia was made at 19:31 on March 1, 2009, and that action was the unfounded act of wanting my articles deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly interesting, odd for a new user to be able to raise an Afd. However the issue for discussion here is whether this article fulfils the criteria of notability, and it doesn't seem to. pablo_hablo. 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an IP editors cannot complete an AFD nomination. Although unusual, it may be a case where the editor registered in order to do the nomination but otherwise edits anonymously. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hafsah02: The consideration of having this article deleted is completely unfounded. The user ``board55`` has based his allegations on absolutely no policy broken under the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Moreover, the articles `Mohamad Jebara`and `Cordova Academy` are general articles that promote no hate, discrimination, or any other controversial issue for that matter. Thus, there would be no need to have them removed. Due to these reasons, I feel the request of deletion should be disregarded based on the fact that there is no proof or reason to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Board55 has no basis for requesting this article to be deleted, rather he has failed to concur with the general policies of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia which is to “be civil and neutral and to respect all points of views”. All information on this article and all others relating to it are factual and verifiable. We hope all those who oppose these articles will bring proof and do so with consideration and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More brand new users jumping into deletion discussions! The "policy" in question is notability supported by independent, reliable sources. pablo_hablo. 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit www.cordovaacademy.com. His books and publications are also clearly mentioned in the article. Please be more clear as to the specific proof you (the judge) are looking for. As a member of the Ottawa community I can attest to all of Imam Mohamad Jebara's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no reliable sources covering this person in depth. Fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The notability issue you have brought up is not valid for the reasons that Imaam Mohamad Jebara is well known to the community, he has taught a great number of people, he is being nominated for the Order of Ontario award, he has given lectures in so many schools in Ottawa, he has been in the newspaper several times. I can go on and on with this. Additionally, the `lack of reliable sources` you mentioned is also unfounded for the reason that the articles are fully referenced. If there is something written in them that is untrue, then you must provide proof. If not, then please be respectful and do not make claims of `notability`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read the guideline on reliable sources. Most of the references provided are not reliable sources. In particular, all the point to the Cordova Academy are not independent of the subject. The Metro News article is simply a single quote from the subject. This leaves only a couple of articles in a community Muslim paper. That's very narrow coverage. Taking all of these references in their totality, they do not meet the threshold of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete (ec x 2) per Whpq, Eric Yurken & pablo, I don't see the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Take for example the Metro News source, it's a tangential quote from the subject. In order to support notability this would have to be a story about Mohamad Jebara, it is not, it is about World Religion Day. Two sentences at the bottom of the piece mentioning Jebara in a local give-away commuter paper just don't come close to the extensive coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that is required to meet WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article creator could produce some independent sources, I would probably support its survival. As it stands, it's interesting but non-notable because of the lack of independent sources. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ - The subject of this article has made historical contributions to Classical fields relating to the Elocution and Grammar of the Classical Arabic language. You may have missed the point of the Metro Newspaper, the subject of my article was present at the event representing the Muslim faith; the official delegate of the Muslim faith from the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, during the word religion day celebrations. Also, please see the citations to the Muslimlink Newspaper, a Muslim newspaper distributed in major cities in Ontario and Quebec. I would like to know, why these articles are being attached so vigorously? There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that are bare of citations, and people with no notability still up with no objection. Why is it that when a user (User Board55) who contributed nothing to wikipedia aside from trying to get my articles deleted, and their first supporter is a user who accuses themselves of vandalism, make false allegations, their allegations are taken seriously? I think this is truly a sad waste of time. Instead of improving my articles and getting them to a standard you 'deem' acceptable, you are wasting time slandering the person of a very notable member of the Ottawa community, without knowing anything about him. Thank you for your understanding -- An-Nadeem(UTC)

Comment You should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, there's a lot out there that is not good enough and actually should be deleted. If you have seen articles like that, please bring them to AfD. In the meantime, their existence cannot be used to justify maintaining other articles with equal lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Jebara is supposed to have been born in 1981 and in 1994, presumably at the age of 13, founded Cordova Academy. That, frankly, seems rather improbable to me. Any comments on this anybody? --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx for his detailed biography.

Dear moderator, it is for reasons like these that Imam Jebara has gained standing at such a young age.

Additionally, I was looking up the Q and A’s on the issue of reliability, and I quote one of the moderators, “Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source.3F

The source in question, namely the Muslimlink Newspaper, is neither very politicized, nor does the source not mention enough detail about the subject’s biography, nor is it self published.

please see: http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07dec.pdf page 26 And Also http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/08jun.pdf pg. 2 And Also http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07oct.pdf pg. 15

The Muslimlink is a widely known newspaper in the Province of Ontario not affiliated with any group or people. The content of this article has been mainstream news and events both locally and internationally.

As the policy states “Significant coverage" means that sources addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

All of the articles mentioned in the Muslimlink meet these criteria. What then, dear moderator, is the problem? In addition, all of his books contain his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy was not fully established in 1994. Rather it was FOUNDED in 1994. There are students (many of them) who have studied with him during this time. Please see his website: http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx, and you will find that it is written:

While at their home, the family inquired about Mohamad's religious education. Impressed by his knowledge at such a youthful age, they asked him to begin teaching them and their extended family and friends. Soon, Mohamad, just twelve years old, would be teaching many in his neighborhood, he had a class of 60 ladies, with their children. They had weekly classes crammed in a small townhouse. This was the dawn of Mohamad's teaching career.--Hafsah02 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete Muslimlink is "not affiliated with any group or people"? Come on... I quote: "The Muslim Link’s aims to bring Canadian Muslims together under the banner of Islam and to open a dialogue with non-Muslims.". If that isn't affiliation with a 'group or people' then I don't know what the word means. User Board 55 is quite entitled to nominate for AfD - as are you. If you consider any article is not suitable for Wikipedia, bring it here and we'll look at it too. We'll discuss it, analyse it, research it, and then reach a consensus. Not following any holy writ, not following slavishly any carved in stone commandments, but rather assessing each case individually. Some are total junk. Some are more border-line, and their fate depends on our opinions. Others are poor quality but capable of improvement and may be kept for this. Still others are decidedly not candidates for deletion and they get speedily kept. I notice that only one of the supporters of this article has edited outside this topic, and that one has spent much effort on this article and the Cordova Academy one, with little other except related subjects. Possibly inserting links - I haven't checked. This is no reason to disregard their views, but does tend to make criticism of Board55 look like pot and kettle. Above, I said I might be inclined to support if reliable outside sources were forthcoming. So far they haven't been. I can understand this, as I can't find any either - and believe me, I do try. The histrionics of the support side haven't done much for me, either. I prefer facts - supported facts - to "you can't do this!" and "he is notable, we say he is!" statements. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Muslim Link invites MUSLIMS and NON-MUSLIMS to send in their contributions on issues which affect the Muslim Community AS WELL AS the GREATER CANADIAN COMMUNITY.”

“Muslim Link is NOT affiliated with any particular group or sect. Muslim Link DOES NOT directly or indirectly favour any organizations or groups.”

We’ve brought the facts. The issue at stake here was that of notability, whether there were any sources that MEET the reliability standards.

Your policy states that Materials from news organizations are welcome, and as the moderator stated “Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)”

I also noted that the subject’s biography is mentioned in his books, those are all available in hard copy text. You are more than welcome to purchase them for fact checking.

Kindly explain how this case is different. Is the problem that Muslimlink is a Muslim MADE newspaper? Is that the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. pablo_hablo. 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the "keep" !votes seems to be able to provide compelling evidence of notability. If they, who seem to have detailed knowledeg of the subject, cannot do this, that probably means there is none. And I agree with Peridon, the yelling and implicit accusations of anti-Muslim bias aren't very helpful either. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What accusations?

You have a policy. Our article meets those guidelines, yet you say that this case is different, and you still have not explained how so? I really am dumbfounded at the allegations here.

What does it mean to have compelling evidence? We're really trying our best to bring forth online material that meet these guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We're really trying our best to bring forth online material that meet these guidelines."

I know that this is difficult, I too tried - and failed - to bring forth any online material that attests to the notability of Mohamad Jebara. What he writes on his own website is not independent. Biographies of him in books that he has written are not independent. That leaves the "Muslim Link" newsletter: I have found no information on its circulation or its editorial standards. pablo_hablo. 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact them. Editor-in-Chief [email protected]. It is a well known Newspaper in Ontario and Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please provide links to reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Don't put them here, put them in the article. pablo_hablo. 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We brought our proof, and as per your policy we expect you too, to prove that this Newpaper is not legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I don't want to bite a newby, but you have NOT shown any proof. An email to the editor-in-chief of a journal will not do anything to establish its notability. What is he going to say? "No, my journal is completely forgettable"? Of course not, even if it is, he'll maintain that his journal is important. And an email that I or anyone else gets, is not something I can put in an article as a reference. Not every newspaper is automatically a reliable source. If you have something from one of Canada's major newspapers, that would be great. If all you have is Muslim Link, then you will have to show first that this journal is notable and independent, before you can use it as an independent verifiable source. It is not up to anybody here to show that Muslim Link is not notable, it is up to you to show that it is. --Crusio (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. ~~Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs)

Note - Please do not add the signatures of another user onto your posts. I've stricken the signature. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quotation above is taken from an answer to a question here, and does nothing to indicate that Muslim Link is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy pablo_hablo. 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I quoted it above if you remember. I'd just like to understand how the paper in question also proves that it is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the moderator was refering to general guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my contribution to wikipedia since you people seem to be so vigorously against my articles, I have removed their entire content. Please, use your time to contribute to the betterment of this world instead of wasting your time indulging in and slandering something you have no knowledge about. I am truly sorry that wikipedia is like this, I actually though it had some academic weight to it. I have lost all respect for its so called credibility. A person who contributed nothing to it sparked all this, due to some envy they may harbor for this great institution and its honorable founder. Dear Moderator, please delete all my contributions to Wikipedia immediately and let everyone get on with their lives. an-Nadeem —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I would like to stress that I have Islamic friends, and have worked for years with Islamic people. As to 'slandering' and 'envy' - we are not slandering or libelling. We are trying to establish a true picture from independent sources. I have more than once added references to an article in order to save it. I can't do that here because I can't find anything that meets my definition of reliable, or Wikipedia's definition either. If you could produce the references, ones that are considered independent and reliable (no blogs, myspaces, and such, and no self-published stuff with a few rare exceptions), we'd look at them. And a consensus would be reached. We cannot just accept your statement that the subject is well-known. Maybe to you, he is. He isn't to us. And we have looked. As to 'envy', I find nothing there to envy and certainly don't. I come from a faith that does not regard any books as 'holy'. On the other hand, I do know that memorising the Islamic holy book is regarded in Islam as an achievement. It is not all that rare an achievement, I believe, and by itself not notable enough for an article. It is also difficult to establish by independent means. I am sorry you are deciding to withdraw your article. I would rather it stayed - subject to verifiable references. When you can produce these, bring it back for a second try. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Peridon's statement, well said! --Crusio (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aravious Armstrong

Incoming true freshman who has yet to play a down of college football. The only source material covers Miami's recruits in general - this player does not meet the standard of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. If, after arriving at campus, redshirting, earning playing time, and earning a starting position, he becomes a notable player, we can create an article at that time. Teams take in 20-25 or so players per year and around half of them never play a meaningful down. B (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy, unless "Armstrong was considered one of the best defensive prospects coming out of high school in 2009" is considered evidence of notability. "One of the best" doesn't seem adequate to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every scholarship player for a BCS team was one of the best prospects coming out of high school. I am a Virginia Tech fan and occasionally go back and look at our old recruiting classes and it's amazing how many people on the list everyone obsessed over as the next thing since sliced bread who never panned out. I'm all for having articles on notable college athletes, but unless someone outside of a recruiting service notices them, we don't need high school athletes to be covered. --B (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Let's name the precedents: Arthur Brown, Russell Shepard, Devon Kennard, Matt Barkley, Garrett Gilbert, Bryce Brown, Manti Teo. Each of these articles is about a high school football player, each of them faced an AfD, and in each and everyone of them was decided to keep the articles. Don't waste your time, guys. --bender235 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Going down your list ... Arthur Brown was ranked by some as the #1 recruit in the country and received non-trivial media coverage, including a USA Today article specifically about him. Shepard was also ranked as the #1 recruit in the country by some. Kennard was #2 nationally and is the subject of numerous news articles. Barkley was the Gatorade National Player of the Year. Gilbert overwhelmingly meets the standard of significant coverage in the media. Bryce Brown received the U.S. Army National Player of the Year Award. Manti Teʻo has never actually been AFD'd but perhaps should. Anyway, Armstrong, unlike your above "precedents", has only been covered by news outlets that are covering all recruits. Nobody has profiled him. He isn't the #1 player in the country. He isn't a Percy Harvin, Tim Tebow, Chris Leak, or LeBron James that every sports fan on the planet has heard of even while they were in high school. That's the difference. --B (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong has been profiled by St. Petersburg Times. He also was ranked #13 by Rivals, compared to Shepard #7, Kennard #8, and Gilbert #18. I don't really see how smart it would be to delete this article now just to prove something, and then re-add it in fall when Armstrong lines up for the Hurricanes. --bender235 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article you linked? He wasn't "profiled" - he was mentioned in an article about Miami's recruiting. Only a small amount is actually about him. If, at some point in the future, he becomes a starter and there is non-trivial media coverage about him, then an article would be appropriate. I'm assuming that he is redshirting, so even if he starts as a redshirt freshman, that's 18 months away. Take a good look at Miami's commit list. A quarter of them will never play a meaningful down and over half of them will never start. We don't need articles for all of them just in case they make it. --B (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not certain about college football players, but those who have not yet played at that level are certainly not yet notable college athletes, which is the highest level of "amateur" competition. . As for notable high school athletes, I would insist as for other high school activities, on a national level award, not just a state one. Shepard, for example, did have a national level distinction, This is something that needs to be reconsidered. Only a few months ago we were debating about the notability of college varsity players. Articles with emphasis on the choice of a student about which college to attend, show the lack of encyclopedic content. to make an analogy, this is as if we were to make a push not just for the notability of any assistant professor, regardless of actual publications--but of anyone who ever started to work towards a PhD. DGG (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, he's a wait and see situation, which isn't what wikipedia is for. Secret ^account 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not meet inclusion criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Yellow Pages Ltd

Other pages by the same poster have been speedy deleted as spam advertising. This was nominated, but another editor felt that it didn't meet the criteria for speedy as spam. I beg to differ. While perhaps the topic might warrant a page if secondary sourcing is available, as it stands today it pure advertising. Barring a complete reworking of the article, it should be deleted, like its brethren have. This doesn't bar recreation if the article is not spam. Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I attempted to clean out the promotional material of the article. All that's left to do is ascertain whether the article meets other guidelines such as WP:V and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it gives enough info anyway.. but notable? dunno --hnnvansier (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this is a spammer, has recreated already previously speedied deleted material in multiple times. The latest being Turkey Yellow Pages LLC.--Cerejota (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Turkey" page has been SALTed. Of course, salted turkey is nasty, but I am just sayin'...--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Themfromspace (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two are press releases from the company, which are not reliable sources. The other two links didn't load, but I doubt they're much better. As such, there isn't really an independant assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Dobernig

No evidence that he passes WP:MUSIC and ghits show he exists not that he's notable. ~~For the same reasons, including:~~

~~Winter EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which seems to be a nn album by the same musicia~~. Never mind, appears to be different album by a different artist. StarM 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing indicating WP:MUSIC. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonscape

Contested prod. Non-notable MMORPG, not yet released. I had originally tagged the article {{db-nocontext}}, but that concern has been addressed since, though barely. Delete without prejudice against recreation once the game becomes notable after its release. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonscape has been set to release on the following date Monday 9th march. Beta testing is taking place as we speak. Please don't delete this article the game shall be released soon...so I have been told by games galactica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkidmoa (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the redlink "insider" has pretty much indicated CRYSTAL in the process of arguing keep. If it's released, if it's popular, if it's got some coverage, then somebody can work on it. MSJapan (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete criteria A7- looking at the website, it appears to be just another online browser-based game. Since there is no indication of importance, this can be speedily deleted. Marasmusine (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - however, this isn't about the website. Versus22_talk 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wait for an official announcement from the creators. Right now, it fails the criteria Wyatt Riot explained. Versus22_talk 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ashley Tisdale. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty Pleasure (album)

WP:CRYSTAL violation. No release date. No tracklist. Only source for title is a one-off mention in a Cosmopolitan magazine interview, hardly an official mechanism for announcing albums. —Kww(talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Doesn't change my stance, but it is fair to mention that there is confirmation of the title at http://www.ashleytisdale.com/news. That's an Ashley Tisdale site owned by Warner Brothers Records. Still no release date, still no tracklist, but a bit better confirmation of the title.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashley Tisdale. There is nothing more to this album than is already covered at Tisdale's article, so it's premature to give it its own article. Once there is a confirmed release date and a full track listing, then it makes sense to spin it off to its own article. For now, it's too early. (But for the AfD, I'd go ahead and boldly redirect it now.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashley Tisdale. We'll get more informations about this album very soon. It's not necessary delete the article, just redirect it. When sufficient informations to keep the article comes available, we can just revert the redirect. Decodet (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source (Welcome to New AshleyMusic.com) in the article confirmed Guilty Pleasure. Juanacho(talk) 1:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom Dennissell (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G11. Articles that exist solely to promote a service are speediable--and this article was a textbook example. Author blocked as a spam/promotion-only account. Blueboy 96 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual dba

Made up term by the article creator to promot his own company, Virtual-DBA. Only use of this term comes from that company, which is also unnotable. Only edits by creator have been trying to promote this term among other DB related articles. It could probably be speedied (A7 - unnotable company), but its not entirely clear if the article is about the company or the term, so going AfD instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not correct. Since this term was invented multiple companies and entities have used this term including Xtivia (as Virtual-DBA), IBM, Wardy IT and more. It seems to be spreading in use thus notability. I think it is important to note the origin of the term in order to decrease confusion and misuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juder9 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? The only search results found for that term all lead back to your company. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary source information, either for this or for "Virtual-DBA". Author obviously has COI, which lends a spamy flavor to the article. --Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Harry Carey, Jr.. I think this is the best judgement I can make based on the discussion - the article should not exist as a standalone, but there seems no objection to including the material in an appropriate biography section. In order to allow a merge I have to preserve the history, so I am setting this up as a redirect. This will also facilitate article spinout if Michael Schmidt is correct. Any concerns or comments about this close, please contact me Fritzpoll (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche Stallion

This article has been up for AfD twice before (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comanche stallion), with one "keep" and one "no consensus" result. I am bringing it up again because the article claims that this movie was released March 5, 2005 -- but there is serious reason to doubt that it was ever released at all, and I have found no reliable sources to explain what happened to it. That is, I can't figure out whether filming was never completed, or whether post-production was never completed, or whether the producers were unable to secure a distributor, or what.

As evidence against the idea that the film was released on March 5, 2005, I note that the Internet Movie Database shows no external reviews, no newsgroup reviews, and no user comments. Rotten Tomatoes, a site that compiles movie reviews, doesn't even have an entry for Comanche Stallion. [19] Box Office Mojo doesn't have an entry either, meaning that no box office grosses for it are known to them. [20] And in an era when theatrical films normally make it to DVD within 4 months, this film hasn't been released on DVD in 4 years. A look at the film's own web site shows an unusually low amount of information for a film which allegedly has been released.

There is also a disconnect between the plot and the characters. The only character specifically named in the "Plot" section is General Marcus Lathrop, but nobody is identified as playing Lathrop in the "Cast" section. Although James Arness is listed as playing an "Adjutant General", his role is listed as a voice role only on IMDb (consistent with his comments on his own site), and it would be unusually postmodern to have him playing the main character without actually appearing on screen. Furthermore, no more than five of the actors in the film are listed in any source I can find.

And what about the cast and crew members' personal web sites? Well, James Arness mentioned in November 2003 that he recorded the voiceover narration for the film [21], but he doesn't list the movie in his filmography even though his site has been updated as recently as February 2009. [22] Harry Carey Jr., who is both one of the stars and a producer of the film, doesn't mention it at all on his official site, although that site may not have been updated for several years. Hechter Ubarry doesn't list the film on his resume, even though he lists the 2006 release 16 Blocks there. And co-director Clyde Lucas's bio on his web site says "As of this writing, Carey (producing) and Lucas (directing) are working on a new action western, titled Comanche Stallion" -- between two other entries dated 2008.

Admittedly, it is possible for a film to be notable without being released or even finished -- see Category:Unfinished films -- but in most cases, the articles have sources that explain what happened to the project. In this case, I haven't found any such sources. Until we know the real status of this film, I don't think we have enough information to justify an article, and consequently it ought to be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Metropolitan90 fairly exhaustive research and WP:V. It seems like this film was never created or even really entered production. It seems like it was nothing more than an unrealized idea. Even the "official" site is sketchy and doesn't look like it is even a legitimate official site, though it is registered to "7th Voyage Productions" whoever they are.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There's no acounting for Rotten Tomatoes, but like IMDB they are not a database for every film ever made. More pointedly, IMDB's lack of informations should not be taken as a deficit... specially since Wiki does not feel it is reliable for anything but the barest of WP:V. Arness's participation is easily confirmed by the Sun Sentinel inteview[23] and Movie Actors, though I cannot imagine why someone nearly 90-years-old might not put it on his website... yet... even after his participation was confirmed in interviews. The film is confirmed as released by Hollywood.com, Cinema Theiapolis (with cover art), IMDB, Mooviees, Top Ten Reviews, Movie Zen, Vicdir, IGN, Cinema.com, KinoPoisk, Popcorn Confessions, Buy Indian, Trailerfan, LAMP, bk.pps, Film Reference, MrMovie, HuDong, Buddy TV, Hollywood Collectors Show, B Monster, CNMDB, TAGSRWC, CinemaRX, Available Images, 7th Voyage Productions, Quizmoz, Syndicated Journalist, Fuzzster, Hollywood Up Close, Mov6, Jerri Blank, Most Wanted Movies, Come on Hollywood, DukeWayne.com, Film Web, New York Times, dy.com and dozens and dozens more.... and appears to be downloadable at Now Torrents, Sumo Torrent, BT Junkie... so did this go direct-to-video and then was pulled out of release? Kind tough to crystal ball that one. But it is WP:Verified that it was made and it more than surpasses WP:GNG for backgound, history, cast, and crew. And its quite notable in and of itself that a bunch of old duffers shook off the cobwebs and got together, 30 years after their primes, to make one last film. I would welcome further research and expansion of this notable film, I do not believe the questions posed by the nom are best answered by a deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure whether to consider this a hoax or just one of the many thousands of movies that get proposed but don't actually get made. I think I can say with certainty that the movie described wasn't released though, and whether it ever got past the idea stage is anyone's guess. There's a fairly long interview with Carey here, dated November 2005, and not only does he not mention Comanche Stallion even once, he specifically says that his last movie "...was with Tom Selleck about 10 years ago." If he'd released another one a few months before he would have mentioned it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Harry Carey himself spoke about the film and it being his last HERE and again in an interview HERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN piece is dated 2004, and the video has no particular date and is hosted on the questionable Comanche Stallion site. And if the movie was actually made, why doesn't the video show footage from it? Simply put, I can't believe a movie from a big western star like Carey and with a John Ford connection could be released and not even get a single review, anywhere. Variety reviews virtually every commercially-released motion picture. And not even 5 people have seen it and rated on IMDB? Let's face the facts here, this movie may be or may once have been in some stage of conception/production, but it hasn't been released, in 2005 or otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the video clip where Carey spoke of CS as being a hoax and it is hosted on the film's official website... and calling the official website "questionable" may be a bit harsh as it is the official site put up by the production company[24]. I am in agreement with concerns over what might have happened to the film. I am quite willing to post questions at the websites of the various principals to find out what happened if no one else cares to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the exhastive research done by Michael, artile is already well researched.Ikip (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metroppolitan99 has doen some great research himself, and his concerns are laudable. I just don't think they will be addressed by a deletion, when they might with copyedit within the WP:DEADLINE set by wiki to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to address a few of the concerns raised in this discussion. I never said that Comanche Stallion was a hoax and I don't think it is one. Rather, I think it is a project which was intended to be a film, which got cast, which got some publicity and became listed in various databases, but which may not actually have made it into release. I read James Arness's comments on his web site, and I do believe that James Arness went into a recording studio more than five years ago and recorded narration for Comanche Stallion. However, it is not certain that the filmmakers succeeded in filming, editing and releasing two hours of movie to accompany that narration, although they planned to do so. As to the sources which confirm the film's release, not all of them even purport to do that. For example, Hollywood.com lists the film's status as "announced", not released. So does the New York Times. (If we consider the NYT a reliable source, that should be enough to lead us to believe that the film was not released.) The IGN item is an interview with Harry Carey Jr., published in 2004, in which he describes Comanche Stallion as his next project. BMonster is an item published in 2003 which states that Carey "is mounting a production" of Comanche Stallion. Buy Indian says Carey "is now producing" the film. TAGSRWC was published in 2004 and describes Comanche Stallion as "in the works". Several of the other sources cited by MichaelQSchmidt are database entries with minimal information which appear to have copied IMDb and/or each other. As to the torrent sources, I do not download films from torrent sites myself so I will have to rely on other editors to report on whether those sites really do have this film. BT Junkie does not purport to have it. But one thing that would really help confirm the film's completion and release is a reliable source indicating that someone has seen it and evaluated it as being good, bad, or indifferent. So far, I have not found one of those. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish MQS's commendable work ethic could be directed more, and that his summaries of links could be less misleading. Having a year in parentheses after a film's name is not a confirmation of release. Anyone who thinks otherwise should ask the question at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability. This film satisfies neither the general notability guideline nor the notability guidelines for films. But before I bother with that, I will go through (in unfortunately tedious detail) the shortcomings of the laundry list of putative evidence for the theatrical release of the film.

First, it should be noted that many of the sources cannot be considered to be reliable sources. But even assuming they are, here are the facts about what they do and do not say about Comanche Stallion:

Sun Sentinel interview. Passing mention of movie only (doesn’t describe nature of role, no confirmation of release).
Movie Actors. Passing mention only (doesn’t describe nature of role, no confirmation of release).
Hollywood. om. No confirmation of release.
Cinema Theiapolis. Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
IMDB. Suggests release date of March, 2005. Does not specify theatrical.
Mooviees. No confirmation of release.
Top Ten Reviews. No confirmation of release.
Movie Zen. Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
Vicdir. Suggests release date of March, 2005. Does not specify theatrical.
IGN. No confirmation of release.
Cinema.com. No confirmation of release.
KinoPoisk (Russian). Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
Popcorn Confessions. Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
Buy Indian. Link to official website. No material information on movie.
Trailerfan. No confirmation of release.
LAMP. No confirmation of release.
bk.pps (Chinese). Suggests release date of March, 2005. Does not specify theatrical.
Film Reference. No confirmation of release.
MrMovie. Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
HuDong (Chinese). Suggests release date of March, 2005. Does not specify theatrical.
Buddy TV. No confirmation of release.
Hollywood Collectors Show. No confirmation of release.
B Monster. No confirmation of release.
CNMDB (Chinese). Suggests release date of March, 2005. Does not specify theatrical.
TAGSRWC. No confirmation of release.
CinemaRX. Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
Available Images. No confirmation of release.
7th Voyage Productions. No confirmation of release.
Quizmoz (trivia quiz). Suggests release in 2006. Does not specify theatrical.
Syndicated Journalist. No confirmation of release.
Fuzzster. Suggests release date of March, 2005. Does not specify theatrical.
Hollywood Up Close. No confirmation of release.
Mov6. No confirmation of release.
Jerri Blank. No confirmation of release.
Most Wanted Movies. No confirmation of release.
Come on Hollywood. No confirmation of release.
DukeWayne.com (forum). No confirmation of release.
Film Web (Polish; appears to be a forum). No confirmation of release.
New York Times. No confirmation of release.
dy.com (Chinese). No confirmation of release.
dozens and dozens more. Do we need to look further?

However, the release or non-release of the film is not the main issue. Rather, there is no evidence that this film has received non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. See "comanche+stallion"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ned=en_sg&btnGt=Show+Timeline this Google news archive search for example.

Likewise, the subject-specific notability guidelines are not met.

No full-length reviews in large circulation newspapers or from nationally know critics.
Not historically notable (not old enough to meet criteria).
No awards.
Not archived.
Not taught at a notable film program.

Of course, there are alternate criteria:

Not a "unique accomplishment".
Not a "major part of the career" of any of the notable people attached (by any normal definition of "major part of a career").
Not produced in a country that is "not a major film producing country".

So. It seems pretty cut-and-dried. Hard to see what all the fuss is about. Bongo matic 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What is the fuss? Even you acknowledge that WP:NF allows notability for "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career"... and it being the final feature film of the writer/director/producer, kinda makes it both a "unique" and "major part" of Carey's career, as despite his incredible 53 year career as an actor, this is his first, last and only feature film as writer/director. This does kinda show notability and signifcance. Or am I totally nuts? (don't answer that last). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be a minor point, I don't think I've seen any sources that refer to Carey as a director on this film. At least, the IMDb does not list him as such, nor has he been identified as a director on the film's page any time recently. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bongomatic's thorough analysis of the available sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has any attempt been made to contact any of these seniors to find out about their film? Apparently they get to their respective website every so often, and confirmations might put this all in perspective, if one is seek a source other than the internet. And can this be done within the WP:DEADLINE set by this AfD? . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated reference to WP:DEADLINE (an essay—not even a guideline—that is literally ambiguous in its implication) is not apt even if you take View two as articulated therein to be the real meaning. This is because, notwithstanding your own views on what does and doesn't belong in this encyclopedia, according to the standards set out in the well-agreed notability guidelines, this film has had its "lack of significance ... unambiguously established."

As alluded to (but perhaps not spelled out in sufficient clarity) in my comment above, who did what on this film doesn't actually help satisfy either the general or the film-specific notability criteria. Bongo matic 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating in case it was missed. WP:NF allows notability for "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career"... and it being the final and ONLY feature film of the writer/director/producer, kinda makes it both a "unique" and "major part" of Carey's career, as despite his incredible 53 year career as an actor, this is his first, last and only feature film as writer/director. This does kinda show notability and signifcance. Even if release is indeterminant, sources in the article do show it was made. That he is almost 90 pretty much indicates that his own comment about it being his last might be taken as gospel.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant wording at WP:NF, which you quoted is "major part of his/her career". While you may be convinced that the factors you mention make this such a "major part", my view is that a movie with extremely limited if any theatrical release, and no significant reviews or other coverage, can not be said to be a "major part of" someone's career. I don't read this criterion to be one about the notable person's psychology, but whether objectively, it is a major part of someone's oeuvre. Bongo matic 06:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that first, final and ONLY feature film of Carey as a writer/director/producer after a 53-year carrer as an notable actor, is not then itself notable? Or is it that you believe that B Monster, IGN, The Morning Call, Animal Movies Guide, International Television & Video Almanac, Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television: A Biographical Guide (page 89) are evidences that it was made but not that it had wide release? And it is that wide release you wish and not that it can be WP:Verified as the first, last, and only for this man? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep raising these links as evidence of anything:

B Monster: "Carey, son of one of the screen's legendary cowboys and veteran of several Ford classics, will produce and star in 'Comanche Stallion,' based on the 1958 novel by Tom Millstead." No statement that it actually was produced, let alone distributed.
IGN: "9. What is your next project? Comanche Stallion. This will be my last Western and a film John Ford wanted to make. 10. What is the one project that you've always wanted to do, but have yet to be able to? Comanche Stallion since 1963." No statement that it actually was produced, let alone distributed.
Animal Movies Guide: "Comanche Stallion. 2005, western and fantasy. A band of treasure-seekers (James Arness, Harry Carey, Jr., Robert Carradine, Rance Howard, and Hechter Ubarry) are on a quest to find the fabled Comanche Stallion (played by Wings) whom the Native Americans consider to be a mystical, lucky—and unattainable—horse." No suggestion of wide or theatrical release.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel "Arness, now almost 85, had a role in a 2006 movie titled Comanche Stallion." No suggestion of wide or theatrical release.
International Television & Video Almanac. The little context does not appear to make provide evidence of wide or theatrical release.
Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television: No preview available.

