Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 March 1 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLAWS[edit]

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

No third-party sources; in fact, no assertion of notability except in edit summaries. Ipatrol (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I don't monitor Wikipedia 24x7 for changes. I have this thing called a job...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability guidelines for web content, especially Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. I'm afraid I just don't see that in this article. Cheers. I'mperator 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Software is unique in that the developer is the sole authority on the product. Especially in the case of FOSS, there are unlikely to be third-party articles that would meet WP:N. Should we remove all articles related to FOSS that don't strictly meet notability requirements? I think the article could use improvement, but deleting it seems to violate the spirit of an open encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk • contribs)
    • The article could use improvement by the way of reliable sourcing in third party sources. The mere fact that it FOSS doesn't give it a free pass. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, FOSS projects are far less likely to have third-party sources that you'd consider notable. I realize the purpose behind WP:N, but it's a guideline and not a rule. Guidelines give us a general path to follow and allow us to exercise discretion. The arguments presented here by others fail to take into account the nature of FOSS. You can't reasonably point at WP:N like it's some holy law that thou shalt not break. I think it's worth discussing some happy-medium for FOSS projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Union (band)[edit]

State of the Union (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This band fails the notability guidelines for music. The article, which has no references, makes no attempt to establish notability. (The band's article also seems to now be used primarily as an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article.) - Jrissman (talk) 23:08, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TigerWiki[edit]

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

Discontinued Non-notable software; references consist of non-reliable sources Dandv (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could you explain your WP:N assertation in more detail, in particular as the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline is "inactive", which is suggestive of highly contested ground. Personally, I'm of the opinion that neutral, factual and concise articles on OpenSource software have a place on Wikipedia (mainly as per WP:NOTPAPER), regardless if discontinued or not. I'm noting that the article has a claim of notability (the fork softwares). There also seem to some snippets [1] p282, and [2]. I'm no subject matter expert myself, but your user page profile intrigues me, and I'm looking forward to your reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Active and much larger FOSS wiki software projects, like Foswiki and MojoMojo, were not deemed notable, and many editors voted for their deletion (where are these editors now, one wonders). In order to avoid a double-standard, I joined the effort of deleting Wikipedia articles of free open-source software. However, I actually am of the opinion that existing FOSS with a significant user base deserves a page on Wikipedia and started a mailing list thread on that (which unfortunately generated almost no interest). As such, I marked for deletion only abandoned wiki software.
thanks for your reply. I see Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge, with the five pillars, and the two fundamental policies WP:V and WP:SOURCES. I understand that some people use Wikipedia as a software knowledge references works (factual, concise, no spam, etc). I would say it's an absolute legit purpose, and so it pains me to see articles deleted on notability issues, that I consider inherently subjective. This personal opinion aside, the notability discussion is "stuck", as was pointed out at the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. best Power.corrupts (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Abandoned open-source development projects are a dime a dozen. No indication of third-party verifiability. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. I've added the www2008 conference reference suggested by Power.corrupts and wish to cancel my AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 10:10, April 3, 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Carbonne[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a musician whose notability is not established (I'm not familiar in detail with the current requirements of WP:MUSIC, but I doubt it passes that standard). There are no references, and a Google News search (here) doesn't return much in the way of useful information. Given the general inability of Wikipedia to maintain BLPs on marginally notable subjects at an adequate level of accuracy and professionalism, this article ought to be deleted until the subject becomes more prominent and a better article can be written. Avruch T 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a vague idea, I don't think. Perhaps it doesn't have clearly defined criteria, but it has been a somewhat common deletion rationale since it was proposed some time ago in a high profile poll. Avruch T 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a vague idea. You can't say something isn't vague and then say that it doesn't have a clearly defined criteria. Moreover, when it was proposed it was shown to clearly not have any consensus behind it. The times it has been used as a deletion rationale it has primarily been a substitute for some notion that if there is disagreement about whether a subject meets WP:BIO then the assumption towards deletion is stronger than it might be otherwise. That's a different claim. There remains no consensus, no policy, no guideline and no compelling case to delete articles whose subjects meet BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could easily argue the semantics of the idea that something without specific defining criteria is automatically vague... Not the place for it, though. If you like, think of it this way: The nom statement is essentially a recap of the rationale for deleting articles that don't meet WP:BIO. There are other reasons to delete articles about non-notable living people, but the fact that we can't verify or maintain them in a reasonable fashion is certainly a major one. Avruch T 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not specific biographies. That's why we don't have non-notable articles in general. Bringing in living people just complicates the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete After spending several hours trying to help the creator via our IRC help channel, I have been unable to establish notability as described in WP:BAND. I have made a considerable effort to find a URL that asserts any of the criteria, to no avail.  Chzz  ►  19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment mentioned in le monde on Jul 2, 1995.Geni 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm this may also be a legit source.Geni 21:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a schedule mention (i.e. here are the groups performing, among them is Yves Carbonne) and the second is a staff profile - hardly the sort of reliable source necessary to satisfy notability concerns. Avruch T 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see below, changed to speedy delete) - After searching in multiple different archival news databases and other places for sources, it seems the subject of this article fails WP:NOTE. Has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some unfavorable comments relative to deleting Yves Carbonne's page. Le Monde, Bass Musician Magazine, The International Institute of Bassists, 2 cd releases with two prestigious indie record labels, performing around the world with other high profile artists as well as being a soloist, and most importantly: He is the person who is responsible for CREATING the term "Sub-Bass" AND he conceived and is the ONLY bassist in the world to play 10-12 string fretless sub-basses (for those of you who are not familiar with the significance of that: That could be compared to playing a 97 key Bosendorfer Imperial Concert Grand Piano - WITHOUT KEYS. To dismiss him as unimportant is a very short sighted and closed point of view for those arguing for deletion. He was already ON here for at least two years (as are many other musicians not meeting the "American" Wikipedia definition of what a relevant musician is, although he DOES, in fact, with 2 CDs to his credit by prestigious indie record labels). I am not here to make enemies, but, someone who actually CONCEIVED new musical instruments which will take the entire bass community to the next level, could HARDLY be considered an irrelevant musician. He has more song plays on myspace than ANY other French instrumentalist. You can easily verify that. And, although I will guess that you consider that irrelevant, myspace is being used as the primary website for most musicians these days. Record companies look at myspace when determining an artist's potential. Furthermore, he made a bass trio cd with Dominique Di Piazza and Michael Manring, both of whom are notable musicians, and they are both on your site. I will also bring to your attention that he has TOP billing on that CD, i.e. the name of the cd is: Carbonne / Di Piazza / Manring. As I said yesterday, what holds significant importance here and seems to be taking a back seat in the discussions above, is the fact that he is a well recognized, highly respected bassist who is also a PIONEER. He has toured around the world, and I will see what information I can find from European sources. In the meantime, the sources I have listed relative to information about him, i.e. Bass Musician Magazine - where he is a WRITER (he wouldn't be on their STAFF if he was unimportant), Le Monde (as someone else mentioned), reviews in Bass Player Magazine (not online: that is a hard copy magazine, and I would have to research their archives), The International Institute of Bassists, Series of guitars named after him on both the Jerzy Drozd and Noguera websites (below), etc. should be more than enough. It is more than many other bassists on your site have to their credit. And I will repeat: he was already ON HERE for more than two years! If there is an objection to my writing style, then please feel free to change it. But, don't punish a serious, recognized musician because you don't like or approve of my style of writing. That would would be unconscionable and plain wrong.TLCbass (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, he has two lines of basses (from 2 of the most important luthiers in the world: Jerzy Drozd and Christian Noguera) named AFTER him:

http://www.noguera-basses.com/basses_serie.php?serie_b=YC

http://www.jerzydrozdbasses.com/yvescarbonne.htm

Hardly an honor that would be received by an "unimportant" musician.

Here are links to concerts in various online news sources in France. That is the reason chzz did not find him under google news usa, because he is French. I found these in 1 minute on French google. I can probably find a hundred more if necessary:

basses.guitarplug.com/news/index,idproduit,86251,guitare,legend_10_yves_carbonne.html http://www.bordeaux.sortir.eu/concerts/yves-carbonne-detonne-2008-02-19-17-51-30 http://www.casafree.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=27212 http://www.forumfr.com/sujet158161-yves-carbonne-en-concert.html

And, when you google his name on the US google site, 293,000 results come up. That number does not reflect an insignificant musician.TLCbass (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add, when searching him on Google news, the results are inaccurate if you put " " around the name. Many articles refer to him by his LAST name, and unfortunately, his name is often mis-spelled in favor of the more common "Carbone". One news article below re: concert in California. I will continue to look for more.

WIKIPEDIA.COM: He is listed and recognized in the history of the bass guitar ON WIKIPEDIA, as the person who CONCEIVED the 10 string bass: Being that YOUR OWN SITE RECOGNIZES HIM AS THE PERSON WHO CONCEIVED THE 10 STRING BASS, IN THE HISTORY OF THE BASS, I think that outweighs everything else that has been said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar REFERENCE #30. And that is YOUR OWN PAGE.