Again, not that it matters. The lack of notability comes from the general and subject-specific criteria. Bongo matic 08:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And again, it matters quite a lot, as the notability does indeed come from the general and subject-specific criteria... but just not to you. You seem to have (quite reluctantly) agreed that at least three of the sources confirm the film's completion, even though none confirm its release. I ask that you not be so dismissive of them as they quite explicitely show notability in this case.

B Monster confirms intent to make the film
James Arness interview confirms fil as having at one point been in production
IGN confirms intent to make the film
Animal Movies Guide confirms film was made
South Florida Sun-Sentinel confirms film was nade
International Television & Video Almanac confirms film was made
None confirm the film as released. So what? It does not matter PER GUIDELINE.

Let's take the repeated ad-naseum contention that the film has not been released: WP:NFF indicates that films "...not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This brings us right back to WP:NF and "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career" and my contention that as the first, last and only film written and directed by a notable individual, it most specifically meets criteria of the production being notable... even without the film being released. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In a nutshell, then the debate can be boiled down to this. Does this file represent at "major part of" the career of anyone involved. MQS says "yes". I say "no". In support of MQS's arguments, he relies on subjective criteria about uniqueness and singularity. In support of my argument, I point out that this film is so minor that it cannot be considered to be a "major part" of anyone's career. It would be helpful if other commentators can refer to this specific difference when opining further. Bongo matic 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to clarify that "nutshell": As long as this film can be considered a unique milestone in a notable contributor's career... released or not... blockbuster or not... it has has earned its notability under current guideline... as being the first, the last, and the only film writen and directed by notable personage Harry Carey Jr.. Like Bongomatic, I invite a fresh perspective, as maybe WP:NFF needs to be drastically rewritten. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure by what measure it can be considered a "milestone" if nobody has seen it, Carey hasn't mentioned it in subsequent interviews, and it very possibly doesn't even exist. And nothing says Carey directed it, either. The bottom line is that even the most basic facts about this film aren't supported by reliable sources: if it was made, who made it, if it was completed, if it was released, and if so how it was released, or even if it exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline does not require that it have been released. Simple. Returning to that argument ignores both the guidelines of WP:NFF "...not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", and the guidelines of WP:N "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". Further what sources have been provided, including RS interviews with James Arness, show that the film HAD been in production. Of course, if the argument is being made that is is NOT unique and notable by being the first, last, and only feature film written and directed by Carey, released or not, then it's time to rewrite guideline... because current guideline specifically supports its notability. I hope the closing admin makes note of repeated arguments that contradict guideline by essentially saying "If no one's seen it, it ain't notable." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bongomatic. Wether B (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I wrote to Harry Carey Jr. and this morning received a personal response. Mister Carey himself told me they ran out of funding toward completion and that he was now at nearly 90, too old and tired to actively market his project. This is a disappointment to me, as such a piece would/will become part of American film hitory for what it represented and for who was involved and why. I include "will" in my last sentence because as part of his legacy, and in my understanding of how "Hollywood" works, the film will undoubtedly be completed... even if done as a memorial of his legacy to the industry and the American Western genre. That said, if deleted, I will rewrite and merge the informations as a sourced portion of the Harry Carey Jr. article, marking a major accomplishment of his life, when he wrote and directed his first film. And when the film is finally finished and released (sadly and most likely after his death), the information can be spun out into a resurrected article on the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, thanks for looking into this. It is regrettable that Carey was unable to complete the project due to a lack of funds but I appreciate your investigation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... well, it kinda broke my heart. It still has significance under WP:NFF for unreleased films, but can become a historical section on Carey's page. I'd be proud to add it myself in the event of a deletion... and in that case, a redirect will suffice for the title if deleted and protect the integrity of curent wikilinks to the film. If his heirs and assigns find a way to use existing footage as a posthumous tribute film, then the article can be ressurrected (sigh). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bongomatic. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has now been re-written to show its unreleased state, noting its progression and history. It may still be suitable for historical consideration in either the John Ford or Harry Carey Jr. articles within wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure of AfD that resulted in speedy deletion by User:Lectonar. §FreeRangeFrog 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Trainer

It has been speedily deleted before as blatant advertising, but this version is not so ad-like. It still seems utterly unnotable to me, however. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article is really short, but I see no reason to delete it, it just need to be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.144.131 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's a good software and I use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.144.131 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, I made some changes on it, I hope it satisfies you now. But if it's not, please give me advices on my talk page. Tnx. Hvilela (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, unless someone can come up with A: sourcing, and B: More than once sentence to say bout it. Could almost be an A1. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find anything significant on Google but of course that is no guarantee. However, no other information source has been provided so I would say delete unless it is improved. --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the image on this article's page may be problematic. Surely it shouldn't be on Commons? --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as last time, plus the lamest attempt at sockpuppet voting I've seen in a long while. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it seems to be down to inexperience unless I am horrendously mistaken... I've notified the author of these difficulties... --Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 02:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability beyond merely existing. §FreeRangeFrog 05:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, actually - This should be G4'ed, the first AfD is on this same daily log as delete. Tagged. §FreeRangeFrog 05:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Shaben

I found this in the backlog and just set about cleaning it up as it appeared there were some claims to notability - however other than wiki and mirrors there's no evidence of his being inducted into the toy hall of fame. The company exists but there's also no evidence of notability so creating an article for them and merging him wouldn't seem to accomplish anything. His brother is clearly notable, but I don't think he belongs in his brother's article since his claims to notability are entirely unrelated. Thoughts? StarM 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it stands, the article doesn't show notability. And it's been tagged for well over a year, so it has had plenty of chances to be improved. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If his brother is notable, that doesn't mean he is. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 05:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ningyō Kyūtei Gakudan

Please note that AfD refers to the article the page redirects to and not the redirect.

no indication that it meets WP:N -Zeus-^u_c 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It's a brand new article, about a manga created by a notable mangaka. While this doesn't imply notability, it may well meet WP:NB and I will tag it for notability now. If, after some time, notability isn't established, we can discuss deletion again. But for now, notability seems likely enough that the article might be given a chance. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current and ongoing manga from the creator of Angel Sanctuary? Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a person is notable and has created other notable publications does not mean that this one inherits that notability, please see WP:NB. I agree with you, however, that there's plenty of reason to believe that it might, based on the other established instances of notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Notability isn't inherited, and six months generally isn't enough to show a manga is notable. A google search only returns 3 pages of Wp:copyvio scanlation sites and blogs. Anime News Network only gives a start date and author, not enough to show notability (the ANN encyclopedia is partially user editable - although additions and changes have to be approved by ANN before being changed/added). Additionally, ANN reports the title as Guignol Kyūtei Gakudan. I'm holding off on a delete/keep until other people report on potential RS sources, but im leaning towards delete until notability is proven Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the article to Guignol Kyūtei Gakudan which is the title used by the two reliable sources announcing the manga series (ANN and Mania). However, in my opinion, that isn't sufficient coverage from which notability can be presumed. --Farix (Talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are news about the author starting that series [25][26] but nothing else indicate that this series is notable. My issue is there is nothing to verify the content of the article. The content can modified to be hoax and i can't verify it unless i got my hand on the non-legal scanlation which is Wow A Great Prospect. I'm withholding my vote for now but i'm strongly inclined to delete as this article was only created because its scanlation exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrebMarkt (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 1, 2009 (UTC)

Comment The contents of the article is now entirely verifiable. Whether one needs to use illegal translations of the manga to verify plot information is not a verifiability concern. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poking about, I see this is getting a fair amount of fan notice, as one might expect given the, ah, avidity of Kaori Yuki's fans. The creator may not be mainstream popular, but her extended serials have a very good record of becoming critical darlings. It was probably too soon to create the article without said notice in hand, but I'm very much inclined to tag it for notability issues then wait and see whether the collective that is this collaborative encyclopedia can find more concrete references in due course. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see I forgot to explicitly state that this is a conditional keep for a few more months. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable manga. Dream Focus 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any qualifiers for that statement? I'm not convinced. -Zeus-^u_c 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him. He's never given a solid argument for why articles that lack significant coverage by third-party sources should be kept beyond WP:ILIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 04:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a rude statement. And I thought Anime News Network counted as a notable reference. It has in other cases. And there is no possible reason to delete this. It isn't hurting anyone, and if you didn't care about it, you wouldn't find your way to it anyway, so wouldn't know it existed. It is a confirmed series from an established writer, so leave it be. Dream Focus 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect After working on the author's article and conducing a search for the article on it's two English and Kanji names, I have been usable to come up with any additional reliable sources then the two already given on the article. Since both of these sources only cover the announcement of the manga series, they don't constitute significant coverage, as required by WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCE. One also has to consider that it has only ran for 9 or 10 issues. --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or remove all manga titled pages from wikipedia but top 10 sold. --hnnvansier (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your just being absurd. There are hundreds of manga that that passes the notability criteria and are not on a best sellers list. The key point is that they receive significant coverage by third-party sources. This manga series does not have that, in part because it is fairly new. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FAILN. There have been sources that show that this manga is on its way to meeting WP:N and its child WP:NB. More sources most likely will be unearthed in the future and at this time its inappropriate to delete this article on notability reasons. (Also, noted that the article was JUST CREATED when it was sent to AfD and by a new editor as well. Quite the bloody welcome.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.[8] Otherwise, if deleting [...] For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for five days." - WP:FAILN Which is what we're doing here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." These sources may exist and a good faith effort is being made to find them, deleting this would be clearly the wrong move. Not to mention that this entire nomination is taking WP:BITE to new lows. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep -- As stated earlier, it might be notable. I recommend tagging it for notability and revisiting in a few months if sources haven't turned up. Otherwise, I don't have a strong opinion about deleting or merging the article; just seems a shame to have to recreate it if indeed it is notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was disambiguate. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Bowl

I cannot find any mention of this United Bowl in a reliable source, or the (outdoor) United Football League website. The article only has a vague reference to a fan site, and even then says the information may be outdated. Note there is a "United Bowl" in indoor football, but that is not this game/event. Rameses The Ram (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and (possibly) merge with United Football League (2008), per lack of WP:N notability as of now. It may become a valid article in the future, but per WP:CRYSTAL, that's just not enough for an article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm sorry, but do we really need a separate article about the championship game for a league that hasn't even scheduled its first game? Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my points, or a point that I meant to make, was that there isn't even any evidence that the championship game of this league will be called "United Bowl" so I don't think a redirect would be at all valid. If the redirect were anywhere it should be to United Indoor Football#Championships since that at least exists. Rameses The Ram (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Football League (2008). Despite the notability of the league itself, it isn't clear IF they will take the field, and as such, a separate article for their supposed championship game is premature at best. --Mhking (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Indoor Football (also delete the associated redirect United Bowl I as it will not be correct for the indoor league) per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Hippopotamus (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create disambiguation linking to both pages. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary comment. The information on the UFL comes from the Sam Boyd Stadium article, from which I carried the same sourcing over. I agree, it is inadequate as is. There seems to be confirmation of the place and date, at least mentioned in passing, which I've added, but not the name. It may have been a proposed name.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tertiary comment. The source appears to be this entry.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A quick Google search finds nothing for the United Bowl in this article in the first 4 or 5 pages (other than this article). Everything points to the indoor league. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, obviously there's going to be more information about an event that has taken place four times already than one that has yet to take place once. For instance, the name "World Bowl." NFL Europe held 15 of them, the World Football League only one. A quick Google search turns up no results on the WFL on the first page.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly, but you misunderstood me. The issue here us that they are NO hits from reputable sources, which is alarming. That also shows it isn't notable at all. Hippopotamus (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's really no need to delete this article. Standleylake40 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote, so what is your reasoning? Hippopotamus (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and indef semi-protected per BLP issues. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Skaf

individual only notable for criminal acts, article already exists on the gang rapes Thisglad (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known Australian criminal. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Sydney gang rapes. No need for a separate article, per WP:ONEEVENT. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would normally agree with the argument raised by Lilac Soul, but in this case the "one event" (which of course was more than one event, but I understand the reference) includes a controversial trial and imprisonment. The subject is an especially notorious and much reported on prisoner. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Mattinbgn's reasoning, I'd usually say merge, however Skaf has been the subject of many high profile incidents while incarcerated. -- Longhair\^talk 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Mattinbgn's reasoning. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Skaf is notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT. Other than the multiple rapes, there are the threats against his girlfriend and against Ron Woodham, illegal activities by his parents during contact with him etc. WWGB (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, normally I'd wave WP:BLP1E about, but Skaf is a particularly notorious criminal who has managed to keep himself in the papers, as alluded to by WWGB and sourced in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It appears this is likely to be kept. If it is, then we as a project need to be vigilant in removing this sort of unacceptable content. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Marriott

Fails WP:ATHLETE and general WP:BIO -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some suitable third-party references appear. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting but fails both WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Notability seems to be at the local level at best. §FreeRangeFrog 05:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Face

Non-notable neologism. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content, little more than a placeholder for the links. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub, but if there's an article in Scientific American on the concept, it might as well have a respectable definition with links to where it is being discussed.
Merge and redirect to gaydar. The Scientific American is about this, the urbandictionary links, well, we can ignore those, in my opinion as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal content; non-notable —EqualRights (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in Scientific American only uses the expression "Gay Face" in relation to it existing on Urban Dictionary and so is a poor justification for keeping this as an entry.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, would suit to encylopedia dramatica, not here --hnnvansier (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First four pages of Google for "gay face" produce nothing but references to the Urban Dictionary entry, blogs (which themselves reference the Urban Dictionary entry) or irrelevant matches. chuuumus (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with gaydar. Macarion (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agree with Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth - there are BLP concerns, so a speedy delete is justifiable. Incidentally, the other similar articles could probably be speedied as well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global white extermination

Unencyclopedic article promoting an extremist ideology. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incidentally, I've WP:PRODded the Revolutionary Black Panther Party party. Will AfD it if it is declined. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right too. That was a nasty little walled garden of complete bollocks they were trying to make. It is not clear to me whether the author is promoting this group/ideology or seeking to defame the group by attributing extreme ideology to them. It doesn't really matter. Either way, it has to go.--DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also prodded Divine Race War, Alli Muhammad, and Revolutionary Black Panther Party 10 Point Manual. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Unreferenced. No indication of extent of notability. If it can be substantiated with references then it goes in the existing articles. If it can't then it is probably defamatory of a possibly still living person. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I've also added a notification about this user here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't get any non-wiki Google hits. Hut 8.5 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps we should move the article to the title Dr. Alli Muhammad is a BAD man (although perhaps we can persuade him to channel his ambitions toward more positive goals). Or perhaps we should have an article about green sky? I've heard several people say that it would be cool if the sky was green, and it can be done if we try hard enough. Mandsford (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete = The article is unreferenced and the related articles about the Revolutionary Black Panther Party and its beliefs claim an extremely racist and violent philosophy. This needs to be deleted immediately as an unreferenced negative BLP, as do the related articles. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on subsequent evidence. MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger

AfDs for this article:

Previous AfD was closed as transwiki. Article was then speedy deleted as WP:A5, and author complained to deleting admin, who restored it. The article, after cleaning up, contains a definition and a couple of uses in the press. This is a dictionary definition of a neologism, and is not encyclopedic in nature. The references provided are not about the use of the word, they use the word. Author has had plenty of time to improve the article, and has not been able to do so. As the article has already been transwikied, I request this now be deleted. Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary. This shouldn't be a redlink because it's a likely search term, so deletion is not appropriate.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a likely search term, but I have no objections to a soft redirect. -Atmoz (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
kill properly this time, with stake through heart, and bury at a crossroads. Etc. Per nom, but also A Greenfinger, or 'Green finger' is a maverick individual who engages in environmental projects, notably geoengineering, without proper control or supervision. is simple nonsense: there are no such individuals, for the obvious reason that it's impossible William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newscientist disagrees with you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nude scientist isn't a WP:RS for science, as a quick perusal of the article you use as a ref makes clear William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've added two definitions about the term, and numerous notable citations. I've also added encyclopaedic content about particular individuals, which can't be transwiki'd.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, but the definitions belong on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia and the good faith attempt at encyclopaedic content belongs in Gregory Benford.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- this shouldn't be an AfD at all, since the nominator has agreed that a soft redirect is appropriate and redirection doesn't need the AfD process. We don't need to re-fight the previous AfD. We just need to finish implementing the outcome, which I suggest is best met by replacing the existing content with a soft redirect. The only reason I haven't already done that as a non-admin closure is because User:William M. Connolley's position remains that the article should be deleted.
I invite User:William M. Connolley to reconsider, as if he does this can be closed.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a (real) redirect to Geoengineering#Lack of global control seems more appropriate. I had a look for sources. There isn't actually discussion of greenfingers to be had. It's just an attention-grabbing name used in discussion of the legal regulation of geoengineering. It's a small nonce word name used off-handedly in discussions of a large, proper, subject. And we already have it discussed in that article as exactly that, in the very way that the sources that I came across do. The article already cites one of the sources that I discovered, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARTICLE NOW EXPANDED, PLEASE RE-CONSIDER
PS in the event of deletion, please copy to my userspaceAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've copied and pasted some of Geoengineering#Lack of global control into the article. You've certainly done nothing to change my mind. Indeed, you've merely made it clearer that this is a duplicate article that should be a redirect to that very section. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added other material.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current version; the term is fairly clearly in current usage. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ochuko Tonukari

this article has serious POV issues, likely WP:COI, or this may even be an autobiography; in addition to the article originally being on the creator's userpage [27], the creator has repeatedly [28] [29] [30] removed maintenance tags, hinting at a personal interest in the article.

More importantly, the subject looks non-notable to me. Ghits are pretty sparse. "References" that were provided were primarily just lists of the authors' works. A couple links that I removed in this edit [31] make no mention of Ochuko. In short, appears to fail WP:V --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CREATIVE. E Wing (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the author removed the notability tags three times. Also, 77.220.15.133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) may be Okemutes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) him/herself. E Wing (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity page; grand total of 33 ghits. Fails WP:BIO and anything else I can think of. §FreeRangeFrog 05:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 Tone 18:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Trainer

Notability Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7: software project that gives no indication of its notability. Firestorm ^Talk 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no assertation of notability, and the Sourceforge page shows absolutely no interest or activity... and was only created week ago, to boot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for speedy deletion, not under A7 (which doesn't apply for software), but under G11 as blatant advertising. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Turner

I do not believe that this article meets the notability criteria given in WP:ENTERTAINER, since the actor has not had significant parts in multiple notable productions. The {{notability}} template I placed on the page was removed by Dylbo25, and no objections have been raised on the talk page. Hertzsprung (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actor with only one role, as one of many unnamed party guests. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ENTERTAINER requires significant roles, which this obviously wasn't. No references or context to establish that his stage performances are notable. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep (non-admin closure). -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of war crimes

AfDs for this article:

In 2006 there was a first attempt to delete this article, which was rejected on the grounds that the article would be improved significantly. This has not happened, and I believe the reason to be a systematic fault of the article, not being sufficiently narrowed down according to precise criteria.

The development of this article does not follow any editorial process. It seems to be just an accumulation of random events, often seemingly added by people with a patriotic or political motivation. This criticism has been voiced on the discussion page for a long time, but still many authors seem to have had a rather intuitive idea about what should be added here, or seem to follow a patriotic agenda, sources or citations are often missing. Often "minor" events are treated in relative depth blurring a more global picture, while killings of hundreds of thousands are mentioned with a single sentence or not at all.

I apologize for not following the precise deletion criteria of wikipedia, but I believe that looking at the article, and seeing that little improvement has happened will convince others (Tags Citecheck and Refimprove are here since 1 1/2 year. I think the introduction, and some parts of the text on WW II war crimes are interesting to read. In my opinion, they still do not save the article, because the information contained in these parts can also be found in the individual articles covering the corresponding topics. User:KlausN 2009-03-01 10:12:41

Malformed deletion nomination, with rationale taken from this edit, fixed. Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, acts which constituted war crimes are obviously documented by WP:RS, from which an acceptably sourced list can be produced. Except in the case of WP:VAND, WP:SPAM, WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO problems, articles are only deleted if it is believed that they cannot be improved. A lack of editorial effort does not, by itself, justify the deletion of an article. Erik9 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik9. ..."the article would be improved significantly. This has not happened..." improved significantly is open to interpretation. There is no time limit in getting an article improved. Lugnuts (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As has been previously stated, just because it hasn't been improved, doesn't mean it can't be improved, and there's no deadline for us to have it improved by. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents in Sulsel MRT Station

Looking past the disjointed way this is written by an apparant non-English speaker, what we get is a list of minor, isolated incidents that do not appear to have any notability. Any busy location can get a collection such as this. I was forced to turn down a speedy on this, but nonetheless it should go. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, non-notable, only covers 2 years. I could write this article about the intersection by my house. We all could, but we shouldn't. Belasted (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the problems mentioned by the nom and Belasted, I can't even figure out what city this station is in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 100 % WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. I'd suggest merge and redirect to the station's article, but there doesn't appear to be such an article, nor even an article on a city by this name. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Collection of news stories, none of them sourced. Even if they were sourced, they seem to be violations of WP:NOT#NEWS per Blood Red Sandman. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a collection of news stories -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Von Ehrics

My speedy got declined but I still fail to see how this band meets the WP:BAND criteria. ~~SIS~~ 15:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:BAND and has no realistic chance of doing so in the near future. (Your speedy was declined because CSD A7 has nothing to do with notability criteria, and this article clearly didn't meet it.) – iridescent 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Belasted (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Blood Red Sandman. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SedatChess

Non-notable chess website. Article does not indicate notability, and a google search turns up ~1000 hits. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I consider it a speedy candidate, and have tagged it as WP:CSD#A7. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Numerix

Not notable: hardly any press coverage since 2004 (less than 5 articles in Google News), hardly any scientific peer-reviewed output (8 hits in Google Scholar, of which one in an international journal and one for a conference). The article itself has no references to reliable secondary sources. Crowsnest (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist, though not very many. I'm adding a few now. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is likely a copyvio. I am attempting a rewrite. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Never mind. The "copyvio" site was a Wikipedia copy. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP requires: "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick Google search gave me these three hits: [32], [33], and [34]. Seems notable, but somebody should do a serious rewrite of the article to make it more neutral and adding sources. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

the 1st and 3rd articles mentioned by you are the same text, the 1st says to be a copy of the 3rd,
the 2nd one is a press release by Zeus Numerix
the 3rd appears to be a blog site, not a reliable source in the WP sense.

Crowsnest (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with respect to the offered sources above, I concur with Crows Nest. (1) and (3) are the same and are not from a reliable source. (2) is a directory entry probably made from material supplied by Zeus Numerix. In looking for sources, I've found the company mentioned, but no significant coverage -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tahirpur Sports Complex

The lead sentence states, is well used by the people in surrounding area. If that sums up the notability assertion for this building, then it fails Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I disagree with the nom, it is non-notable. The lead that you cite doesn't necessarily mean it's non-notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I wanted to point out that that was the only notability assertion found in the entire article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dilshad Garden. It's just a place for the people living in that community. Belasted (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more notable than the local YMCA building, and the article is pretty strange (it seems to suggest that people who visit are cured of mental problems due to "spiritual places" in the area? or something?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated. It's nearly patent nonsense as it stands. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold knowledge

A term which appears to have strictly limited currency. Fewer than 2,000 Google hits, of which most are unrelated subjects which just happen to have the two words together. Some on GBooks and scholar, but again most seem unrelated to the term as defined - either it's so vague as to be meaningless, or it is specific and largely unused. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This is an apparently non-notable neologism, as the nominator indicated, it has little currency elsewhere. If JHF Meyer and Ray Land, the originators of the concept, are themselves sufficiently notable, the term could be included on their articles, but at least at the moment neither of them has an article (this is not meant to take any position whatsoever on whether or not they are notable). Cool3 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. According to WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". I have done further work on the article since Cool3's comment and there are now ~~six~~ eleven reliable secondary sources about the term. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (Edit Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I originally created this article. It was speedily deleted by Deb, but I took that to deletion review who unanimously overturned that decision. Thus we are now here. I'm about to take the cat to the vet, so for now let me just copy part of what I said in the deletion review as to why I think the article is notable under WP:GNG in terms of having multiple reliable source coverage.

Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.

Another would be:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example:

Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258

Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962

Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517

Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb (see our discussions here and here). Bondegezou (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism/OR. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that the DRV overturned the speedy solely or primarily on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply to it because it's not an article about a person, group of people, company, band, or web content. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV indeed overturned the speedy deletion primarily on the misapplication of A7. I wished to alert people to the DRV review primarily to provide context. However, that said, some other comments in the DRV do speak more directly to this discussion ("its seems to be an ok starting stub" said Davewild; "I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD" said Cube lurker; "There are referenced sources on this" said Litherlandsand).

By the way, I am genuinely puzzled by the suggestion of WP:OR. I've provided 5 citations in the academic literature. Would you be kind enough to expand on your reasoning there? Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important topic in education which we do not seem to have covered under any alternate title such as key concepts. There are numerous possible phrases to describe this - foundation studies, core subjects, fundamentals, etc. It seems hard to distinguish the common usage of such phrases from discussion of the topic in ontology and education at a meta level but such papers do exist, e.g. Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Note also that the comments about neologism above seem to misunderstand the point of that style guideline (which is to avoid the use of novel words which our readers will not understand). This phrase is not a neologism and, in any case, that would just be a reason to reword rather than to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously I don't think it's appropriate content. Nice to see that some more references have been added to the original stub, though. Deb (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant topic in education research, Google Scholar. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Since this AfD was started, I have done further work on the article. It now sports 11 reliable secondary source articles on this subject, which I feel is sufficient to dismiss concerns under WP:NEO and to establish notability under WP:GNG. In retrospect, I think I chose the less used terminology for the article name and a move to threshold concept would be better, with redirects from threshold knowledge and troublesome knowledge. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly and with regret. The illusion of our culture that the craft of schoolteaching is an academic subject, supportable with the apparatus of learned, footnoted journals and the rest of the trappings of scholarship; and that exposure to this kind of scholasticism is necessary to train schoolteachers, yields chiefly the abuse of the English language. This seems to be an example of the typical results. It is unfortunate that it meets the requirements of notice by disinterested third parties in sources held to be reliable in the field, but it does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced fairly well. I agree with Ihcoyc on nearly all points however. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Patton^t/c 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the added reliable source coverage satisfies notability/neologism/OR concerns. The literature also gives a concrete definition of threshold concept, which addresses the other concern in the nom that the term might be so vague as to be meaningless. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badeeh abla

Subject has not recieved coverage in reliable secondary sources independend of the subject:

Badeeh Abla on Google brings several websites he is involved in. Like Flickr, Linkedin, Leb.org, AUB website, and other websites he has participated in. His website even appears when you type his first name only. Badeeh Abla has been on Google since 2002. Badeeh Abla name is found also on Deir el Qamar Festival website, www.deirelqamarfestival.org

Google web search brings up his personal site and nothign else.
Google news search garners no results.

Looks like self promotion. Patton^t/c 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable vanity article about a person failing WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Belasted (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Betamax (VoIP company). Given the product relationship, this looks like the better redirect. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low-Rate Voip

Notability not asserted, unable to find anything which demonstrates or asserts notability. — neuro^(talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voice over Internet Protocol as a plausible search term, since it can also be used as a concept. But nothing indicates WP:N fulfillment here. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that this article should be deleted nor moved, because it is a famous program, and I wondered why wikipedia doesn't have an article about it, for me deleting this article is really a mistake. — Megahmad^(talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (OR Redirect to Voip as 2nd vote(per lilac soul)) There is no notablity to this article whatsoever, I see no evidence of it as a "famous" program, and it's a stub that just wastes space. I think we should delete but if we dont then a redirect, this isn't worth keeping Mczack26 SpeakToMe! 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was asked by megahmad why I said delete on my Talk Page, this was my reply

Hello, i'm not really sure what you wanted me to explain but I'll explain it agian anyway. The article Low-Rate Voip is neumerous in issues which no-one seems to've fixed. I has no refrences/citations and is a stub. I also dont consider the program to be particularly notable, skype is something I would consider notable. Feel free to improve the article and i will Strike my previuos vote and dont worry about leaving a message on my talk page, thats what it's there for. Mczack26 SpeakToMe! 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reference of notability -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea why it is for deletion! Wikipedia has about it all! don't delete it. Lighteroflife (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestvoice (talk • contribs) [reply]

That's not much of an argument. Possible WP:STUFF -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put in for a checkuser? Mczack26 SpeakToMe! 17:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it were a famous program, then there would be reliable sources to back up this assertion. I've been unable to find any. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Betamax (VoIP company), since its one of their services with just a different retail label. —IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tone 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Retreat

Absolutly no reliable sources, I'd even call this advertising because of the email address:

Google web search brings up their website, a blog and nothing else.
Google news search brings up nothing

Contested prod. Unfortunately doesn't meet A7. Patton^t/c 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fast as possible. Utterly non-notable building. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even a vague assertion of notability.Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But disagree with 'as fast as possible'. There is no harm in letting pages lie for a few days whilst an AfD goes on, unless of course those pages are attack pages, or could cause some sort of other issue. — neuro^(talk) 12:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless WP:SNOW is invoked "as fast as possible" is an AfD :P. Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, various admins close before that point even when SNOW is not invoked, which is silly. — neuro^(talk) 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asked if the above comment was a "stab at Julian. I assure you, it wasn't. — neuro^(talk) 13:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, doesn't even make an assertion of importance. Can't it be speedied A7 as an organization? I have removed the email address from article space. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree and tagged for speedy deletion -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability asserted. Nothing to even indicate that there should be an article on this. Chamal ^talk 13:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Design

~~I'm pretty sure the "clients" section is lying becuase~~ I have been unable to find any reliable secondary sources:

Google web search brings up a couple of sites listing addresses of businesses etc in London, this is not enough to reference an article.
Google news searc brings up nothing related to this. Patton^t/c 12:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the owner of this company and a simple view of our website link would confirm that every client entry is entirely correct. What else is required to prove these are clients of ours? I can get contacts from each company to confirm that we are a design supplier.

[35]

Maybe so but there are no reliable secondary sources required to write a comprehensive article.--Patton^t/c 12:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Delete I dont think anyone doubts the client list or the existence of your company. The problem is that it does not meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. It's nothing personal, all articles are held to the same standards. Also, as the owner of this company, it's not appropriate to be editing the article. See the COI notice on your talk page for more information. It's best to work with another edit who is not so closely connected to the company to make any edits.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't meet A7 because it has some claim to notability, although no reliable secondary sources can be found.--Patton^t/c 12:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the claim to notability? The client list? Notability isn't inherited. This article needs to establish the notability of the company itself.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A company with clients like that can be notable.--Patton^t/c 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would think but sufficent references dont appear to exist. Given the COI issues and lack of references, chances of this article being a reasonable one are slim. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient references don't exist but that's not A7; only articles that have absolutly no assertion of notability ("Jenny lennys is a coffee shop in london") come under it.--Patton^t/c 13:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Having notable businesses as clients does not confer notability. Also, self-admitted conflict of interest in the creation of this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a speedy candidate (I have removed the tag); the clients list is an assertion of importance, though not evidence of notability. There is some brief news coverage of this company, but nothing close to the significant, non-local coverage necessary to satisfy WP:CORP. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources are not from a "local coverage source", but rather an apparently notable magazine called Design Week. I agree that the article may have some problems with being written by someone from the company, but if you feel that it is bias or ad-like, then go ahead and fix it, it's no reason for deletion. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThe citations there don't indicate notability, the firm is mentioned mostly in passing, particularly in the Wembley stadium one. Searching around for other sources of notability is proving unfruitful for me. The article may not qualify for speedy deletion as advertising, but the firm is not notable. Not every thing which is mentioned in a newspaper or magazine is inherently notable, and this seems to be clearly a company just trying to promote itself, and not something which belongs in an encyclopedia. Huadpe (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really a speedy candidate, but like Baileypalblue said, there's just not enough coverage to build an article around. The article sounds like it was copied straight from a brochure, which doesn't help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Design Week references seem to be just mentions, not articles about the firm. . DGG (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Matt (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yennefer

Subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject:

Google web search bringsup the witcher site, a wikia wiki and nothing else.
Google news search brings up nothing.

There isn't enough content to warrant a seperate article even if this is notable. Patton^t/c 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Witcher or a list of characters. I have found the corresponding Polish, Russian and Belarusian articles and linked them. They are all poorly referenced too, so it is not just a language issue or the the English article being immature. Then I went Googling. It seems that there was a Polish TV series based on these books in 2001. This seems to be enough notability for the character to be included but probably not enough for its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yennefer is one of the most important characters in the Witcher world. She is almost non-existent (only few references) in the game due to her strong ties with Geralt. Creators of the game wanted to leave him a "free shooter", not tied to one predetermined woman throughout the game. The character definitely deserves a separate entry, however I do agree that the information provided so far is not covering even half of the topic and may not seem enough for a separate entry.AragornSG (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I completely agree with DanielRigal. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want to call the nomination bad faith, but a, the google search brings many more sites then just the witcher wiki, and b, the search in Polish language brings many more sites as well: [36]. For example, Yennefer is the main subject of this news article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so I still don't see how this warrants a seperate article.--Patton^t/c 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it satisfies the WP:N, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One good point raised here is that we could use a List of Witcher saga characters article anyway, there are The Witcher characters which are not notable by themselves, but a list would be useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To The Witcher article. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia, so I'm not fully aware of how things are supposed to work, but I thought that you start with a basics for the article and then build on it. I wrote Yennefer during the weekend and decided to expand it later on with info found in the rest of the Witcher saga plus her appearances on film. Are we supposed to post only full articles? Also, the idea for article came to me when I saw a red link to Yennefer's character on other page, so I thought it might be good to put something there even if it's only very basic information.AragornSG (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: This is probably not the right place to explain this in detail but to give you a general idea: We are discussing whether the subject is appropriate for Wikipedia. The article having problems is a secondary consideration. If the article is poor but there is evidence that the subject is notable and that the article can be improved to an acceptable level then the article will be kept and flagged for improvement. If an article is poor because the subject is fundamentally not notable (or otherwise inappropriate) then the article is doomed and no amount of work can save it. The kindest thing is to delete it quickly before somebody wastes their time working on it. There is also an intermediate position where the subject is notable but there is not enough to say about it for a whole article to be justified. In that case it generally gets merged into another article. There is quite a lot of advice on how best to make a new article, but to answer your specific question, there is nothing wrong with starting with a small/basic article and building it up. The important thing is to demonstrate notability at an early stage so that we can see that the article is legitimate. If you take a look at the New Pages log you will see quite a lot of idiots trying to put rubbish in to Wikipedia. It is important to get notability into the first draft of your article so that you don't get mistaken for one of them. I hope this helps. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep then Thanks for clearing up things a bit. The article definitely is notable, as Yennefer is one of four main characters of the Witcher world (the other three being Geralt himself, Cirilla and Dandelion). There is precious little information on Witcher world (outside the game) in English, so I'll try to do my best and enhance not only Yennefer page, but other related Witcher pages as well. I think the demand for the information will increase as the rest of the saga is translated. AragornSG (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hairspray_(2007_film)#Corny_Collins_Show_dancers. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Podschun

This page was brought to my attention on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS grounds. Dancer with only one minor role in a movie (Hairspray (2007 film)), she has otherwise no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hairspray_(2007_film)#Corny_Collins_Show_dancers, where the subject gets sufficient mention for now. No prejudice to re-establishment as a stand-alone article if/when she has another significant movie or Broadway role. Some media coverage, [37], but it's pretty much all routine local media coverage. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Baileypalblue. ~EdGl (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test Valley Lions

Vanity page for amateur football (soccer) team playing in a "town" league at the 13th level of the English football league system, well below the level deemed notable ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable football team. Giant Snowman 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. However, I deprecate the characterisation as a "vanity page" in the nomination--cf WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest for reasons.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. The logo in the article isn't even theirs, it's the Southhampton logo (pretty obvious as it even says that on it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable amateur football team, I can't find any sources except mentions of their games in local news and statistics from leagues. Hut 8.5 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their charity work is certainly admirable, but unfortunately that's not enough for Wikipedia - after all, thousands of people do charity work. As a club, they fall below the generally acceptable guideline for English non-leaguers. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice article. Non-notable amateur team. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nice article however --Uksam88 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 as a blatant hoax Nancy ^talk 17:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon: OUA

Likely hoax; creator has created several other pieces of fan fiction and this merely seems to be one of them. As far as I can tell, there was never a sixth season of the Digimon anime, so deletion is appropriate here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't understand Digi-stuff, but the article quality is poor, unsourced, no notability, and the user has acted in bad faith elsewhere ([38], [39] and [40] are just three instances). ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —— sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems there is no 6th season. So that both a hoax and all fan made stuff. The editor thought that the bigger the article and less likely it would be deleted which isn't the case. The content is 100% homebrew not official, not verifiable stuff. --KrebMarkt 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google search cannot verify this season's existence.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3 vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3 added, hoax. — neuro^(talk) 14:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogimon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fernando Alonso. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alonsomania

Although article contains sources, I don't think this "fanbase" is notable enough for its own page even if there are some RS. I guess a merge to Fernando Alonso is possible... other than that, delete. D.M.N. (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not raise this at Talk:Fernando Alonso, and if a merge consensus is not forthcoming, bring it here? Rather than delete, and maybe merge? Deletion should be the last option considered. Aptery gial 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to have some decent sources. It's a short article going to stay short, but seems acceptable quality-wise. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge parts delete most - The first little bit about his influence on F1 in spain is probably worth merging in but most of the article is about how there were parties when he won. Really? No shit. Are we going to have it in the Man Utd article about all the parties that go on each time they win a league or a cup? People win, people celebrate, this is not notable. It is just what fans do. Short of the fans getting into such a frenzy they loot the town or end up in a giant suicide pact or engage in a massive orgy, it really isn't notable. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's mostly about his fans having parties. That is not at all notable. The only bit that is worth keeping is that his success has fueled an increase in viewers in Spain, which should be mentioned in Fernando Alonso rather than in a spin-off article. Readro (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge, delete - The affect his success had on the sport's success & 'visibility' in Spain is probably worth a mention in Alonso's article. Otherwise there's nothing really worth keeping. Every (successful) F1 driver has a fan club. Every (successful) sports team/person does. Every popular band/singer/celebrity does. The article tells little that isn't already covered in the general Fan (person) article. AlexJ (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When this came up at Proposed Deletion, I looked for sources. What I mostly found were sources that used this name as a headline or as an attention-grabber, nothing more. The subject that they actually talked about was Fernando Alonso. They didn't define, or discuss, a distinct subject of "Alonsomania". This and this are examples of sources that do exactly that. This simply observes that Spanish newspapers use the name.
It seems, from what is available in sources, that there should be a redirect here, since its an alternative name for the subject that is clearly in use, but that there's no distinct subject to be had. This at most is a paragraph, perhaps two, in the article about the person. (Subtract the duplication of the biography from this article, and that's pretty much the amount that one has left.)
Put another way: Per User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things, no source documents this subject in depth. All sources simply discuss it briefly and tangentially (a couple of sentences at most) in the context of Alonso himself. So, too, therefore, should Wikipedia. Wikipedia should do as the sources do. And per the notability guidelines, therefore, since independent sources exist, but they don't document the subject in depth, redirection or merger into an article with a broader subject is the answer.
Of course, deletion isn't necessary for merger. Even an editor without an account can perform a merger. There's no reason to waste the effort that Guroadrunner (talk · contribs) has put in to making the few sentences verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge in entirety - I would argue, however, that the reason this is worth its own page is because merging may be too much to merge over. I also believe this is a term that was widely used circa 2005 and not just a media buzzword. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources in general don't prove notability, they are merely required to assert notability. Are we really arguing here that fans liking it when their person wins is a ntoable or unique event? That there is too much on this page is fairly easy to sort out. You just merge the notable bits and cut out the dross. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Energy Insights

Commercial wikispam Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This turns out to be a notable publication (see for example Google Books, Google Scholar, Gnews), particularly for its 1996 study of Chernobyl after-effects. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand It seems to me that you're just nominating it because it is a stub. It seems pretty notable (compared with half the other stuff here) and with a little work it could be useful to someone. Bigvinu (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insignificant newsletter lacking consequential third-party coverage (also, I never heard of it). The only two citations in the article are to very minor references to this newsletter (along the lines of "Atomic Energy Insights had an article about this topic"). Google couldn't find anything more substantial than that. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the media does not often report on itself and that notable, specialized media publications won't necessarily show much on a web search. I think the google searches I've already posted demonstrate this publication is frequently cited, which satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the company that creates a newsletter is a redlink, it would seem to follow that the newsletter isn't notable. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does no harm, maybe borderline notable, but not spammy -- Chzz ► 06:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - this article is notable per Bailey, has good references, and can easily grow from a stub. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 06:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Office

Article does not assert notability per WP:CREATIVE and the one link is a shopping site. JaGa^talk 09:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted, little citing of sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sculptor has an entry on the national Zimbabwe sculpture website. Artists which are recognised nationally in this way are virtually always notable. If somebody started an articles on a German sculptor which wa slisted on a national website nobody would blink an eyelid. This sculpor is recognised internationally in America, UK, Germany etc which is grounds for notability for me too. Just needs expansion. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give the link to the national Zimbabwe sculpture website? I can't find it. --JaGa^talk 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the one you say is a national official site in the article just appears to be another shopping site. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dr Blofeld. It is important to realize that Western artists are much easier to source than third-world artists for purely economic reasons unrelated to artistic merit. The fact that the linked article is a "shopping site" is a reflection of economic necessities which may be outside the experience of many in the richer nations. Katica Durica (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Evidently my previous post was too brief to be clear. If you expect to find the same sort of documentation for artists from Zimbabwe as you would find for artists from Europe or the United States, you will systemically exclude the former unless they have been graced by the favor of a Western critic or scholar. I live within walking distance of three insignificant museums of at best local interest, all of which have well-maintained websites. Here, to the best of my knowledge, is the website of the National Museum of Zimbabwe. (Yes, it's a dead link.) Artists who generally make far less money than a teenager hustling fries at McDonalds can not afford to be idealistic. They need to sell their work to survive.

I do not know whether Zimsculpt is the national Zimbabwe sculpture website or not, but it is a misunderstanding to call it a "shopping site":

"Zimsculpt, a non-political company based in Harare, Zimbabwe, represents over 100 sculptors from across the country."

"Every year ZimSculpt selects several promising artists to be featured overseas, providing for their travel and lodging to enable them to attend events in which their sculpture is exhibited and to meet with admirers of their work."

"ZimSculpt profits are re-invested in new art works, used to bring artists overseas and to market Zimbabwean talent internationally. The sales from their sculptures pay their rent and school fees, like any of us. Five percent of sales from ZimSculpt.com’s e-commerce website are donated to Inter-Country People’s Aid (IPA), a community-based charity in Zimbabwe."

These quotations are extracted for convenience from this website. Yes, the works are for sale, but the Royal Botanical Gardens is not a shopping center. Please note the quotations at the bottom of the same webpage (here is the quoted Newsweek article) for an idea of the importance of this school in general, if not Mr Office in particular, and above all compare with AlbertHerring's testimony as to the difficulty of finding references elsewhere than at sites which offer the artists' work for sale. Katica Durica (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the source page - I'm not going to comment as to the merits, or lack thereof, of the article itself, as I recognize that I have a tendency to get a little overzealous in my creations. However, I wanted to echo Katica Durica's comment about the source.

Sourcing these articles on Zimbabwean sculptors has been frustrating for me because it's very difficult to find information online. Even in print, I had access to a handful of books on contemporary African art while I was in college, and they did little but mention the names of certain artists and their connection to contemporary art in Africa as a whole. So far as I can ascertain, little of a scholarly nature has been written on the Shona stone sculpture movement, and of that most of it deals with the so-called "first generation" sculptors (the ones who were active in the 1950s and 1960s). And even of those, for some (Josia Manzi, for one) the only biographical information I can find is via these shopping sites. (I use Manzi as an example because I once saw a book on contemporary African art, from a highly well-respected series, that used him as an example of the movement; that's plenty of notability for me, there.) It's an unfortunate reality, but until more scholarship is done on the subject, I'm afraid it's the best that can be done. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. From a Czech site about the history of Zimbabwean sculpture:[41] "Right from the surroundings of these workshops will probably many new stars of Zimbabwean sculpture 21st century. Several of them have already managed to push through at least the individual sculptures in exhibitions in Hararite National Gallery, can be expected that the names as Lucky Office (1976), Witness Chimika (1981) or Samusha Kachere (1981) to be one day become known as the world's galleries." (Právě z okolí těchto dílen zřejmě vyjde řada nových hvězd zimbabwského sochařství 21. Několika z nich se už podařilo prosadit alespoň jednotlivými sochami na výstavách v hararské Národní galerii, lze tak čekat, že jména jako Lucky Office (1976), Witness Chimika (1981) nebo Samusha Kachere (1981) se třeba jednou stanou známými i ve světových galeriích.) Also appears to be a commercial site but if they list him as one of three examples of contemporary Zimbabwean sculptors that seems like an indication of notability. (Also that people who speak Czech care about his work.) On the other hand, almost all the profiles of him I can find anywhere appear to be just slight revisions of each other, so there's not a lot of indication of multiple independent sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up The Hill (JJS)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Up The Hill (JJS) (2nd nomination)

Fails WP:NOTE, recreated previously deleted article. User234 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Its not previously deleted article, try to check if there is Articles for deletion/Up The Hill; Result=None. Thank You.

jjska®ate 空手|道® 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the article title is bizarre, and the idea that any school magazine from an institution as little known as this one seems to be, deserves an article, is equally so. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student publications at elementary schools are generally not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. Student publications at elementary schools level are generally very notable in the Philippines nowadays. It even have school publication contests for all elementary school papers recognized by Department of Education (Philippines), the screening starts from the regional level and the highlights and awarding is done annually during National Schools Press Conference the gathering of all the brightest young campus writers in the country. 1 ^{Hoy! Pinoy ako.} 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Pinoynewbreed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Elementary and High School publications in the Philippines are within the scope of Sec. 1 Rule IX of Republic Act 7079 also known as Campus Journalism Act of 1991 wherein the publication and the writers have given the rights to propagate the freedom of expressions, established student publication likewise given the chance to join and compete in yearly Division, Regional and National level competitions in the Department of Education (Philippines) National Schools Press Conference the governing body of elementary and secondary education in the country. 空手道® ^{"avec les mains ou les pieds"} 00:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 空手道 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough nontrivial coverage from secondary sources. The existence of acts and laws do nothing. I'm registered at the NSO, am I notable? –Howard the Duck 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also delete JJS Publication and JJS School Paper, which redirect to it. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the just-recently created redirect "Up The Hill"? –Howard the Duck 13:36 (PHT), March 3, 2009
  - That one redirects to Jack and Jill School, not Up The Hill (JJS). If we were going to get delete all the redirects to Jack and Jill School and/or Castleson High, here's that list: Aaron Lubrico, Bacolod Karate, Castleson Gazette, Catleson Gazette, Children Karate, Children Martial Arts, Elan Delfin, Jack & Jill School, Jack&Jill, James Guanzon, JJS Karate Dojo, JJS Karate, JJS-CH, JJS-PHHC, JJS, Jjskarate, Karate for High School, Karate Kid 1, Karate Kid I, Karate Kid1, Karate kids, Karatedo Kid, KarateKid, Mengullo, Randy, PKF Karate, Randy Mengullo, Razhel Mengullo, Seth Jego Balibalos, Super Karate Kids, Up The Hill, and UpTheHill. Yummmm.... can't you just smell the spam? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I apologize for that mistakes. I taught redirects are like magic words that once click it it will show up your acticles. I'm very sorry for that and I will not do it again since you made me realized of my shortcomings. As a beginner I'm trying to learn from all the veteran wikipedians here. About those kids, they are all karate players of JJS. I try to make an article about them since they are actively competing in the national level but my references are short. Regarding Up The Hill, its more than 5 months that it a redirect to Jack and Jill School and this days I try to separate the article but I fail again.THANKS!!jjska®ate 空手|道® 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor publication that hasn't received coverage to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - added new additional sources.jjska®ate 空手|道® 05:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the new sources mention the school paper "in passing." Like "<school paper> won in <competition>." It has to be nontrivial coverage, like a news report on the paper per se, not on their achievements. Like if there had been coverage about the difficulties of publication like what happened to The Philippine Collegian, or the paper exposed anomalies such as what happened to Mark Chua and The Varsitarian, etc.