Jazz News Article: Yves Carbonne http://home.nestor.minsk.by/jazz/news/2008/01/0703.htmlTLCbass (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Bass Interview 2004: http://www.planetbass.fsnet.co.uk/yvescarbonne.html

Concertlive.fr site: http://www.concertlive.fr/tous-les-concerts/11495/yves-carbonne

Article, Total Bass.com, France: http://www.totalbass.com/fr/forum/t1689-1-PourquoiPas8Cordes.html

French interview: Multiple Interview page, in the company of: Hadrien Feraud, Victor Wooten, Dominique DiPiazza, etc.(all considered to be top bassists): http://www.bassebruno.com/interview/interview.php

French interview: http://www.slappyto.net/Utilisateurs/Voir-Profil.aspx?id=1132

Short pictorial: Bass Magazine, France: http://batteurmag.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=9183

Radio reviews: http://www.francodiff.org/fr/2-les-radios-en-parlent/5-les-intentions-de-programmation/4075-yves-carbonne/?s_alpha=C

International Institute of Bassists article: http://www.instituteofbass.com/archive/bass_abroad/carbonne_yves/

Academy of Contemporary Music: Master Class Instructor: http://www.acm.ac.uk/BassMasterclasses/


I am done with this for today. I think I have made a very strong case, with solid support that it would be unjustified to delete Yves Carbonne's page. TLCbass (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean who is at Alternity Records I could get his name, if that's what you are asking. However, I don't know who wrote the info I rearranged, modified AND verified, because very similar text is on several pages on the web, and there is no author named anywhere. Therefore, I don't know who wrote it initially. And at this point it is obvious that the people in this discussion are looking for a reason to delete the page. The only feedback is negative, and all for different reasons. Therefore, I question the motives that have been set into place here. TLCbass (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire article then. Your behavior in "reviewing the article" - objectively - for deletion is a joke: don't think for one second that you have presented yourselves as "objective". I have just wasted hours and hours, trying to get supporting documents to correct the original reason for deletion, and then when I did that, you came up with yet ANOTHER reason to delete the article. Forget about anyone of you offering to help rearrange it, reword it, etc. It is clear since yesterday that you were looking for any reason whatsoever to delete the article. The reference to the copyright violation was mentioned last, which proves that no one checked the links I put up from the BEGINNING, yet you said I had no supporting documents. So, it is apparent that no one even opened or thoroughly read the link until today. If that was a valid concern, it could have been brought up 2 days ago. But, it is clear, you just wanted to mess with me because I took a stand. So delete EVERYTHING... DON'T JUST LEAVE UP YOUR CHOICE, INCORRECT, OUTDATED INFORMATION. I will investigate further what can be done about this situation, and the fact that you clearly show preferential treatment to some artists, and clearly showed a negative bias to me. It is more than obvious, that I was singled out and persecuted here, because other artists have MANY more deviations to your "policy" and it is more than clear to anyone who reads this, that your contributors to this discussion cite different reasons for deleting the article, and turned it around into copyright violation after I wasted valuable time trying to satisfy your impossible demands, which NEVER MENTIONED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION UNTIL LATE TODAY. I spent two days rearranging the article, and obtaining supporting references in an attempt to satifsy your ever increasing demands. I am letting it be known, for the record, that there are other musicians on your site who have not been held to NEARLY the same impossible standards that you have attempted to force on me, i.e. incorrect page format, references to personal websites, unsubstantiated data, references to cd sales sites, etc. All the things I was told to remove. So, delete the entire artist page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you really trying to claim that because nobody has noticed that this was a copyright violation before, it can't be brought up now? I just came to the nominated article for the first time, and to me, it looked like it was copied from someplace else, and lo and behold. Copyvios are copyvios, it doesn't matter how long they've been here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read up people. http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#1. Oh and I am done discussing this. Have you p---ing match all by yourselves, children. And where is the speedy delete? Do it already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo lee cornith[edit]

Yo lee cornith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am proposing this article for deletion as the prod protocol was used, the original editor did expand the article, but still included no references. Further edits were made from an IP adding further content with no refs. A google search turned up no hits other than possible facebook/myspace pages. Both editors have only made edits either to this article or vandalism edits to Staten Island. The article style seems to suggest this a bit of a hoax really. Anyway. Deletion? Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of any coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability - Facebook pages do not cut it. Whether this article is truly a hoax or not seems almost immaterial - either way, the subject has clearly not received anywhere near enough reliable-source coverage to support a verifiable encyclopedia article. ~ mazca t|c 22:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; vanity piece with no verifiable significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. EyeSerenetalk 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strongest of all deletes - this kind of AfD is the most annoying of all - the one that slips through speedy delete but obviousy has no place in Wikipedia. Thank god we can call a snowball delete on it if we so choose Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we go any stronger? The Myspace and Facebook aspects of this are interesting, but I believe this comes down to your basic WP:HOAX, especially when you look at the Myspace page for Big Mama, supposedly the mother of Yo Lee Cornith [3]. Eauhomme (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Hoax is evident, suggest ignoring all the rules and just speedy deleting it. At the very lest, give the user a warning about deliberately false information and hoaxes. Cheers. I'mperator 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete Power.corrupts (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WestView - The New Voice of the West Village[edit]

WestView - The New Voice of the West Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could not find reliable sources to show notability of a publication. tedder (talk) 22:12, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jób[edit]

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

This article caught my eye whilst categorising. Almost all of the edits (by 2 SPAs, and an anon user, appear to be inflating this young man's career further with each version, but I can find no record of him in the IMDB listings for any of the productions mentioned (not conclusive, I know), no significant, relevant presence on Google, and nothing in connection with Sony BMG, where he is supposed to have a record deal, or on the Daily Mail website, where this was apparently reported. Note that two of the SPAs mentioned above have inserted references to this individual into Million Dollar Baby, Adulthood (film) and Hustle (TV series). Kateshortforbob 21:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteThis smells like a hoax to me. I can find zero coverage of this person. Wperdue (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
  • Delete as quickly as possible. When you read it it looks like a hoax, when you Google it it becomes more obvious. It's a hoax, delete. Incidentally, I am still fairly new to this; if an article is considered a hoax, what do we do with the author? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I just read your comments about Yves Carbonne. NO WHERE in the deletion review does it say that he has a record deal with Sony BMG. You made that up & you need to correct it. TruthBeTold (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It's also clear that there was meatpuppettry at foot here, and I have weighted those accordingly. Xclamation point 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settleball[edit]

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

Sport invented a few months ago at one school, no sources to support article's claims of popularity/notability. Author removed prod tag without adding sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete - Settleball is a brilliant and worthy sport!i am a college student in UCC and here it is a very popular pastime!i think this shows perfectly its widespread popularity nationwide. Here it is played daily by a large proportion of the college and this proves that it is not just a "schoolkids" game. The popularity of this sport here is so much so that even at this early stage there is talk of a settleball society being set up for the next college term, as well as an inter college championship next year. Such a widely enjoyed and participated sport undoubtedly warrants a wikipedia page so dont delete it!it is also being published in the prospectus of societies for UCC next year and surely that is an accountable source of publication? Noffee8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noffee8 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the above reasons. Czolgolz (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability guidelines for WP:GNG. A search finds zero results for Settleball. Essentially a game made-up at one school by a few school kids. — CactusWriter | needles 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT Acebulf (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, this doesn't even come close to meeting the notability guideline. No prejudice against creation at a future date when/if it becomes a notable sport, and that notability is verifiable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MADEUP and WP:N. No mention of this game anywhere, from what I could see. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability guidelines. It's not a personal journal after all… Skarebo (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - This is a game having just started, and of course it would not be all voer the web for this reason. Give it some time and it will take off. If it doesn't, then deletion can come into the picture. 18:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)78.16.150.64 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Millsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millsy101 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete, if the only reason not to delete is "It will take off", there's no good reason to keep; the previous argument is crystalballish. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - the sport is already spread around a few schools including mine (wesley college). there is even talk of a tornement being set up next year between dublin schools —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.217.109 (talk)
  • Delete For the record, it appears to be the game of volleyball played with a tennis ball but without racquets, and it's supposed to be sweeping the nation (the Republic of Ireland). Too bad that the local newsppers appear to have ignored it. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - If you did read the article, you would see that it is quite new, and be honest, since when have newspapers taken to reporting on kids school games that aren't even well established? But surely that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a chance? 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.117.191 (talk)
  • Don't Delete - I'm from Blackrock College, Dublin and this game is played daily at senior and junior breaks. Just because it isn't very popular yet doesn't mean it isn't real and should be removed from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.150.64 (talk)
  • Yes it does, WP:Notability requires that an article be referenced to reliable sources. The criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It does not matter that the game really exists, what matters is that it is notable enough to have received some coverage in independant sources. Delete. SpinningSpark 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This sport has officially been agreed to be published in The High School, Dublin Yearbook. Does this not count as an official publication? 22:54, 1 April 2009 78.16.150.64 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Millsy[reply]
  • School yearbooks do not qualify as significant coverage. The general notability guidelines provide an explanation of what "significant coverage" means. You can also can read WP:SOURCES to find the kind of sourcing that is needed. In general, an article like this would require a book about the subject or, at least, significant articles in national newspapers like the Irish Independent. As currently written, the article has no sources and thus constitutes unverifiable original research which disqualifies it for inclusion on WP. — CactusWriter | needles 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the previous entry from don't delete to comment because this IP address has already registered a !vote above. — CactusWriter | needles 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Aiello[edit]

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

Only one non-trivial article found--at EE Times. Unfortunately, this doesn't confer enough notability to overcome the high COI (author is Robertoaiello (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 20:48, 31 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 under criteria A3 (article was simply devoid of information.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup (video game)[edit]

2010 FIFA World Cup (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD, WP:CRYSTALBALL. ViperSnake151 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article itself states why: no such game has been confirmed. No sources, poorly written, the article even says no such games has been announced, no sources. Maybe this could be speedy deleted. TJ Spyke 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The game hasn't be confirmed and there are no sources linking to it. Techman224Talk 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as entirely speculative original research that doesn't assert notability. If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be noted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a few forum talks on the game but it seems to be mostly a crystal ball issue at this point and no indication if it is in development. Since there is no way to confirm the game i would lean towards deletion unless some sources could be found Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I trust the above comment that there is even no indication in the development of the game. It's hard to not come off as mean and bite newbies' heads off, especially in cases like this. The verifiability policy I believe trumps the behavioral guideline on biting newbies, and it sucks. MuZemike 07:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry, but I agree with MuZemike. Delete as this is yet another article that takes the "crystal ball" and "in development" claims to their intended levels. Elm-39 - T/C/N 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Teymourian[edit]

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

Prod disputed by sole author, who appears to have a significant conflict of interest (judging from username, it's an autobio). Original proposal was to delete as a hoax. Certain claims of the article are unsourced and dubious, and author has removed tag without offering sourcing: Teymourian is not listed on the US Olympic team from 1984 (see official archive), and in addition, given the claimed birth year, there are serious inconsistencies. ROTC cadets are usually commissioned into the Army, not the Marines, and furthermore it is unusual (to say the least) to graduate from college and receive a commission into the armed forces at age 18 (owing to legal problems, as a commmitment would have had to be made by the age of 16 or so). Furthermore, I note that the 5th Marine Division was deactivated in 1969, and so far as Google has been able to determine, the 28th Recon Battalion does not exist. As for the subject itself, Google News confirms existence, but does not provide nontrivial coverage in sources independent of the subject, and hence subject would fail WP:BIO. RayTalk 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google search appears to yield a case for the claim that he is a CEO in Silicon Valley, but the claims to military service and being an alternate on the U.S. men's football team at the 1984 Olympics are dubious. In addition to the evidence the nom brought forward, two things about this strike me as odd:
    • If he immigrated to the U.S. in 1979, why would he have played for the U.S. football team and not the Iranian team? I concede that if the military service story were true, that would explain this.
    • I refuse to believe that a person who is a retired USMC officer would consistently misspell the corps' name as "US Marine Corp"—5 times in this version if you include the category name.
  • KuyaBriBriTalk 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete setting aside the dubious claims, I find no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Google hits seem to consist mainly of social networking sites; Google news hits are sound-bite quotes in industry articles, the majority of which are press releases for companies he's been associated with. Maralia (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and WP:BIO. There is no indication he ever had a soccer career, and if he did, it wouldn't be notable enough for him to merit an article. GiantSnowman 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's something fishy here. Compare the article against this resume on the Gale Technologies website. Whether or not Teymourian is notable, if the man sincerely believed he had done any of the things in the Wikipedia article, wouldn't they be mentioned on this webpage? -- llywrch (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you send out your resume for a job interview, you generally leave out the material that is not relevant to the job at hand. This resume is no different since the army and his soccer career would be totally irrelevant for his CEO position. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are multiple dubious claims that cannot be backed up. If those are removed, there's not sufficient material to support an article with. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big sombrero economy[edit]

Big sombrero economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A neologism from John Blossomin's book "Content Nation: Surviving and Thriving as Social Media Changes Our Work, Our Lives and Our Future". And the article creator? John Blossomin himself. If this wasn't a big enough problem, the term is only used by him, and is therefore not notable. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or transwiki to Wiktionary. An interestingly-named concept, but all six references I could find were seemingly generated by the author himself. Hence, there are no reliable sources that I could find. I'm not sure if Wiktionary allows self-generated neologisms or if it requires something more in the way of provenance. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jblossom (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Whatever, the world's a funny place some times. You publish a book by a reputable press and it's considered self-generated. Perhaps if I had my PR guy do it you would have considered it. Thanks anyway.[reply]

Well, no, actually if your PR guy had done it we probably would have deleted it more quickly, rather than giving it this thorough public hearing. If you have any constructive citations to offer to demonstrate that anyone except you uses this phrase, we're all eager to hear them. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be here only to promote the book. If the idea gains a wider currency then it can have an article. We don't give it an article in order for it to gain wider currency, that's putting the head before the sombrero. SpinningSpark 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Rd232 talk 19:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Zips[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no hits (single or album), no press coverage, nowt. (or "zip" if you prefer). pablohablo. 19:57, 31 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. Xclamation point 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JavaBeats.FM[edit]

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

Non-notable internet radio station. No reliable sources are provided in the article, and none of the first 100 hits from google are reliable either [4] Someguy1221 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-per nom. Blatant adverising as well. T-95 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the following response was written on the talk page:

The station is still very new as I am seeking attention from news sources. It is a valid station and is worthy of a wiki entry. Please tune into the station, and try out the website if you are skeptical.

Again I feel this deletion is in the wrong. As the station receives more attention I will accurately update the wiki. As you can see this station is in the top-10 for the Techno genre on SHOUTcast: http://www.shoutcast.com/genre/Techno

Please provide a response and allow adequate time for it to be read if you choose to delete. Thank you.


Also, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_ZET This entry exists for an internet radio station and provides nothing! Why does it exist?