P.S., in several newspaper AFDs in the past, someone mentioned that any newspaper becomes automatically notable if it is read by more than 5,000 readers. Dunno if this fits the bill. –Howard the Duck 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. Our school focus or offer elementary and secondary education and we cannot compete or we are far behind compare to other big schools esp. to those universities. Likewise, our staff writers wrote only basic campus journalism which is suited for their age and capabilities. Our population is only 1,500 students added with faculty and staff, parents, brothers and sisters and some friends and relatives for sure I can guarantee to hit the mark of 5,000 readers.jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this won't make it. The only elementary school papers that I can think of that might be notable are MaSci's "The Nucleus" and several other papers featured in one of those campus journalism textbooks. I dunno how to come up with the 5,000 number, though. Is it primary readers? The intended audience? Those who pay?

Or you can try this and other JJS articles at WikiPilipinas. They're more than happy to inflate their article count. –Howard the Duck 08:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: It must have at least 5,000 circulation, that is there should be more than 5,000 copies or more per issue. See this. –Howard the Duck 08:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTED. Thanks for the advice.jjska®ate 空手|道® 09:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as the other JJS-related articles that have been found and removed. How many articles about their school are these guys going to churn out? yandman 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Added Up The Hill Logo and some references.jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep This article can be improved in due time because it's a student newspaper not a commercial one. Why delete when we can develop it? For sure it will be very significant to many students and in a short moment it can establish notability since they are very active and achieving nowadays.— MMaAsia ^{Sambon Hajime!!} 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Mmaasia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Snowball? Have you read WP:SNOW? I know you guys are proud of the school you go to (or work for), but Wikipedia isn't here to be filled with articles on your teachers (Randy Mengullo, Miguel Villanueva, Razhel Mengullo, James Guanzon, Aaron Lubrico ...) and student organisations. And notability has to be asserted now, not in the future. yandman 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its just a matter of contribution in wikipedia which I believed it's for everyboby, right???? No personal attacks. If you don't like my articles or don't like my opinions, then better leave it there or suggest so that everybody will learn from it. Don't try to critized my work. It's a discussion page not a sermon page.— MMaAsia ^{Sambon Hajime!!} 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't know those other persons you've mentioned. I only knew Mr. Randy Mengullo, who used to be my trainer during high school years and I'm far old/matured enough compared to those kids and for the record I nominated Villanueva for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miguel_Villanueva. I just extend a hand to my fellow martial artists and kababayan. Have a nice day ahead.— MMaAsia ^{Sambon Hajime!!} 09:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo John Teope

Fails WP:NOTE User234 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable. It's simply a CV for this person, supported only by his own website, seemingly. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Its indeed a CV which doesn't establish subject's notability. --Artene50 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Who is this guy and why does he expect us to host his resume? Wikipedia is not C:\My_Documents\ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AFD tag was removed by an anonymous editor. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads as a CV, only describing his abilities rather than his notability. His references don't do a good job at explaining his notability, the best was seemingly a trivial mention where he carried a letter and became an honorary individual. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/nom withdrawn (non admin-close)Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadya Suleman

Article is about a person famous for only one event, see WP:BLP1E SDY (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I undersand the "famous for one event" principle, but it is only a principle. This lady seems interesting enough, notable enough, and is covered by a wide variety of reliable sources. The article is of a healthy length and depth of detail, and deleting it seems a bit extreme! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ms. Suleman has gained international notoriety. There are literally dozens of articles written about and interviews of Ms. Suleman in the mainstream media which clearly qualify her as a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. There are many thousands of less notable biographies on WP that are unopposed. It seems those who want this article deleted may have an agenda of preventing additional attention to her, however the Wikipedia notability standard relies on coverage by reliable sources and is not agenda driven. Numerous reliable sources have covered Nadya Suleman, therefore the existance of an article about her should not be controversial. Toounstable (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: the editor who requested deletion did so based upon a variable principle that biographies of living people who are notable for one event should be covered in the article on the event. However Nadya Suleman is certainly NOT notable for only one "EVENT" -- the birth of historic octuplets. The literally hundreds of news and opinion articles about her demonstrate that her notability includes myriad other issues that have been documented and discussed in/by qualified reliable sources. Toounstable (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was initially just notable for the birth of octuplets, but with the growing controversy and laws being enacted to prevent this from happening again I think shes surpassed the "one event" clause as the nominator has proposed this article violates. There has been over 17,000 news articles indexed by Google news referencing her name in the past month alone. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Raeky makes a very valid point I think. Even if it was WP:ONEEVENT, this is a perfect example where WP:IAR is appropriate. This is something that a lot of people would be interested in, and if we don't have an article on a subject that has such a huge controversy surrounding it, that would be really weird. Chamal ^talk 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note to the admin who makes this decision, if it is for delete then give the editors time to merge the content back to the octuplets article BEFORE you delete this page, much of the content of that page was removed when the articles was split. Thank you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable person, unpleasant as the whole thing is. Borock (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As annoying as this whole thing is, and as much as I personally cringe at the idea this women is getting attention, this person is now unfortunately notable. It may be considered just a media circus too. I wouldn't be against a delete either, but the wikipedian in me wants to stay fair. Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The birth of the octuplets is the one event for which she is now famous. Her notability will certainly extend beyond this one event, so I don't think WP:ONEEVENT is applicable. --User101010 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query- I thought this was a redirect to the octuplets? Enh, no matter. She's had enough exposure in putting herself before the media that reliable sources are easy to find. That she's famous for one event is, quite frankly, wrong. She's taken that birth and become notable all on her own. So, KEEP. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1E doesn't apply, given her serial publicity seeking / ongoing celeb-esque media attention, and the broad policy arguments that her decisions have sparked. She's more than "just" a mother of octuplets(!) at this point. Townlake (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep While these types of births have become more common, this one is different because the mom already had a bunch of kids, that is why it has gained so much media attention, and why it should be kept. Suggest nominator withdraw. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we should have a page on this woman, but I appear to be overwhelmingly in the minority and I have withdrawn the nomination. I will remove this page and the octuplets from my watchlist, as I appear to have fundamentally different views of how we should handle these articles. If there are any other parts of the AFD which have to be removed, feel free to do so, I have removed the notice from the page itself and I'm not sure where else it has to be delisted. SDY (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IMDb . MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Efe Açıkgöz

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable individual who became "famous" in Turkey after writing a hoax on IMDb about him playing a character in Lost. The article asserts notability per this reliable source from the Turkish newspaper Milliyet, so it can't be speedied. Delete this bio per WP:ONEEVENT. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let us not feed the monster. Being notable because you're notable seems to be the argument for this....but alas he hasn't gotten there yet. 7triton7 (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge, but I wont be the one who merges. I dont care, I wrote it because he managed something interesting and notable. I dont know the kid, delete if you want to. This discussion is as stupid as the article itself. You are talking about deleting a 2 paragraph page. Yea, continue, save the world.--hnnvansier (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - few reliable sources give any decent contextual coverage to this issue. There are also some major tone problems with the article, suggesting a conflict of interest issue as a possiblity. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Since it was for one event this could be at least a sentence or two in the IMDb article, again per WP:ONEEVENT which says cover the event not the person. Since the hoax was the event and it was done by the one person, I would think it would end up in IMDb's article instead of having its own article since people don't think it should stay. I Grave Rob_«talk» 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge to IMDb is not a good option here because it wouldn't fit into the article, and the event is not notable enough within the context of the history of imbd to merit a mention. Also not notable enough for its own article; there is some fleeting media coverage, [42], but not evidence of encyclopedic notability. Per BLP1E the article would have to be re-named to focus on the event if it were kept. I have some qualms about systemic bias, but not enough to change my position. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to IMDB link and see it yourself.. Geez... What are you talking about.. Systemic bias? Qualms? Notability??? It is just a stupid kid and 2 paragraphs. Dont you guys have better things to do instead of wasting your time with those kind of useless things? I cannot believe you are talking about nomination of deletion on worthless topics.. What a waste of time. Get a life.--hnnvansier (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus massacre

AfDs for this article:

No sources from that date or proofs dating that event.

Keep - it does have some reliable sources listed, and the last AfD (only a month and a bit ago) seemed satisifed that it was not a hoax. Give it a little more time to develop, though I'd suggest deleting the final line of the article (as I'm looking at it now, anyway - "However, it should be noted that some sources...") as it's a little unencyclopedic! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573) This article consists of a claim by Armenian sources...but no clear proof. Anyone can make a claim and have it cited in books but without evidence, its meaningless. Please note that Armenians and Turks have had conflicts for centuries. It may be true...or just historical propaganda. --Artene50 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573) Neither the term 'Cyprus massacre' alone is 'encyclopaedic'. EOKA's mass-killings of Turks can also be called as Cyprus massacre.--hnnvansier (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entry and merge content into Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573). As a stand-alone, the article is pretty much useless. There were indeed massacres during the 1570–1573 war, and that article is where this info belongs, within proper context. The title itself however is highly problematic and subject to POV interpretations, since "Cyprus massacre" without any other qualifications can mean any number of things. Constantine ✍ 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those given numbers are extreme, which makes %10 to %20 of the total population of Cyprus that time. It is obviously exaggerated, as usual in all that kind of topics related to Armenian - Turkish relationship.--hnnvansier (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the massacre of some 20,000 at the fall of Nicosia is well attested. Given that the same fate befell Famagusta, the lower figure (30,000) is not unreasonable, and an even greater total casualties figure due to the war is not unlikely. The Turkish-Armenian relationship may be complex, but I don't exactly see how the Armenian part comes into this - these massacres involved Orthodox Greeks and Catholics in even greater numbers than Armenians... Constantine ✍ 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the total population of those cities at that time? 20.000 is a huge, very huge number--hnnvansier (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the place for this discussion, but 20,000 is barely a "huge, very huge" number. Thousands of cities through the ages have had that number of inhabitants, and the fact that 20,000 were killed at the fall of Nicosia is well-attested by contemporary sources. Constantine ✍ 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Cyprus, not the whole world. I want to learn the total population of the island at that time. Any sources? Who counted the number of deaths while we do not know the total population? Bare propaganda.--hnnvansier (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nomination is incorrect, there are 4 independant sources in the article unless it has been vandalized again and more were mentioned during the first Afd. Edward321 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not reliable and not historical works.--hnnvansier (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination's reasons are indeed incorrect. Massacres did happen during that war, but the current article only states they happened, providing no other information or context. Since a more general article about the war exists, that is where this information should be found. Plus, the name "Cyprus massacre" is too vague. Other massacres have sadly been perpetrated in Cyprus at different times, the 1570 events hardly claim to be the sole "Cyprus massacre", nor are they known as such. The term brings 147 results in Google, most of whom are either Wiki clones or irrelevant to the event labeled as such. Constantine ✍ 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Indeed'? Are your thoughts supposed to be 'indeed' truths? Which source tells us that indeed realities?--hnnvansier (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete per Artene50; this is one side in a debate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources suggest that the wider academic community accepts the historical reality of the massacres, with fringe objections from Turkish sources. The article can take a NPOV by taking the mainstream academic perspective that the massacres occurred, but also mentioning the Turkish objections, as in this revision. Significant coverage in independant, reliable sources demonstrates the notability of the massacres independantly of the war, so the article should not be merged at this time and any merger discussion should not happen here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen from Lardayn's comments (for an extensive discussion, see both our talk pages) the sources he provided do not dispute the massacre, rather, they do not mention it, and from this he (Lardayn) infers that the events are disputed. I am therefore not sure whether there is actually a school of thought in Turkey that denies it actually happened. Not mentioning does not equal disputing it. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bet my left testical that there is a school of thought in Turkey that denies the massacre occured, but I agree the sources added should be examined to see what they say, and any original research should be removed from the article. However, this stuff is really a content issue and not relevant to an AfD discussion, it should be taken to the article talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Turks do not believe there were civilian massacres happened in their history after 11th century to the 19th, except the ones that they accept as did happen (like military actions against rebellions etc). Thats because, civilian killings are, no matter what the conditions are, heavy crime and sin in Islamic beliefs. It might be happened or not, I am not a historian. But this is the counter-view and I think, it should also be mentioned there.--hnnvansier (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. —Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that User:Lardayn (hnnvansier) created this deletion discussion (without signing his reason), and also !voted in it. Lardayn, it's worth noting for future reference that this is not allowed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A word of advice to whomever nominated the article: Next time put more than three seconds of thought into the reason for an afd before hitting save. Since its your responsibility to give some sound reasons for the deletion of an article, you may want to cite policy breaches or non-compliance with guidelines rather than reducing your argument to "No sources from that date or proofs dating that event". On the matter of the article itself, my keep rational is per Ryan Paddy's comment above: since the nominator has done a poor job of handling this afd, I gravitate toward a keep position unless someone would like to provide an actual reason to delete the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - inhabited places are inherently notable, as noted in WP:OUTCOMES and once again reiterated by the pile-on of WP:SNOW here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babu China, Pakistan

No content Vistro (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a stub, but that is not the same as no content. It meets notability and verifiability requirements. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I would encourage the nominator to consider withdrawing the nomination and take a look at deletion policy WP:DELETE, or alternatively give a concrete reason why the article should be deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep normal town stub. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peregrine, though I suggest that sourcing everything on the page (flag, stats etc.) would be a smart move. Establishing notability of the town, rather than just through guidelines etc., would also be expedient! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why do you wanna delete every single thing btw?--hnnvansier (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It has content and is a valid stub. Wikipedia has not deadline.--Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 as a blatant hoax Nancy ^talk 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogimon

No encyclopedic content Vistro (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, little context (I am unable to tell which Digimon series this one is from as the article does not help), no assertions of what makes this specific monster notable (it appears to be 1 specific Agumon, it would be like having an article specifically for Ash Ketchum's Pikachu). TJ Spyke 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - drivelly, non-notable. NB: the AfD tag was removed twice by article creator, so I replaced it. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No context at all. --Artene50 (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clear WP:HOAX, is author's fan fiction. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —— sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax of the worst quality. Splendid (sarcastic) grade 0 pictures --KrebMarkt 11:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as pure vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3 added, blatant hoax. — neuro^(talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism / deliberate misinformation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuanghuan

~~Non-notable car company ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)~~Nomination withdrawn. Article does appear to be notable, per concerns raised by the author. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A major Chinese car company is not notable? There is already a wikipedia article on one of their products Shuanghuan SCEO - while the article currently lacks content (I only created it today) the subject matter is more certainly notable. [43] [44] [45] カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless the article is developed with the addition of reliable third-party sources for all information (there doesn't need to be much, but all that there is must be verifiable), and an assertion of notability. This AfD will run for long enough for the article to be improved massively! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if there are sources available it's not fair to impose a deadline. RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not notable for 'you'.--hnnvansier (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC
Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Rawal

PROD contested by article author with sanjay rawal redefined celebrity philanthropy and is an advisor to a number of agents and celebs on philanthropy. Most of the claims in the article are not supported by the given references. While he is listed as executive producer on the hurricane relief album, the rest are peripheral mentions of the subject (or links to his blog). "Sanjay Rawal" is a common Indian name, but different permutations of web searches don't seem to indicate notability. I don't think this person meets WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 05:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for those reasons. Pff, Sri Chinmoy needing help getting in touch with Ravi Shankar? That's unlikely, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable, pointless, unreliable. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the article looks well-referenced at first glance, it seems to be an attempt at establishing notability by celebrity name dropping, use of poor sources, and blatant misrepresentation of other sources. For example,
- A trivial mention of Sanjay Rawal in this article (""Devotees are bringing flowers, they light candles, pray and meditate, creating great tranquility," Sanjay Rawal of the centre told IANS.) is used to reference, "He studied under noted spiritual teacher Sri Chinmoy"
- A quote in this article ("Ravi Shankar's contributions to the arts and to humanity have been not only exemplary but unparalleled, particularly his bridging of gaps between the East and West," said Sanjay Rawal, program coordinator for Sri Chinmoy: The Peace Meditation at the United Nations. ) is stretched to claim that, "helped the late teacher in his outreach to a number of world figures including Ravi Shankar." !

Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I wrote the article about a good friend, Sanjay. The above mentioned points are actually true. Sri met Ravi Shankar in 1972 but lost touch til 2002. He was a spokesperson for Sri Chinmoy as evinced by the cited articles and Sanjay was the go to for Sri with a lot of celebs like Sting and Susan Sarandon and he and Wyclef launched Yele together. While he is known by a lot of people in the charity industry, I guess he should work on getting himself cited more to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia! joeparty1 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can find sources that could establish notability, then add them. The article doesn't have to be deleted, it is simply being considered for deletion because it fails to meet the inclusion guidelines (namely WP:BIO). §FreeRangeFrog 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Know/Gold Lion Remixes (EP)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Let Me Know/Gold Lion Remixes (EP)

I am nominating this article for deletion, because I did not find any source to establish notability. Canniba loki 05:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Comment either add an AFD notice on those pages (1 is proded right now) or, I would prefer, strike that out and list them separately. The last omnibus AFD I saw didn't go so well and here, you have some singles, an album, a whole mess of different things. It's just going to be ugly very soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete for all. Pretty much non-notable, though there may well be room for improvement. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, none establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James (Faruk Mahfuz Anam)

Fails to meet WP:BAND. No independent reliable sources. Enigma^msg 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely void of reliable, third-party sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mindspin

Article fails WP:MUSIC. Cites no sources and makes no claims of notability; fails WP:RS. WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Observe the contrib history of the article creator, Special:Contributions/Trev311. Spoonman is supposed to be the original name of Mindspin. I think this person is attempting self-promotion. Belasted (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Belasted and James. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promo of an NN subject. Wether B (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Human dignity. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity

AfDs for this article:

There is a better article called Human dignity. This article is just a personal essay. Perhaps the Human dignity article should be moved here. Does dignity apply to anything non-human? Not according to this article. Belasted (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human dignity since they appear to be one and the same. The suggestion to move that article to the title Dignity appears quite sensible. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. as one of the authors who's tried in the past to clean up this page, I'd have suggested the merge myself (if I knew that the other page existed). I'll check to see if anything should be merged over. --Ludwigs2 04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge please andycjp (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect as proposed. -- Taku (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human dignity as per Blanchardb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is clearly a merge discussion. (and dignity is not limited to humans as the concept might apply in architecture, say). Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Human dignity. While it is possible that an article could be created on this topic that is not synonymous with the latter, the current article isn't it -- it is simply a WP:CFORK of 'Human dignity'. If somebody wants to come along and create such a non-synonymous article at some later stage, there is nothing to stop them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- maybe we can satisfy both sides (per Belasted, above) by merging the articles and moving the merged version from 'human dignity' to 'dignity'. if we can get a consensus on that, I'll undertake the merge and move. --Ludwigs2 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, and based on responses I think it can be done with no controversy. Belasted (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Human dignity. — Reinyday, 07:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

KEEP This is a wonderful, long-standing article that is well supported by the progressive Wikipedia community. 'Human dignity' is mere dogma. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If you have a comment about putting the section on the German Constitution into the current article:Dignity, please visit Proposal re article:Human Dignity. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Arguably this should be merged with human dignity from the standpoint of scholarly philosophy (most scholarly discussions of dignity fall into a sub-set of applied ethics.) Most contemporary philosophic work in dignity considers it to be a human trait or aspect. While many may see this as a blatant example of speciesm, this is not correct. Typically those that do so are using the scholarly definition of dignity incorrectly to represent worth or value. Dignity is recognized as separate from these and stands on its own as human characteristic not unlike grace. Often dignity is expressed as ideas such as 'calmness under suffering' and has many sociological crossovers in public behavior and displayed social norms. See the work of Bontekoe, Coope, Pritchard, Malby, Christiansen, Kolnai, Laird, Quinn, and Morris.Coreddrgn (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Schillaci

College baseball player without major achievement fails WP:ATHLETE. JaGa^talk 04:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - amateur sportsman, clearly fails WP:Athlete. NO inidication of notability. Parslad (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Borgarde (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page; doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. BRMo (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not meet notability criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Main contributor to the page seems to be Schillaci himself. Does not pass notability. Spanneraol (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail

Child actor who, despite winning an award, likely still fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as there is enough info.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, award is notable, but it was the award for the 'best cast'. Hence it goes to the whole cast and that does not exactly make each recipient notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a leading member of the cast of an academy award winning picture. His fate is making news around the world.QPLondon —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources about the real-life and acting career of the subject. Note that his notability arises not only from his on-screen performance for which the cast won the award (which would perhaps not be notable enough, by itself); but from his, and some of his fellow castmembers, atypical circumstances and biography. Doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, but easily meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO standards. Article needs work, but that is not an AFD issue. Abecedare (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason provided by Abecedare. Azhar is notable for not only his on-screen performance (and the awards he won for it) but also for the circumstances he faces in his real life, which is getting a lot of attention from the media. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that Azharuddin has recently been cast in an upcoming Bollywood film, that's even more of a reason to keep this article! Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Keep. I have inserted the reference that will save the article. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Ground (comic anthology)

Contested prod. Non-notable anthology. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifightcrime (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find non-trivial reliable sources that would show it? The one you have now only mention this anthology in passing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 10 issues, no notable content, and no substantial reliable sources, this isn't even notable in New Zealand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TV3 ref does have a significant mention, interviews 2 contributors. Several contributors are notable (have articles here). dramatic (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Manukau Courier also has an article with more than trivial coverage. XLerate (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has been discussed on New Zealand Radio in interview with the publisher. Looks like that radio station is similar to BBC Radio, so I think that's fairly good. Looks to be a notable comic within the New Zealand comics scene. Hiding T 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons mentioned above. Even though New Zealand only has three million people in it, its still notable in that country, based on the coverage it receives. Dream Focus 15:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're out of date: There are 4.3 million of us now, plus lots of export models :-) dramatic (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nethakani

No references support the notability of this occupation or group. Ghits are ambiguous. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few hits on google to indicate notability of this technique Lets drinkTea 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say it is a specific weaving technique? If it is, we might be able to write something about that in a relevant weaving article and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nethakani is not a weaving technique. It is a caste whose members were trditional weavers. Salih (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a single reference on a Google Scholar search to a 1996 paper, which isn't really enough. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the expanded article. Bondegezou (talk)
Keep I have expanded and referenced the article. Request previous reviewers to take another look at the revised article. Abecedare (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was relisted because the article was just updated yesterday, and did not give the delete voters much time to reconsider. X clamation point 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the expansion and referencing. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing. Probably most castes will turn out to be notable if the work is done.DGG (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Before I Self Destruct. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Good to Be a Gangsta"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Good to Be a Gangsta"

Non-notable song. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this worthless piece of trash of an article isn't improved. Belasted (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is an absolute mess. Per this (apparently aceshowbiz is blacklisted) and this, it may pass WP:NSONGS. I will clean up the disaster and yall can decide if it stays.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say redirect to Before I Self Destruct instead. Matt (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per improvements made to the article since it was nominated. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Fryxell

Prod contested on the grounds that she is the wife of a famous geologist. Notability is not inherited. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Switch to neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- I can find quite a few mentions of this person, but they mostly seem to be passing mentions or somehow connected to her church community (ie. not independent enough to confer notability). Reyk _YO! 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this AfD listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism

Keep - some sources and content added. There are not huge numbers of sources, admittedly, but enough IMO to show that she was of some importance in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, ie, a national church, not just a local one, and that her musical work in that context is of sufficient notability to merit an article about her in her own right. As for the above comments, (a) there IS an assertion of independent notability on account of her musical work, and (b) it was never claimed that her only importance was as the wife of a famous geologist (not composer), as a quick read of the article + history will show.HeartofaDog (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to editors Blanchardb and DanielRigal, at the time they made their respective nomination and comment, the article looked like this; there was no assertion of notability other than being married to someone notable, and I would have agreed with the article's deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the article when I saw it: the assertion of notability is in sentence 2. But it is not well presented, agreed.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her work in producing the second setting of the Lutheran church's Service Book and Hymnal, as described here, meets notability criteria. That web page is not a very WP:RS, but that's a matter for improvement of the article, not its existence. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Royalbroil (CSD A7) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Tanzania

There doesn't seem to be any speedy deletion criterion for this subject matter, or I would have db'd it. A non-notable class project. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable class project, with no reliable, third party references that I can find. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The G11 spam criterion applies, given the "Your help!" section, which makes the article mere pep talk at the very least. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if allowed. Borderline nonsense or spam. Some people would just collect some money and quietly send it to a reputable charity working in Tanzania. This lot have formed four committees and written a pious and inappropriate article about themselves instead. Pure vanity! Not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emure

Unnotable rural town. Not a notable city in and of itself and one supposed "claim" to fame really isn't. Ogunleye being from Emure doesn't mean the rural town is instantly notable. Attempts to redirect it to its alternate name Emure Ekiti, which has a fuller article, continue to be reverted by article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that all real towns and villages are notable. Hut 8.5 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If verifiable. Can you verify Emure is a separate town, rather than another name for Ekiti State, which is the article states it is? And really, there should be some common sense applied here. A small town that has no discussion and can't be confirmed to exist (or can only be barely confirmed) doesn't need an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency database [46] says that there is a populated place called Emure-Ekiti (with Emure as a variant name) located within Ekiti state in Nigeria, so evidently the two are not the same thing. Hut 8.5 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "-Ekiti" suffix is explained here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why on earth should a town in Nigeria be considered any less worthy of an encyclopedia article than a town in the United States? Just a few seconds work searching on the internet shows that this is a town, and that Emure-Ekiti is a name used to distinguish it from Emure-Ile, not an alternative name for the state where it located. I note that the nominator accused the article author of vandalism for reversing the redirect to the state, when the only possible vandalism was the making of the redirect in the first place. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny towns in the US aren't worthy of an encyclopedic article either. And my Google searches all pointed to it being the same. And, FYI, that guy had created nonsense articles before, and has been blocked for operating a sock farm, so viewing it as vandalism was perfectly valid. I'm a fag nerd with no friends and got owned -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of noteability through third-party sources. Consensus cannot override policy. Jtrainor (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are plenty of third-party sources here, here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!deargirlloveme!

Unsigned, self-releasing band - does not seem to pass WP:BAND. Some references are provided, but none appear notable and some are unrelated. FlyingToaster 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. I nearly speedied this as an A7, but believe that while this is definitely not notable, it's not quite speedyable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yet another MySpace band. I took the liberty of removing some of the fluff, to enhance our reputation. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Drmies. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete classic speediable garage-band article. No label, no albums, no sources, no nothin'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that it fails WP:BAND. Matt (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moiz Khowaja

Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed - No indication of notability in this article apparently written by its subject. The three references provided are 1. A website where anyone can submit articles 2. A blog 3. A site where anyone can submit a quote FlyingToaster 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promoting drivel. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability, now with less drivel! Drmies (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability at all. ~~No real context either, just a collection of his writings.~~ Chamal ^talk 05:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice that Drmies (talk · contribs) has removed a load of unsourced POV and promotional material. Looks more or less like an ad with all that. Chamal ^talk 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's really all it was, wasn't it...I think it looks a lot less like an ad now! Drmies (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - DanielRigal really took the words out of my mouth! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAP MII

This article does not appear to describe a notable topic, and would seem to need a total rewrite in order to become encyclopaedic. Skomorokh 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--well, what is this anyway? A sales pitch, that's for one. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbles Hip Hop

Non-notable record label, doesn't meet criteria of WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC PK T(alk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —'PK T(alk) 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable, third-party sources to establish any sort of notability. No information cited except for self-published sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomless pit (gaming)

Unverified original research with no indication of notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless article and notability is not established. Does anyone really care that a bottomless pit is bottomless? RP459 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this feature is notable. Sounds like WP:Synth or even WP:OR. JJL (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - original research, uninteresting, and certainly non-notable in terms of having its own article. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the pits are really bottomless. Redddogg (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and whiny original research at that. Example quote: "Bottomless pits are considered by many to be the easiest way out of constructing genuinely clever level mechanisms." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete because, damn.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to take my favorite quote from Wikipedia: "It seems like fluff trying to be elaboration." That basically sums up the article. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks notability and has no merit on its own. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Records

Sources all from the company website, not from independent entities. It sort of looks like an advertisement. Spring12 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These pages of non-notable record companies are used later to assert notability for obscure artists. It's never a good sign when the first hit in a gsearch is your MySpace blog. §FreeRangeFrog 03:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what sort of research was done to determine the notability of this record company, which has a number of blue-linked artists on its roster. An absence of references currently on the article is not a reason for deletion. I searched and found a number of non-trivial references in newspapers and magazines, and have added the citations to the article just now. There are more out there. Keep, since it meets the general notability guideline's requirement of multiple independent sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the company itself is notable. Blue linked artist articles are nice but notability isn't inherited. What makes this company notable? This article doesn't tell us. The name makes google searching for references difficult.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible that you might be conflating importance with notability. The article does not need to "tell us" what makes it important. The NPOV way to determine notability is to see its non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, which this subject has. The record label has been discussed not just in articles about some of its bands' signings but also in some articles about "small labels". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability standards apply to articles, not all articles except those on record labels. Articles should establish, preferably in the opening paragraph, what makes the subject of the article notable. Existence and relationship to notable articles little to establish notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _Talk Islander 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm pretty sure that this article could use a rewrite to make encyclopedic, but still...as per FreeRangeFrog. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are some fairly respectable sources, trade magazines, etc. covering this. I think it has potential for improvement. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which references? covering what? There are references covering artists on this label but those references belong in those artists' articles and do little to establish notability in this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The widely-circulated New Jersey newspaper; the widely-circulated Ohio newspaper; the widely-circulated Washington newspaper; and the widely-circulated American music magazine. All seem to confer some notability IMO, but it was only a weak keep as we don't have specific access to those specific articles online so I can't "vet" them. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this label is not sufficiently notable (see WP:CORP) so as to permit any artist who has released two albums on it to be intrinsically notable as per WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the overtly promotional material in the article, added some context to the lead as per Rtphokie's suggestion, and added some more content from the articles in The Record and in Billboard. Given the coverage in multiple publications, including at a national level, and that it is not merely trivial or incidental coverage, I'm of the opinion that the subject meets the primary criteria of WP:CORP. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toronto District School Board. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Community School

This article does not explain why the school is important and unlike the other school articles, it is an elementary school that does not seem to have any significance, with almost all of its information from the Toronto District School Board's website on that school. It also was deleted twice before. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toronto District School Board per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan, and the fact that it is a rather dull recreation of deleted material. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sinek

Seems to be an an advert for a consultant, and a resume Nate 14 81 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs serious pruning (I started a bit already), but articles like [47] and [48], and this search, make a strong enough case for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Drmies Camw (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs cleanup but is notable. RP459 (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - sources don't seem to be strong enough to confer notability. May be misinterpreting, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRT Exchange

(Prod removed.) Seems to be original research and more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Martin^msgj 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. This is an "article" created and fleshed out by User:DRTGuy, whose post on the talk page I found, er, "interesting." Clearly this is original research or something he made up. It is incomprehensible to many people who have no background knowledge of this topic. It never states what the DRT Exchange is - is it an organization? Is it a process? There is nothing to support or clarify this. Delete this pseudo-essay of a possibly-existing-but-maybe-not-and-we-may-never-know company or a possible-process-involving-some-not-readily-apparent concept or... never mind, just kill it with fire. B.Wind (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this a Hoax? What is it? RP459 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--though it is notable as the weirdest thing I've seen on Wikipedia, I think. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability (or even what it is). Looks like some kind of a (very far fetched) theory, which would of course be in violation of WP:OR. Chamal ^talk 05:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy delete per everyone. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Inc.