Unfortunately, having read that, this appears to still be a clear-cut delete. How good the radio station is doesn't matter - it's whether it meets notability. Sure, it's new radio station so it hasn't really had a chance to get media coverage yet, but WP:CRYSTAL is pretty clear that Wikipedia articles are for things that are notable now, not things that may be notable in the future. And as for radio ZET, maybe that needs deleting too. WP:WAX isn't too keen on that argument. There is the entry on shoutcast, but it's still the most trivial of media coverage, and, to be brutally honest, audiences ratings in four figures isn't really anything the write home about. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, less than 2000 listeners last time I checked. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's clear the "station" is non-notable as it pretty much is self-admitted -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Wife Swap#Other Special Editions. My reading of the sources here is that almost any notability that Silver might possess is related to Wife Swap, and thus any information on her should be in that article. Turning it around, we could ask the question "would there be any notability whatsoever if this person had not appeared on that program", and the answer, despite a few minor media appearances and the ordinance issue, is clearly "no". Not to mention that there's a clear consensus to delete here. However, since Silver is already mentioned briefly in the WS article, any other encyclopedic information can be mentioned there, as long it does not amount to an attempt to recreate this article via the back door. Black Kite 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:N, the bulk of references fails WP:RS. Inclusion of this person in WP is just ridiculous. WP is an encyclopedia, and the most popular one at that, would you include someone like this person in an encylopedia? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Silver - at the very least - passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. More specifically, I'll try to explain why. First, WP:Notability says, topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage (directly in regards to Silver) is present in the two Wife Swap shows, the GMA Now interview, the Sirius Satellite Radio interview(s), and the feature article(s) in local/national papers. The majority of these sources in addition to the rest of the article's are "reliable," "secondary," and "independent of the subject," also passing ONEEVENT. I might have a personal belief regarding metaphysics, but I'm confident that the sources speak for themselves. While message boards/blogs are generally not appropriate for inclusion in the article itself, I listed a lot of examples of these in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14, showing that Silver has been discussed many times by the general public, as well. Before one considers deletion, we should first ask ourselves what is notable. Silver is not a Sylvia Browne, but she's been covered enough to warrant an article. Spring12 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Major cleanup is probably appropriate for the article in the long-term, but I added a few tags for now. Spring12 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A mockery of Wikipedia. How about other people who appeared at Wipe Swap, do they have WP articles? Mention of this clown's name on so-called references are merely collateral, the article's creator seeks to idiotize us by using them. The only direct reference is subject's website, but obviously fails WP:RS. Portrayal as a "philosopher" is inaccurate as subject holds a philosophy "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill. The other Wipe Swap folks were also seen by the same number of people, if that is our basis then let us create WP articles for each one of them! A previous unanymous AfD already decided delete, what is this garbage doing here still? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Just one note: please don't call the subject of an article a "clown", specially when we are talking about living persons. It just makes wikipedia look bad when outside people read these discussions.) The article was restored because of the DRV here (click on the "show" word to see the archived discussion there). I don't agree with the DRV closure, but it's too late to change it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon, you have been repeatedly warned to tone down your personal attacks. I think calling the subject of articles "clowns" is a WP:BLP violation. Ikip (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Foolish enough to be notable, which is why the papers picked it up. DGG (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are many RSes in the references section that cover her so WP:N would seem be met. ONEEVENT could be argued, but I don't believe it applies here as the coverage spans a fairly wide period of time. Disclaimer: I was canvassed by Sping12. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked DGG to join as well, because you guys participated in the deletion review, sorry if I bothered you... Spring12 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We don't consider notable people who has appeared in one chapter of a TV show, and we most certainly don't have a separate article for each one of them. For the rest of supposedly notable stuff, please read WP:PEOPLE#Basic_criteria and the "Additional criteria" section, and explain which criteria she is meeting, because I don't see any being met. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think we should fill Wikipedia full of Bios of every person who appears on a reality TV show. How does that add value to the encyclopedia? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete A tough call, but I finally decided that the person doesn't meet notability standards. Owning a private school and appearing on a reality television show doesn't make a person notable enough for inclusion here. 3-rd party sources exist, but there are relatively few. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Changed to weak keep Thought it over, and decided that there are enough reliable 3-rd party sources for this to qualify as sufficiently notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is reliably sourced, so there's not much else to decide, I think.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Painfully reluctant weak keep. If I were King of Wikipedia, I would agree with the nominator, and the article needs a real scrubbing, but the WP:N standards are objective, not subjective, and with a rewrite, this article would squeak by under that standard. However, I would prefer a merge and redirect to Wife Swap or List of episodes of Wife Swap. THF (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are weak at best. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The vast majority of the references I can find or have been presented are trivial coverage, which does not provide appropriate material for writing an article. That there are several such mentions indicates a likelihood of future notability, but not present. The source to the statement that her book is "award-winning" is Caryn Day-Suarez Publicity Consulting, which would not pass WP:CREATIVE if confirmed. The sources to local newspapers (Florida Times-Union and St. Augustine Record) come close in my judgment, but the one is primarily about local regulation of psychics with a human-interest face, and the other is just a puff piece. Note: Shannon Rose (talk · contribs) notified me of this discussion, presumably because I participated in the last AfD. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person hawks "New Age" blather, as do thousands of other right-thinking US-Americans, and she's been on the telly, as have tens if not hundreds of thousands of ditto. She's got something calling itself a "PhD", when tens of thousands have genuine PhDs. Where's the notability? Hang on -- she's been written up in the L A Times! It's not every new-age-monger or self-styled "metaphysician" -- complete with a link to Metaphysics, an article that describes the fruits of seemingly irrelevant hard thinking -- who gets written up there, so let's a look at the linked article. Here's what it says about her: The Silvers, who have two quirky, artistically inclined sons, revolve around the mother, Sheree, who is a psychic and who initially fails to impress Richard. "Sheree's like a clogged drain, OK? Things aren't happening," he barks. (Keeping "WP:NPA" in mind, I refrain from adding the short and uninformative insult of Richard's that follows.) That's all that the LA Times says about her: nothing about her "metaphysical" or other accomplishments. Ah, what else? She's written a book. This comes complete with an improper but for our purposes convenient link to a specific retailer, which rates its sales at #4,351,139 among books, and says it comes from "Infinity Publishing", a new name to me. Here's "Infinity Publishing", which obligingly publishes anything that you pay it to publish. This person's notability (either in Wikipedia terms or according to the normal understanding) is infinitesimal. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, and others. Check out the blather from Spring on this page. He/she has a blatant COI and as long as this article exists it could never be encyclopedic. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Forgot to give an example of the failings of this mishmash. The article makes much of Silver owning a private school, spiritual centre and gift shop. The reference for that says the following "Also since the show, Sheree Silver closed her store in St. Augustine Beach, the Shiloh Spiritual Center and Mystic Gifts and Jewelry shop." Got that, the reference says the exact opposite of what is claimed in the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed your example (owns to "owned"), what else? Spring12 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is this "blatant COI", and why should it be an issue here? Even if somebody does have a COI, that person can be instructed not to edit and the article can survive. Also, I see nothing intrinsically unencyclopedic about defunct businesses. I'm sure that the article should go, but for neither of these non-reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoary, I opposed "per nom and others". I then commented about the author of this article having a COI, which seems to me to be driving the insertion of absolute trivia to this article. Check out this ghastly version largely created by Spring, which I edited. Spring has made 160 plus edits to the article, mainly pushing trivia/pov, and an amazing 16 to this AfD page as well, which you would have to agree shows a dedication to a cause. You queried the "blatant COI". Asked on his/her talk page whether there was COI, Spring replied "I've been helped in the field, but I'd rather not disclose a lot of information in regards to Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information." I believe that if this article were kept, Spring would continually modify it so that at no time was it encyclopedic. As well as seconding "nom and others", that is also a consideration IMMHO.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, if you see fishy editing of an article, you may suspect COI. While keeping this suspicion to yourself, you then look for evidence outside the article for COI, and, if you find this, you announce your suspicion of COI. By contrast, all you have done is found what you regard as fishy editing. Aside from alleging that the writer has assiduously written up Silver's minor achievements and minor appearances (which any writer is welcome to do, and which strikes me as a bit surprising but not fishy), you've presented no evidence for COI. This is the kind of stuff that's needed for a COI rap. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatantly promotional article with not enough reliable sources about her to satisfy WP:N. ThemFromSpace 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Instant reaction is to hit the delete button, but the Good Morning America exclusive interview convinced me of some notability (and sent me ROFL). The interview is not related to the wife swap thing, so it's not 1E. I'm basically on par wih THF. This article lifted my spirits this morning. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'm game for some edjication in metaphysics or whatever -- however, I can't see which link this is. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is this doing back again? The list of sources put up in the DRV looks impressive, but includes messageboards and other unreliable sources, and trivial mentions. I was never notified of the DRV, despite being the original nominator for deletion, and if I had been, I'd have deconstructed this list. It should never have been undeleted. I mean, look at some of the items: "this artist provides images of the jewelry store Silver used to own". There's not substantially more notability here than there was before, nor is it at all likely that any more information will be upcoming. At most, she might deserve a mention in the Wife Swap article, but not her own article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies to Shoemaker's Holiday and other original AFD users for not notifying of deletion review, I was not aware of [Wikipedia:CANVASS] at the time. For this discussion, between the nom. and I, I believe everybody involved in both cases has been notified now. Spring12 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to make any of our feeble standards for notability and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the head of WP:BIO it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" I think an interview on Good Morning America and local newspaper coverage are published, secondary, reliable, and independent. Could you explain why you disagree? Hobit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Being a "good interview" on Good Morning America, appearing on a reality TV show, and being discussed in the local newspaper are not sufficient to make a person notable. Additionally, as others have pointed out, many of the citations in the article are non-WP:RS and/or don't actually support the information in the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the head of WP:BIO it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" I think an interview on Good Morning America and local newspaper coverage are published, secondary, reliable, and independent. Could you explain why you disagree? Hobit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coverage is trivial, and there is no indication that this person has received or been often nominated for a notable award or honor, has been often nominated for them or has made any widely recognized contribution in her specific field. For that matter, I'm not quite sure what her specific field is, other than perhaps being an interesting "oddball". --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is, actually, proof that she has received a "notable honor." The Wife Swap Viewer Vote was a contest with 24 families for the show's 100th episode. Viewers could vote for three weeks for their favorite past families, and Silver and another family were chosen for a special "reswap," the first in the show's five-year history. Her field is Metaphysical Philosophy, and she gives readings/lectures, etc. Spring12 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Being an audience favorite on a reality TV show is not a "notable honor" within the usual meaning of that term and giving readings and lectures is not usually considered to constitute a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." As for "metaphysical philosophy", the fact that one can get a degree with that title from a New Age education purveyor outside the academic mainstream does not make it a recognized field of endeavor (also, note that holding a PhD from any institution -- even a reputable one -- does not make a person notable). --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikitionary defines 'honor' as "An objectification of praiseworthiness, respect. (I.e., something that represents praiseworthiness, respect.)" Being voted by "America" must mean Silver and her family were liked enough to be the first ones to reswap in the show's history, fulfilling the definition of "honor." That it was the show's 100th episode should be the "notable" factor. Furthermore, the "additional citera" under WP:Notability (people) recognizes Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. The things you mentioned are extra pieces of evidence supporting Silver's notability. Spring12 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sometimes an article with an unusual subject can deserve keeping because there has been a lot of well-documented attention. However, the discussion at User talk:Kaiwhakahaere#Sheree Silver does not inspire confidence. If Spring12 is going to throw out a whole bunch of marginal sources and hope that some of them stick, it suggests that the case for the subject being notable is still in doubt. The 'PhD in Metaphysical Philosophy' and the comparison to Hilary Putnam is what made me think that Spring12 was on the wrong track, and Spring12 is the main creator of this article. You think I am making this up, but the article says: When Silver first moved to Florida she was not allowed to practice her metaphysical career due to a 1972 county ordinance regarding residential qualification and reputation for fortune-tellers and clairvoyants. Will this person still be important to the readers of Wikipedia in five years? Writing a self-published book with a sales rank of 4,351,139? EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ed, remember that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines encourages discussing the issue at hand (not contributors), and according to WP:Notability "Notability is not temporary." Please evaluate all the info available, not just the book. Thanks. Spring12 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although the next sentence of WP:NOTNEWS begins "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..." which is apparent from the Florida Times Union article, Sirius Satellite Radio talk shows, and GMA Now interview (which do not mention the two appearances on Wife Swap). Plus, the news "Wife Swap" wasn't an "announcement," "sports," or "tabloid journalism" if it was covered by the NY Daily News. Spring12 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm getting more and more confused. I'd thought that the NY Daily News wasn't merely a tabloid but was the first and one of the best known of tabloids. (But perhaps my confusion just results from being young, dim or senile: see below.) Also, and as Eldereft pointed out several centimetres above, the FTU article isn't about Silver; it's about legislation, with her as an example. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oops, you're right about the New York Daily (I've striked my observation accordingly). Regarding FTU: I know the article isn't 100% "about" Silver, in this context I was just giving it as an example of how she's passed ONEEVENT. Spring12 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • not allowed to practice her metaphysical career: at least "metaphysical" isn't linked to Metaphysics. Elsewhere, WP's vulnerable (young, senile, dim, etc) readers are provided with such nuggets as In the metaphysics of the "New Age Prophetess", Alice Bailey, in her system called the Seven Rays which classifies humans into seven different metaphysical psychological types, the "second ray" of "love-wisdom" is represented by the color indigo (example from Indigo). Perhaps Metaphysics should be turned into a disambig, a choice between Metaphysics (philosophy) and Metaphysics (piffle). -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoary, please remember to be WP:Civil in regards to readers. This is also a bit unrelated to the deletion discussion. Spring12 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I should have added that I don't think all WP's readers, or even the majority, fall into one or other of the classes "young, senile, dim, etc." -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe I'm being elitist, but I honestly can't imagine anyone wanting to read an article about some nobody who appeared twice on a reality television series. What next? An article on the best-looking chick from Studs? -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. Please see WP:HOTTIE. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You never watched "Studs", have you? -- llywrch (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guilty as charged. I had indeed never watched nor even heard of "Studs", which sounded so alarmingly close to a gay porn production that I'd assumed it was a typo for a soap opera unoriginally titled "Suds". (There I was, dreaming of good-looking chicks, partly submerged in bubble baths.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, what's next? My decision rule is if it meets policy WP:V and WP:SOURCES. If the criteria merely was if I wanted to read it, 99+ percent of Wikipedia could be deleted: sports, TV series, manga, Harry Potter, Sheree Silver's page; the list is endless. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. It's the independent media's (weakly) mention of her person that earns her inclusion, not her "PhD in metaphysical philosophy", her spiritual clinic, book, clairvoyance, her discussions with her deceased grandfather, or some of her other colorfull skills. Passing neutral mention of the book does not make it a "blatantly promotional article", perhaps the real litmus test would be if you would be marginally more inclined to buy the book after reading the article, or watching Good Morning America. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is exactly what Wikipedia should not be--a place where people who are within a long-arm's reach of notable for some obscure event use that event to pitch their product, ideology, etc. Vartanza (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al not enough non trivial coverage in RS, and entirely non notable. This is merely a promotional page and should be deleted. Verbal chat 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to warrant an article. Brunton (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article fails to establish notability. Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article "fails to establish notability," please tag it so. The discussion is whether an article on Silver is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. Spring12 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC),[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this fluff - not a hard call at all. this person has received only trivial coverage - everyone who 'appears' on a reality or talk show is NOT automatically notable. in addition, the sources do not recognize any notability on her part. as an example of the egregious synth and streeeetching that this article does to make her appear notable, take this story used as a source for the statement, "The Silver family . . . received a review of "voyeurism" from the LA Times." [6] The story describes several participants in the show, "Take Myra Chi, (notice the red link?) martial arts mini-magnate, who on last week's "Wife Swap" embedded with the Edwards family, which runs a community theater group on a shoestring" and describes Silver as "the mother . . . who is a psychic." hey, if the martial arts mini-magnate doesn't have her own article . . .  ;) and what on earth does "received a review of "voyeurism" mean?? is it because the word voyeurism is in the title of the story? the whole article is full of this kind of stuff - not notable, full stop. untwirl(talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those like that Myra Chi you mentioned do not pass ONEEVENT. Silver does. (Two separate Wife Swap episodes, unrelated GMA interview/Satellite Radio interviews, FTU story.) As far as the LA Times ref, it's the closest criticism I've found from a RS. I revised the sentence, does it read any better? Spring12 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that example is what i'm referring to as trivial coverage being overemphasized to make her appear notable. My point with those quotes was to show you that even the LA Times found the other contestants more deserving of in-depth description than Silver. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if examples are being overemphasized, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Overemphasis is not a reason for deletion according to Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons for deletion. Spring12 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Note: Wife Swap is not a "game show" with contestants, families swap lives for two weeks. Spring12 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that was just one out of many examples. editors who read the article and peruse the sources will have no trouble determining that most, if not all, of the rest are trivial as well. untwirl(talk) 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC) note: it is, as i said, a reality show, and being on a reality show (even twice - for two weeks!) does not make her notable. untwirl(talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference Proof_by_assertion, users have already pointed out how Silver meets notability guidelines. Spring12 (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and i respectfully disagree; i think the coverage she has received is trivial, therefore not fulfilling the notability requirement. don't accuse me of fallacious argument when i am simply clarifying my position in response to your (repeated) misinterpretation. untwirl(talk) 12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with untwirl: all this trivial stuff together does not add up to the required "substantial coverage"; it's a thin pile of fluff, not adding up to any meaningful substance. What's the line? "Like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me apologize if my observation came off as an accusation. Second, see this: (local paper reporter gets a past life regression) [7] and this (she writes an article for her local paper) [8]. She has received non-trivial coverage for years.Spring12 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those look very trivial to me. (And her article is a dismaying series of unargued assertions, unadulterated by any evidence, though this objection is by the way here.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, other editors have used proof by assertion to show these mentions meet notability standards. When we get to the bottom line, the only reason to include her in Wikipedia is that she appeared in two episodes of a reality show -- which is what was discussed in US mainstream media. Now if she used this 15 minutes of fame to further her visibility in some way -- for example, she became an activist for numerology -- then she would be notable. This is where Silver is similar to, say, someone who appears twice on Jeopardy! (Ken Jenkins being almost the only notable contestant on that show), but different from someone on "Survivor" -- where the contestants are seen by the viewers sufficient times for them to actually become familiar. -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch, you make some good points. The original reason for "US mainstream media" notability is probably Wife Swap, for the reasons you mentioned. However, the GMA interview and six times on satellite radio (interviews on metaphysical topics), came after the first episode (although the interviews didn't mention Wife Swap), and would fill the "continuation" category. The second Wife Swap episode would follow a few months later, with her family being voted for in a style similar to Dancing with the Stars. There's a lot of trivial coverage in addition to these, yes, but I should think they would count for something a lot more than "fluff." Just my thoughts, Spring12 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, she appeared in three ephemeral TV shows, and a little trivial coverage mentioning those shows. There are no reliable sources for creating a biography out of that. If we removed the statements from the article justified by patently bad sources, we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion. This should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion" is not a valid Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion. In addition to my earlier thoughts, Silver should be notable under WP:N (people) because she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject, (GMA, the St. Aug Record, Sirius Satellite Radio). (Note: Wife Swap is not ephemeral, because it airs in syndication on Lifetime) Spring12 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At last I've seen this Good Morning America thing. It's no wonder that the US and A is down the tubes when a major teevee channel employs a talking head who brightly informs the booboisie that The science of numerology has been in existence for thousands of years (my emphasis) and then unashamedly puts the video on the web rather than, say, embarrassedly scrubbing all copies of the video and sending the talking head back to junior high school. After the talking head has so misintroduced her, Silver spouts some bollocks about how, using this ancient wisdom, you regard somebody born on (my example) 8 September 1936 as being 8+9+1+9+3+6=36, and 3+6=9, and thus "9". That's it: you just keep on adding digits (ignoring the powers of ten) till you reach a single digit. So [as we use a decimal system] there are only ten options. That's two fewer than are used in mindless women's magazines, and the whole edifice is built on the delusion of Silver and others that there's something ineluctable about the decimal system (there isn't) or the Gregorian calendar as more or less fixed in the anglosphere around the 18th century (there isn't). However, WP:BOLLOCKS requires that we avoid writing bollocks, not that we avoid writing up would-be propagators of bollocks. Yes, I concede that Silver got to spout it on some mass-market atrocity called Good Morning America, and that this is actual evidence for Wikipedia-style "notability". One or two more such bits of evidence and you'll sway me into a cold-sweating "keep" !vote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Hoary, can't help a correction here. You did notice that Obama had an 11 in his numerology, very powerful indeed for reasons I have now forgot, only later was it reduced to the important 2 (two), a strong sign af coorperation, etc. Point is that it's a lot more complicated than "you just keep on adding digits". As I remember, street numbers were also significant enough to be included in the calculations. This little video gem has eternal qualities. I would still say that the sum of all this media exposure earns here (weak) inclusion, and the page needs an overhaul. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Street numbers, yes. For years, I lived in an entirely separate house (not merely apartment) from a TV news announcer who shared my exact same address. (This was legitimate: neither of us charged that the other had usurped the number. Such are the vagaries of Tokyo addresses.) I wonder what a numerologist would make of that. Now and again parts of Tokyo are reassigned and renumbered; I wonder what this does to the inhabitants' "vibrations". (But I'll venture a guess: anything, since "vibration" is merely a fiction.) What we can agree to describe as "a little video gem" is indeed a must-see, if for reasons other than those suspected at the time by either of its on-screen participants. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: OK, I don't think she is notable and, as an aside, the article is non-neutral. As a further aside, I don't think commenting on nearly every other editor's !vote is advancing your arguments. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as overly contentious. I've just been reading Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD a lot and I've been trying to keep the discussion on task. I've tried not to respond to every comment, but sometimes I feel thus inclined. Hope you understand, and please don't take it personally. :-) P.S. - I'll tag the article for neutrality, but if that's the main issue, it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Spring12 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bouncy Spring, Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions is an essay not a policy. Can you please stop hassling everyone who disagree with your COI with regards to keeping this bullshit? Everytime someone comes here to voice their thoughts against this hideous embarassment that you fantasize to be notable, you confront them with all the tricks in the book and wikilawyer versus their rights to self-expression. Your agenda is to make it appear that all editors who are for deletion are either dead wrong or ignorant of policy, as if you're the great genius editor who knows everything and is going to save Wikipedia through this article. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can present good evidence, external to this article and AfD, for COI, then present it. As long as you're limited to speculation about motives and little would-be jokes about others' usernames, take a break elsewhere. Spring12 hasn't "hassled" anyone, and is fully entitled to cross-examine anyone about a comment, just as you are. And if Spring12 is using "all the tricks in the book" (an assertion with which I'd disagree), I'd rather have a skilled debater than somebody who huffs and puffs ineffectually about "the great genius editor who knows everything" and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:N, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale for deletion. Artw (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - notable crackpot. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't argue with the "crackpot" part, but just where is the notability? -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried revising the article by giving more background info (from the local paper stories). Does it establish her notability better? Spring12 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, because it's all trivia. True, the article is improving, but it's got a long way to go. Try the very first sentence: Sheree Lynne Jackson Silver, (born 8 December 1958 in London, England) is a Doctor in Metaphysical Philosophy[1][2] with theories from influencing the weather[3] to colors.[4] "Metaphysical" has a link (via "Metaphysic") to Metaphysics, which as described in my copy of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (or even Wikipedia) has nothing to do with the outfit that appears to have given her her something called a "doctorate". The particular claim that she has a doctorate in "Metaphysical Philosophy" has two quasi-sources, one of which is Silver's own website: tantamount to saying that the woman has a doctorate and you can believe this because she says so. For that matter, the other source isn't actually a source: instead, it says that one "Dr. Sheree Silver" is the contact person in St Augustine, Fla, for "The College of Metaphysical Studies (CMS) / The Educational Division of New Awareness Ministries, International"; it does not say what "Dr." means for her. But let's assume that her 1.4MB PDF file is a scan of the genuine article: that she indeed has a doctorate from "The College of Metaphysical Studies". How is this accredited? If not at all, or only trivially, then why is her "doctorate" announced in the first sentence without any disclaimer? -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been looking for info regarding this college's accreditation, because it's not listed under List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning. So far I've found this: [9], which claims they're accredited by "The International Institute for Holistic Arts and Sciences," a private organization. So, technically, the Ph.D. is from an accredited college. Spring12 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Note this (as well): [10] Spring12 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While full of admiration for Spring12's monumental efforts, and for his remaining civil under pressure, I think the question at issue here is whether very large amounts of basically trivial coverage achieves "notability" per the GNG. That's a judgement call, but the spirit of WP:N can be seen in subsections like WP:PROF and WP:ENTERTAINER. If you consider what's needed to qualify under one of those sections, I don't think we have notability here. JohnCD (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability based on news coverage[11] ; over a sufficient time period not to be counted WP:ONEEVENT. I have no interest in this subject, therefore I can be objective. If there are problems with the article, fix 'em. The bulk of the extensive arguments above seem to be a) discussing the content of the current article (not relevant to AfD), the contributors rather than the subject, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it myself - that's irrelevant. I ask all concerned to give simple, reasoned arguments for keep or delete. Some have - saying it's not notable; I've given the reasons I think it is notable, with reference, above. To discuss the content, please use the articles discussion page, or simply fix it.  Chzz  ►  08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also have no interest in "numerology" and therefore I hope that I too can be objective. (Actually this seems to me an interesting twist on the "I'm an expert on this, I know more than you" approach: unprovable and thus ultimately unusable.) You say: Meets notability based on news coverage[5] ; over a sufficient time period not to be counted WP:ONEEVENT. I clicked on the link. There are nine (9) items. One is the ABC GMA appearance. As far as I can see -- I clicked on two; I couldn't be bothered to do all -- the rest add up to very little. These are hardly more than infotainment mentions, and there are very few of them. We already know that she was "swapped" for a teevee show; is there anything new? -- Hoary (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, new stuff. Here's the list of Sirius/XM shows she was interviewed on: April 1, 2008 - "Shade 45" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. April 20, 2008 - "Good Morning America XM Radio" XM Satellite Radio. April 22, 2008 - "Rude Jude/Shade 45 with Jude Angelini" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. April 22, 2008 - "Unleashed with Jim Breuer" SIRIUS Satellite Radio (this one is on her company's site, see here: http://www.shilohspiritualcenter.org/multimedia/breurinterview.wma) April 23, 2008 - "Freewheelin' on Road Dog with Chris Tsakis/Meredith Ochs" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. April 23, 2008 - "OutQ with Larry Flick" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. Plus an archive of all the stories her local paper wrote on her: [12]. Also - back on Dec 14, 2005, she was interviewed for an hour on a local radio show "The Ed Furbee Show on WIOJ Jacksonville Beach Radio". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring12 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the fact she had to get the law changed [13] to continue spouting mumbo-jumbo to the gullible practising her noble and honourable arts is sufficient notability, the TV appearance is additional gravy. pablohablo. 11:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS Ms. Rose, I am a little confused, you accuse the creator of this article of canvassing, by notifying one editor,[14] with what User:AndrewHowse calls a "personal attack":

I noticed that you're doing inappropriate canvassing/begging here and relentless crying here. Such tricks will not save your hopeless piece of junk from getting what it truly deserves. Stop manipulating and idiotizing people. This kind of preschool psychologizing to win them over your lost cause will never work because Wikipedia is full of really smart folks. Chill and let fate take its course. You are just irritating everybody. What a pathetic nuisance you have proven to be! (emphasis my own)

And yet, you have canvassed 6 editors yourself.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Can you explain this blatant discrepency in your canvassing accusations/personal attacks and your own canvassing? Ikip (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really know anything about Wikipedia policy, do you? There is absolutely nothing wrong with canvassing, in fact when you nominate an article for deletion it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles (educate yourself with WP:AFD). And I have never accused Spring12 of canvassing. What I said quite explicitly, if you only knew how to read, was inappropriate canvassing and, to be quite specific, campaigning, which is defined as an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. and to justify this let me refer you (again, as a link is already provided above) of what he said here "Hey, Chzz, you helped me with the article Sheree Silver a few days ago' (it was a request for feedback). If you get a chance, you're welcome to participate in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)." To remind an editor that he once helped you with an article that is now being nominated for deletion is tantamount to saying "Hey, some people want to demolish what we worked for." Now go through my invites and try to find anything that comes even close to swaying an editors decision. You call yourself Ikip (I keep), which implies that you're here to vote keep to every article in an AfD indescriminately, and your edit history proves this. That is why your position should be ignored in every AfD. You're a nonsense person in Wikipedia, and you're one of the reasons why so much garbage don't get thrown out. You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. – Shannon Rose (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to remove your own comments and personal attacks : You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. but you are not allowed to delete my edits. Please refrain from such behavior or you maybe blocked for another 55 hours. Ikip (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep owing to the well referenced article and the terribly bad behavior of the nominator around this AfD. Ikip (talk)
    Comment The behaviour of the nominator is irrelevant to the quality of the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a bad argument to use, IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR is a terrible one. pablohablo. 11:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now available as WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR; G'day, Jack Merridew 16:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have missed the canvassing of this nominator and the personal attacks on this AfD: You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. Since this now banned editor removed my comments and her comments above (now restored). If you didn't realize this before, please disregard the following comments, and I sincerely apologize before hand. I will refactor out these comments if this was the case.
    IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR is a new shortcut, invented on this very page. There is no mention of nominators in WP:NPA. If there is no policy, consensus, or guidelines to support an opinion, an editor can invent one on the fly?
    Does the comment: "You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless." posted here qualify as WP:NPA and bad behavior?[21]Also Two other editors and two administrators[22] [23] who blocked the nominator and protected her page seemed to think this editors behavior is not acceptable. If this comment by the nominator is bad behavior, then the WP:NPA accusations against me have absolutely no merit. I am troubled by the support of an editor who has heavily canvassed in this AfD, personally attacked me, removed my comments on this AfD, and been banned for personal attacks. Is canvassing editors and personal attacks are aceptable in an AfD? If Shannon's comments are a NPA violation, I would suggest directing this condemnation of me at the nominator, otherwise a neutral party may see the use of policy here as selective. Ikip (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what you posted above, then read my comment. Attacking a poster, not a post is of course a personal attack. and no, please don't "factor out" your comments, it only makes a thread harder to follow. pablohablo. 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, please don't refactor comments too much; it's disruptive. Shannon would appear to be blocked for whatever is left of 55 hours; banned is a wholely different subject. Do not overstate things.
    You gave the behaviour of the nominator as a reason to keep; this has nothing to do with the article and so it amounts to an attack on the nominator; it could equally be argued that the shortcut target could be WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I commented about to you recently.
    G'day, Jack Merridew
  • Keep There are plenty of legitimate news sources listing this person, therefore the requirements for notability are met. How anyone feels about the person, or the quality of the article, is not relevant. Dream Focus 10:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Non notable person from some reality show. Coverage in RS is thin, and frankly a bit of tv news coverage is not that impressive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable person. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as people say above, there is enough coverage in RS's to satisfy WP:N and over a long enough timespan not to fail WP:ONEVENT. RenegadeMonster (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's bad enough at the best of times to keep WP from becoming a directory of cranks, loons and non-notables. The deletion of this article will go some way to restoring the balance! Pretty much anybody can come up with "theories" and these days pretty much anyone can take part in reality TV $DEITY save us from having a WP article on every one who does! --WebHamster 17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting or keeping this article should have not effect on "balance." Some believe the info meets WP:N, others don't. Arguing "pretty much anyone can take part in reality TV... save us from having a WP article on every one who does" is not a Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion (not to mention that it's not the only thing she's notable for, see above). Spring12 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My my! Deleting a non-notable crank's article should be done because they're a non-notable crank. The effect of helping balance is just a side benefit. Personally I think the same should be done to all wiki-lawyers but I can't see that getting past the first hurdle... the wiki-lawyers. My tip of the day to you is to learn to differentiate between reasons and opinion. Your above comment clearly shows that you got a little confused. I blame myself for not emboldening the words non-notable and italicising opinion and comment to delineate the two. Sorry, my bad. --WebHamster 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your... honesty, but again, Wife Swap isn't the only reason for Silver's notability under WP:N. Spring12 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errrr... I didn't say it was. I merely pointed out a couple of reasons why she didn't warrant a toe-tag categorising her as notable. I didn't realise a fully annotated list of ALL the reasons was required. Well there's me one step further away from getting my own article. I was even going to expand on a couple of ground-breaking theories I'd had whilst in bellybutton-perusing mode this afternoon in the vain hope that I could get them published in Old Moore's Almanac thereby attaining that elusive "notability" lapel badge that I could wear with pride at a local Wikipedia Munch. Ah well I'll just have to go back to my job silver-plating u-bends for David Furnish and his balding mate. --WebHamster 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article clearly meets the general criteria for WP:NOTABILITY as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Esasus (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored out, Themfromspace you are welcome to remove your comments too relating too this, and remove this statment too. thank you for being a referee and diplomat in this situation) Ikip (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I'll strike out the comment. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The Wife Swap material doesn't make a huge impact on my conclusion--it could as easily go into an article about the program--but it's certainly entertaining, and legitimate, to include it in an article about her that survives on other grounds. I think she just makes it over the threshhold as a "notable" expert on the pseudoscience of numerology, based mostly on the GMA appearance plus the multiple appearances on national (Sirius) radio. I wish I could be more confident about her current status in this regard, though, and the article doesn't currently make as explicit a case for her notability in this regard as it might. I won't be offended if the consensus ends up going the other way. By the way, Hoary's explanation above, "WP:BOLLOCKS requires that we avoid writing bollocks, not that we avoid writing up would-be propagators of bollocks" is now on my list of best pithy sayings I've read on Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I've revised the lead and added a couple of sentences. Is it any clearer, now, on the things you mentioned? Or should the interviews be explicitly stated? Spring12 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She may be a crackpot, but she's a notable crackpot. Oy what a country! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable crack pot, non-notable reality TV-show appearance. Insufficient reliable and independent sources to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable/non-reliable sources. Really, these are meant to keep such silliness outtahere. There are hundreds of such characters drifting about Bali; read all about'em. G'day, Jack Merridew 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow: "Brian decided to give himself a Ph.D. in Optimal Living with a Specialization in Greatness and Bliss." Complete with 18th Century Capitalization, even. Like, far out, man. But, um, back to Ms Silver.... Hoary (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope I didn't just establish notability for that lot ;) nb: there are more — need a Soul Retrieval? — G'day, Jack Merridew 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I ran a "find" on the bali pages for "tv" or "television" and nothing came up. If Silver was only notable for her work/Ph.D., it would be a different story, but reality television/Sirius Satellite Radio/GMA are how some become sufficiently notable. Opinions on the metaphysics field itself aside, Silver meets WP:N. Spring12 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CryEngine 3[edit]