Software company. Fails to establish notability, appears promotional. Artw (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete spam.--Bhockey10 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep very non notable company for Lisp software history. --Checkmao (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify - you're urging a "keep" while stating that the company is not notable. If the software history is the reason for keeping, you are advocating the maintaining of a WP:COATRACK. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 27 February 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) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have a problem with the tone, and I wouldn't call it spam, but it does nothing to demonstrate notability. Unless we can see proof of coverage then it has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Weak example of WP:CSD#A7 and WP:N. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are from a reliable third-party, leaving the article unreferenced and without assertion of notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this had been in the AfC queue, it would have quickfailed without any reliable sources. Matt (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Verde Services

A company that seems not to meet the notability criteria. So far all that has been offered as proof of notability is a short news article on the company's formation in the Phoenix Business Journal. This is valid coverage but it does not seem to demonstrate significant coverage in itself. The Wikipedia article was written by somebody associated with the company and there is already some discussion of this on the talk page. I am not seeing RS coverage when searching in Google. (Note that the UK based company of the same name seems to be unconnected.) DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does provide a reference from (as far as I can tell) is a reliable source here. The author is Patrick O'Grady which is a writer for the Phoenix Business Journal. I did some searching on your claim that the writer of the PBJ article is associated with this company (I can't tell if you're saying the PBJ article or the Wiki article) and can't find anything. All I can find is that he has written many articles for the PBJ (Google search on PBJ+O'Grady). I assume you mean the Wiki article but I wanted to be sure. The article is written solely on the merger of the two companies that made the subject of this article which, in my eyes, means it's about this company/article and therefore fulfills WP:N. While, like you said, there is an obvious COI, that does not justifies this article for deletion. AfD isn't for cleanup. I am a hard advocate for deleting advertisements and I will be watching/editing this page. If it does look like an advertisement, I'll be the first to mark it for SD. At this time, it doesn't so my vote is to Keep. OlYeller^Talktome 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Sorry. I was unclear. The Wikipedia article is written by somebody from the subject company. Not the PBJ article! I have clarified the nomination text above to make this clear now. Please see the article's talk page for proof. The author uses the term "our" to describe the company. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't think that the one reference (albeit a moderately strong reliable third-party source) is enough to confer notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TreasuryTag. Notability has not been sufficiently established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Roth)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only source is a blog AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of info. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't blogs basically not reliable sources? If so, then there is basically nothing useful in the article. Versus22_talk 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a random blog, this is from The New York Times, who got their information directly from the publisher. We're not talking about an unknown writer here, this book will definitely be published. If the 2020, 2024, and 2028 Olympics all have pages already in place, this book, due out next year, can have a page as well. I think there's little sense in deleting it now and then resurrecting it in a few months. AshcroftIleum (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source to the article, this time from The Seattle Times. AshcroftIleum (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nemesis (Philip Roth novel). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogs are specifically not reliable sources of information.RP459 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same information that appeared in the blog is also appearing in multiple newspapers, including the New York Times' print version. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] These sources aren't providing more information, but there's no reason to doubt the original blog entry by now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other articles for upcoming books only mentioned once or twice by their authors, exist. Look at Crocodile Tears and Yassen as the most obvious examples (to me, anyway...) - as long as the NYT is a reliable source, I think the article is fine. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a sufficiently notable writer, all announced books are notable if they get sufficient sourcing. In fact, they can even be notable if they never get written, if people write enough about them in RSs. DGG (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per Copyvio MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Process (United States)

Contested prod/prod2, removed by author. This article was initially prod'd for being a WP:HOWTO and potentially a WP:COATRACK for a legal service company (http://www.aplegal.com). The article is basically a dump out of articles from that site, and even though the article says they're posted here with permission, it still seems inappropriate. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article potentially violates WP:COPYVIO from [54], [55] and [56]. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is informative and referenced on a basic, minimal amount. I don't get a sense of advertising or promotion of the article source site. It's a legitimate topic that condenses the patent process in a good and educational way. Each section includes outside references to other articles or government information. Would be inappropriate if an obvious shill, but as it appears to be unbiased and informative with references, I recommend keep. Danprice19 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is entirely ripped from sites such as this, this and this. Does that count for nothing? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - due to copyvio concerns (above), poor quality of writing and titling, lack of notability as a topic, the fact that it is something not really covered by encyclopediae etc. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, totally encyclopaedic as you guys like it that way.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What? Can you be more specific? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepis recommended because the copyright concerns have been affirmatively shown to comply with Wiki standards. The writing can be cleaned up and the subject matter is encyclopaedic. It also is notable due to the outside references such as USPTO and various university articles on the subject. For example, one reference to a US government Web site distinctly references the "patent process." This in itself makes this notable. It then goes on to list in typical government mishmash via various links everything that is stated in this article. This article puts all this together. We can clean the article up, but it should remain as it complies to all standards.Aardvark31 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How-to guides are not encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:HOWTO and WP:COPYVIO. It's not enough to simply say that you have permission from the copyright holder to repost the article; the copyright holder has to directly file a copyright permission by letter or e-mail which explicitly gives Wikipedia permission to republish it under an unrestricted license. If that isn't done by close, this simply cannot stay; and even if it is done by close, this is still a how-to guide, not a sourced encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since this is actually a blatant copyvio, there is no potential for this to come out a keep (you can't !vote to keep a copyvio). Should it not simply be tagged CSD-G12, since that is a valid reason for speedying? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I put it up for AfD because I wasn't sure how to handle the bottom of the article where it says "This article is posted here with permission by Stevan Lieberman of the law firm of Greenberg & Lieberman http://www.aplegal.com on Saturday, February 28, 2009. The article comprises portions of an original article posted at http://www.aplegal.com/practice-patents.html." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: For future reference, steps for that situation are set out at WP:CP. I have handled this one accordingly. Unless verification is supplied for this material, it will have to be deleted in seven days regardless of the merits of the subject. As an uninvolved administrator addressing copyright concerns, I am not forming any opinion on the merits of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so long as copyright issue is resolved, then article is encyclopedic enough to be salvaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danprice19 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You already voted above. Also, the copyright issue isn't resolved - the article has been blanked until it gets fixed. And since the entire article is copyvio material and there wouldn't be anything left... what's there to keep? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Normally, I vote in favor of just about every WikiProject Law article or stub, but not in this case. "How to" articles in the law are especially a minefield on Wikipedia. A short section of basic procedure in a larger article might be appropriate, but not in this case. Even ordinary lawyers must take a patent bar examination. I would not touch this with a 10-foot pole. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Corner

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heaven's Corner

Appears to be a small animal sanctuary; no proof of notability given. I couldn't find any good references for this place on Google. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure about the nom, but I didn't have too many problems finding hits on Google, I found this article earlier today, and had just finished adding an infobox and it's first ref (found in about 3 minutes on G-news) when it was put up for AfD... I think with a little further cleanup and ref work, there is no reason that it shouldn't be kept... seems to pass WP:ORG and WP:V without issue... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain, but I thought I typed "Heavens Corner" into Google News and got absolutely nothing. Is there perhaps a difference between with-apostrophe and without-apostrophe? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that way... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - article has been fixed, and is now of quite a creditable standard. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small but notable as a zoo (yay, tigers!), and the reference section is pretty good. Hopefully this can be expanded over time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News searches confirm notability. The article needs to be expanded -- don't delete it. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Dream Focus 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodrich Quality Theaters

Non-notable theater company. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a good-sized chain with a long history. And at least some references. On what basis do you consider it non-notable? DGG (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Written much like promotional material at the moment, and I question the availability of reliable sources. Lexis-Nexis turns up nothing, and while I do get some hits on Google news, most are either trivial mentions or non-reliable sources. If someone can source the material in the article with reliable and independent sources, I will gladly change to keep, but at the moment I'm not convinced. Cool3 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 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 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scanning the previews of the 118 gnews hits, lots of stuff on them opening and closing theaters; a little history, IMAX, quotes from the owner, etc it does seem like there is enough to support a less promotional article, though it would take some work.John Z (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This theater chain is listed by Boxoffice (magazine) as one of the "giants of exhibition" (ranked #21 among the largest theater chains in the United States). [57] It should be possible to improve the article if there are still problems with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no problem in that article.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80 years of history and over 30 locations across several states is more than enough for me. There definitely is some junk in the article that needs to be cut (a coupon book for 60% popcorn? who cares?) and the Kernal Korn article needs to be merged in. But the company itself is definitely notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rayko/KRB

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable band. Google search provides only fansites and self-promotion. Google news finds two passing references at best. The "top ten" list cited is a non-notable one. Bongo matic 00:57, 24 February 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 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:MUSIC. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origen (band)

Very difficult to search for this band given the numerous other uses of its name. However, good faith Google and Google News search identified no potential candidates of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Bongo matic 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:14, 26 February 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 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia is not a small encyclopaedia.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - They have been covered by at least one reliable source [58] and have appeared on several television shows. Although it is difficult to verify those appearances with reliable sources, I think that is due to the band's name as well as the language barrier, and not because the sources do not exist. --Megaboz (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advent (band)

The claims made in this article are dubious and unsupported by refs and fail wp: Music Oo7565 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:MUSIC (delete) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for the multiple reviews on the album page. Here's another 4 stared reviews at Allmusic; [59], [60], [61], [62]. They're released albums on Solid State/Tooth & Nail, Tresor and FFRR so they pass WP:MUSIC#C5 as well; [63]. Delete , fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:06, 26 February 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 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, look above.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Weak keep, more info can be added.--hnnvansier (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Esradekan's links would be otherwise good, but unfortunately, it's not the same band. The Advent under discussion here is a Christian metalcore band that, according to the article under discussion, released its debut album in 2008. The one his Allmusic links are for is a Detroit techno outfit that released its first album in 1995. Remove the Earth, the 2008 album for the former group, is listed in the Allmusic entry of the latter, but that's clearly a mistake. Accordingly, they also fail WP:MUSIC#C5, since they've only released one album. (I guess an argument could be made that since the band features members of a more prominent and now defunct band, Advent is also notable, but, uh, I'm not real sure about the notability of that one, either. I guess it passes C5, if barely.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. I Allmusiced Remove the Earth and then just followed the link back to the bio page. Well, at least I've now got some info to fill out The Advent page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another NN. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undead/No. 5 EP

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Undead/No. 5 EP

~Article about a musical recording (album, single, etc.) that does not indicate the importance of the subject. Is useful when looking through Hollywood Undead albums though.--02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)~~

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 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 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere I Go (Hollywood Undead song)

Article about a musical recording that does not indicate the importance of the subject--QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this single charted on Google searches or Billboard [64]. No assertion of notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 24 February 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 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve P. Taylor (writer)

Unsourced biography (possibly autobiography) with an unclear assertion of notability. I tried to source this with a quick Google search, but other than an Amazon profile, none of the "Steve P Taylor"s Google chooses to serve up in the first 5 pages of results appears to be the subject in question. However, the article has existed since 2006, so community input is much needed. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 13:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the subject's publications appear to be particularly notable. Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss him. I would say this is a clear failure of both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. JulesH (talk) 16:25, 25 February 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 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and at least a borderline failure of WP:CREATIVE. Benea (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - His primary claim to notability seems to stem from his work with the Forum on Prisoner Education, and in that context I've found a few sources that discuss him to various degrees - this seems to be a fairly substantial Financial Times article entirely about him and contains some interesting information not included in the article currently. I also ran across a few other sources which seem to feature quotes and information from and about him. However, most of these other ones do not seem to be substantially about him, and are just using him as an expert to quote. There may well be other sources to draw on - most of these came from a Google News search for "Steve Taylor prisoner"; with most of the ones relating to this particular Steve Taylor coming from 2004-2005. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is an expert source who is quoted by major international news agencies. That establishes notablity in my books. Unionsoap (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. All the sources seem to only use him a as quote source, none of the sources are bout him, therefore he doesn't have non-trivial nor independant sources.Yob Mod 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chow Ching Lie

Is this writer/pianist sufficiently notable? Nothing in the article shows that she is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BEFORE, what efforts did you undertake to investigate the notability of this person? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google news archive search shows that the subject is notable as an author, in that her autobiography is described as a best-seller, and under the general notability guideline in that a notable feature film has been made about her life. If those result aren't enough then there are many more from Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not famous, all of her bibliography are red link. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 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 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, look at Edward's comment.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See French Wikipedia for an extensive biography with many references. As per Mgm, AfD is not the same as cleanup. betsythedevine (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. For gosh sakes, she is notable enough that her bography was made into a film. Darn easy to source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Zhang

Is this designer sufficiently notable? Based on article, maybe, but there's insufficient information to show so. Delete unless notability shown. ---Nlu (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim to notability seems to be that her clothes "were often worn by many Bengali and Assamese actors during the 90's", which is not only unsourced but also insufficient for WP:BIO. Googling for Yi Zhang fashion designer yields nothing useful, but since the name itself is relatively common, it is possible that I missed something. So keep the nomination open for 5 days but delete unless sources are found that establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: did you try searching with "art director" instead? Ottre 02:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't, I tried only Yi Zhang (which is too broad) and Yi Zhang fashion designer. Googling for "Yi Zhang" "art director" doesn't seem to provide any links related to this person. Do you see anything useful ? Abecedare (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to look for, haven't read the article. Film Index International turns up a few results for the art director, none for a "fashion designer" named Yi Zhang. Ottre 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see independent third party sources to show that his person is really prominent. --Artene50 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you do not need to know someone for him/her to be notable.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, no references.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really do not see how we can keep this unless somebody can find some source of some sort--I am willing to be very flexible to avoid cultural bias, but there has to be some actual evidence of at least existence. I cannot believe that a notable designer of costumes for the cinema left no traces. DGG (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per DGG. Ottre 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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