CryEngine 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game engine not released WP:CRYSTAL (or not according to the sources); not used in any games; does not meet notability requirements; not used by any game titles, does not assert notability  Chzz  ►  19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: software, especially gaming software, has a tendancy to turn into vapor and never become released. Not saying that's the case here, but we just don't know here (thus WP:CRYSTAL). spǝǝpspɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That the software is unreleased is irrelevant, as is the fact that nothing has been tied to the technology yet - it has no impact on the notability. Importance, maybe, but that's an entirely separate issue. There's a fair bit of coverage out there for this. CRYSTAL only applies with the absence of sources, and while I don't usually go with posting Google results, just look. Joystiq, Kokatu, IGN, GameSpot, CVG, GamePro, Eurogamer, and more covering the announcement, plus features including interviews and development progress in substantive detail (ie not trivial coverage). It is early days yet for the engine, so there isn't much variation between sources at this time, but the information is there none-the-less. Worst case scenario is a merge (not a plain redirect) to Crytek, but I don't believe that to be necessary. -- Sabre (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The engine isn't in early development and it's extremely unlikely to be abandoned given it's pedigree and how near to completion it is. It's the latest version of a very notable engine. It is difficult to have an open discussion about game engines without someone mentioning the CryEngine. It's the proverbial "Joneses" of engines always brought up when discussing real time graphics. To see how far into to development it is, watch the CryEngine 3 GDC 2009 Presentation. Deleting this article would be pointless, because it would need to be recreated in the near future. Google News currently returns "about 265" results for the exact phrase "cryengine 3". Chzz, it may be helpful for you to reread WP:CRYSTAL. DanielDeibler (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although the unsigned argument of DanielDiebler seems a bit weak to me (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GOOGLE, WP:IKNOWIT), as Sabre has highlighted there are enough independent non-trivial reliable sources covering the engine. MLauba (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, along with CryEngine 2, to CryEngine. All are sufficiently short to be covered by one article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The articles are only short because Chzz removed most of the content of CryEngine and CryEngine 2 over the weekend under the argument that a features list is an advertisement and you just removed most of the content of CryEngine 3 today. If neutral-POV features lists for software are not permitted, then we need to do serious housekeeping because features list are common around here since software is most accurately defined by "features" and "capabilities" (See Java 3D, Mac OS X, CATIA, .NET Framework, Windows XP, Opera Mobile, Lotus Notes and Einstein as examples). Some larger software have a separate article just for their features lists (See Features new to Windows XP as an example). If the argument is that future software is the only software subject to this no-features-lists criteria, then should we also remove features lists from Live Anywhere and Mac OS X v10.6 and delete the article for Features new to Windows 7? Speaking of which, CryEngine 3 is further in development than Windows 7, and the article for Windows 7 starts off by stating that it "will be the next release of Microsoft Windows", which is WP:CRYSTAL whereas the article for CryEngine 3 only states known, factual information, citing reliable sources. So should we propose Windows 7 and similar articles for deletion on the grounds that they might not end up being released? </rant> I'm not neccesarily opposed to merging CryEngine 3 with CryEngine 2, but it's important to note that CryEngine is owned by Ubisoft and the other two are owned by Crytek. DanielDeibler (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We know other stuff exists, all that is irrelevant to this article. MuZemike 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing my point, and that's probably my fault for not writing a properly focused comment. My point isn't "Billy got to stay up late, why can't Tommy?" though I suppose it comes across sounding that way because of all of the examples. My point is "Billy got to stay up late for a reason, that reason being that staying up late is acceptable, so why are we trying to tell Tommy he can't stay up late when it's perfectly acceptable?" The answer to "why does no one have a problem with Windows 7 having a whole article devoted to its feature set?" is because there isn't (that I've been able to find after searching for over an hour) a guideline that suggests it shouldn't. Software is described by what it does. That's what software is; it's the things it does, it's "features". The purpose of bringing up all of those examples was to challenge someone who thinks that articles about unreleased software are not allowed (which is untrue) or that listing software features is not allowed (which is also untrue) to propose an article like Windows 7 for deletion. No one will do that because more people will see it and they would make a fool of themselves because there's no reason to delete it, just as there is no reason to delete CryEngine 3. There are no guidelines that suggest any problem with articles with properly sourced, factual, non-speculative information about software in development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's clear that WP:CRYSTAL pertains to unverifiable information, which would not include properly sourced, factual, non-speculative information about the development of a piece of software. "You" may like Windows 7 and not like CryEngine 3, but they both pass WP:CRYSTAL. On second thought, as I pointed out before, Windows 7 fails WP:CRYSTAL in its first sentence, but I'm going to fix that right now. DanielDeibler (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I get your point clearly. You're still implicating on the merits of other articles. Stay on point with this article. Some of us are trying to work with you. MuZemike 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only articles we should be making comparisons with are Featured Articles. Let me know if you see one with a "features list". In this case, an in-depth specification of the engine is already available at the Crytek page, directly linked to in the article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per S@bre. Notwithstanding the arguments by the creator for keeping it, the fact is that there are plenty of reliable sources (indicated above) that can provide verifiable speculation, which is OK. Cleanup and expansion are preferable over deletion in this particular case. MuZemike 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The engine pass notability. There is a load of coverage from many sources. Through i must admit that Cryengine 3 must be merged to CryEngine 2. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is established by coverage mentioned by others. Some links to these reviews needs to be added to the article though. I'll go work on that now. Dream Focus 11:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Bartocci[edit]

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

The person is not notable, and not published in reputable sources. Ox3nard (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't his beliefs about E=mc^2 be called a fringe theory? Astronaut (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be cautious about attributing notability based on the kind of "news coverage" that an individual like Bartocci generates for his fringe beliefs. He has been unable to get his beliefs accepted by reputable scholarly journals, so he resorted to issuing "press releases", but the stuff about De Pretto (for example) was not original or "news" with Bartocci. De Pretto has been touted by anti-Einstein kooks for decades. So the "news stories" are just shams, perpetrated by a determined fringe individual. Think Mark McCutcheon and "The Final Theory". If we really want to have Wikipedia biographies on every kook who publicizes his beliefs, I fear Wikipedia will become a repository for kook biographies. Just having a web page or being mentioned in the newspaper (in an article that you yourself have arranged) shouldn't be sufficient to establish notability. There is already an article on De Pretto, which mentions Bartocci as a recent publicizer. That stikes me as the appropriate level of coverage. (Actually I think the De Pretto article should be updated to note the previous individuals who have promoted that idea. It certainly is not a Bartocci innovation. Just re-hashed run of the mill anti-Einsteinism.)6324xxxx (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:BIO1E. The Guardian article is entirely about De Pretto except for all the "said Bartocci" interjections, and does not provide much of a source for Bartocci himself. That's the only news search result that seems convincingly reliable, but it doesn't meet the non-triviality test of WP:RS. And as Eric Yurken says, he doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP is not about quality of arguments, correctness of arguments, or validity of arguments – it is about notability. When arguments are false, or biased, and have enough media coverage, a WP article can help clarify their validity. The WP guideline on fringe theories is essentially that coverage “should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is”. Here I think enough independent coverage exists. It should be noted that Bartocci is a historian of mathematics, not the proponent of the theory (equation). Bartocci is the one making the historical argument of precedence by De Pretto; a credible one in my view, in historical terms, even though De Pretto seems to have arrived at the equation almost by chance. The point made by David Eppstein is more critical. However, I am not entirely convinced that The Guardian is the only reliable source. Moreover, the coverage on The Guardian was in 1999, and we have several news articles in between, ending in 2008 – that is nearly 10 years of coverage. Finally, the results of this Google Books search seem to provide further evidence of notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Bartocci’s citations in The Guardian article are not minor. He is cited several times, and quite prominently. He has made a decisive point as a historian, writing an entire book on the subject. The book was apparently published by Andromeda, whose specialties are science fiction, fantasy and horror. Still, notability is notability …--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the paragraphs in the Guardian article end with "according to Bartocci" or some equivalent. That's not the same as coverage about Bartocci, and I still say it's trivial. "Made a decisive point as a historian" is an argument for WP:PROF #1, but I'm not convinced the standards of that criterion are met. The Guardian article does supply strong support for the De Pretto article and I suppose one solution would be to redirect Bartocci's article there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems clear that the Guardian article was instigated by Bartocci himself, and on an essentially fradulent basis, claiming to have unearthed something newsworthy when he was actually just repeating the decades-old De Pretto cannard. So, to whatever extent that article can be said to signify notability of Bartocci, it was based on fradulent self-promotion. Admittedly, someone could claim notability as a fradulent self-promoter, but I don't think Bartocci rises to that level, and even if he did, the article would then have to be about a notable fradulent self-promoter, not about a notable historian of science. He has no notability in any reputable scholarly sources, so it violates Wiki policy to present him as notable on that basis. It's usually a bad idea to include articles that, if written to accurately reflect a person's notability, will just be disparaging to a living individual. So it's far better to just avoid having such articles.AlanAlmost (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) — AlanAlmost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete No this was poorly thought out. Delete on basis of agreement with above.
  • Delete, considering WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP1E, I think this one isn't notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taguig City#Education. MBisanz talk 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Claire Montessori School[edit]

Anne-Claire Montessori School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is of questionable notability. Anne-Claire Montessori(sic) School is a private school in the Philippines. The only results I found with a google search were in phonebook-style listings of schools, and in a few personal pages that listed it as being a school they attend or had previously attended. Riffraffselbow (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 19:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently non-notable, via the lack of reliable sources. Keeping an article just because it's not from the English speaking world, without respect to its lack of notability, is not the way to counter systemic bias. Sources don't even have to be in English to be reliable, but none seem to exist regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It does not appear a "high" school per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), only having six grades in the lower classes and one year in the upper level, so that essay does not apply in such cases. It also does not meet my fairly lax

standards. It's not a public school, so I'd like to verify its notability with better sources. I can always do original research and ask my Filipino boyfriend for his opinion. This may be the first time I'll advocate for deletion of a "high" school article. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Since the consensus here is leaning towards delete, I would advocate a merge/redirect to Taguig City#Education instead of an outright delete, so that information about this educational institution will not disappear from Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to alter the presumption for high schools that sources are findable. DGG (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption alone is not enough. Efforts have been made and it was determined that all the coverage there is lacks independence. If you can do better, place show it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crytek. Merge would be good, but is there anything to merge except that it was cancelled and some original research Black Kite 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engalus[edit]

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

Non-notable computer game that was never competed.  Chzz  ►  19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Second thought Merge as per Marasu. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW, because Wikipedia is not a free webspace. There is no chance this will survive an AFD discussion. Contact me if you want a copy of the deleted material. Mgm|(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Times Ancient History[edit]

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

Its a timeline of a fictional world, of which there is no article, and of which no books are published yet. God Emperor (talk) 17:47, 31 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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 famous flowers of China[edit]

4 famous flowers of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete belatedly contested WP:PROD based on not being referenced and being a synthesis of original research. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw this when it came up for Proposed Deletion. I was on the cusp of doing a rescue … until I noticed that many of the sources that I had found were discussing three existing topics that we already have covered by their actual names: the Four Gentlemen, the flower tiles in the game of Mahjongg, and the national flowers of China. (The latter could do with some expansion, but that's a different matter.) As the proposed deletion nomination observed, none of the real subjects are known as "4 famous flowers". Moreover, there's a lot of disagreeent in sources as to what the seasonal plants, used as symbols for those seasons in Chinese art (and Korean and Japanese art, come to that), are.

    Page 136 of ISBN 9780700704644, for example, states that the Four Gentlemen are the seasonal plants. Page 17 of ISBN 9780870113697 says the same. The substitution of lotus for bamboo is supported by other sources, however. ISBN 9780804838641 is a fairly comprehensive source on this matter. But its approach to the subject divides it up on a plant-by-plant basis — much as we do with bamboo#Bamboo in human culture in fact — and doesn't give a name to the prunus/lotus/Chrysanthemum/orchid grouping. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my original prod reasoning. -Atmoz (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename "Flowers of the seasons (China)".i had found this poorly written stub and expanded it. i was unaware of the process for PROD, as i usually go to AFD to comment, and there was no comments started. i thought that it was just too soon and that some comments would begin shortly. i added references, rewrote it, and found what i believe to be the proper english phrase for this motif: Flowers of the seasons. im not sure if anyone noticed the rewrite, though i had started a discussion page for the article, but no comments on the deletion page. i think this is a valid subject for an article. the 4 flowers is one of a number of ubiquitous motifs in chinese culture, as i indicated. i provide some more links for you to examine:
  • i will be happy to add these links to the article if its revived. i think i went overboard in linking to wikipedia articles on notable chinese painters. none of those articles are explicitly linking the artists to this motif, so i will gladly remove them. there is an interesting parallel set of plants, which has an article as you will see. oddly enough, there is a bamboo orchid plant, which links the 2, but thats definitely original research on my part. i wouldnt take up your time unless i thought we need to be diligent in documenting notable phenomena that were of primary importance in pre-internet times, ubiquitous, and from nonwestern cultures, esp. important ones like China. i look forward to the decision and thoughts. i think the subject should at least be incorporated into another article, perhaps as an aside as an alternate grouping on the 4 gentlemen page (which i would like to do if article is deleted). the article definitely has to be retitled if kept. this originally posted on Carlossuarez46 talk page, hope its appropriate to repost here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In case this is deleted, the article says that they were the plum blossom, orchid, the lotus, and the chrysanthemum, supposedly corresponding to winter, spring, summer and fall, respectively . However, in googling that combination [25] I don't see that these are considered symbols of the four seasons, other than in the one motifs website. Like chop suey, I don't think this is a tradition. Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try books, not the World Wide Web. The real subject here is flower symbolism in Chinese/Korean/Japanese art, not "four famous flowers of China". There are copious sources on that, and some of the printed ones do, as I noted above, bear out the assertion that these four flowers are associated with four seasons. See page 41 of ISBN 1932476105, for example.

      The problems here are twofold: The article has a bad title and a poor scope (there being no apparent name for this particular grouping), and it is difficult to keep sources straight (partly because of the Four Gentlemen and partly because many sources are slipshod about the specific names of the flowers — plum versus Japanese apricot, for example). But it can be renamed to flower symbolism in Chinese/Japanese/Korean art (or some better title) and refactored. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • if i may add one more link: [[26]]. china came close to voting for these flowers as their collective national flower. i agree with Uncle G, even though i also acknowledge that the subject could easily be folded into an article on symbolism in east asian art.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is badly written to begin with.--Zhong hei qing bai (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster Attacks![edit]

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

non-notable short film (if it even exists). Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Odd. My comments weren't included in my AFD nomination so I'm re-adding them. This is a non-notable film for which I can find no coverage. Furthermore, there is a clear conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wperdue (talk • contribs)
  • Delete—No evidence of notability found.—RJH (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— Violation of copyright.— The user who creates these pages has been doing so for quite some time. I am the person who made the animations these pages are made for, and this user feels that they need their own Wiki pages, whereas I acknowledge that they are not notable enough. Also 99% of all information on this page has been stolen from my website (which for some reason he has linked to at the bottom of the page), except he has altered names. - TurboJUK (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Pakistan relations[edit]

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

Contested prod. No real relations of which to speak. No secondary sources given. Jd027 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Significant relationship does exist, and I have given secondary sources. The two countries signed a maritime pact, and Pakistan has supported the Republic of Cyprus on matters involving Northern Cyprus. Cool3 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've produced a preview of an archive of a maritime agreement signed in 2005, reported by China's crackpot news agency, Xinhua. And this is not a secondary source. Jd027 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I presented the Xinhua as it was the easiest to link to, and while I might not trust them on a story on Tibet, calling them a crackpot in this context is ridiculous. If you like other sources better, here's a story from the Financial Times about the same agreement (via another source). [27]. Another from the Daily Times [28] Here are several articles about the significance of Pakistan-Cyprus issues in the context of the northern Cyprus issue: [29] [30] (Subscription required for full text). Given Pakistan's importance as the world's largest Muslim power, and the salience of the Northern Cyprus - Cyprus issue, Cypriot-Pakistani relations are important, and documented in secondary sources. Cool3 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example this, this, this, this, this, etc. Yilloslime TC 16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. No reason has been presented to treat this as a highly exceptional case, rather than follow usual practice. WilyD 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in case you haven't noticed, the "usual practice" has been deletion on these. A maritime agreement is part of the normal course of international relations, and not especially significant. If the Northern Cyprus bit is truly relevant, give it a mention at Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. - Biruitorul Talk 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For almost every pair of countries, if one bothers to look they find more than enough sources to surpass WP:N. Some AFDs no one has bothered to look, and a few pairings really don't have them (off the top of my head, I'd guess Equatorial Guinea and Nauru would probably not make it, for instance), but by and large bilateral pairings pass WP:N.
  • Keep. I'm with WilyD: once notability has been established and sources provided, it's hard to justify deleting the article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The maritime agreement, signed in the capital of Cyprus between the two nations did it for me. Unlike most of these articles, we have an editor (Cool3) who took on the challenge to find proof of international relations. I'd add that "the usual practice" doesn't mean that we delete everything or keep everything. We look at each case individually, which is why these aren't nominated in bunches. Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The maritime pact barely pushes this over the line into notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, actually they do have real relations of which to speak. Hilary T (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 19:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally. When the message is unassailable, all that's left is to attack the messenger. WilyD 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could both of you please review WP:AGF? Hilary, I helped get them deleted because they failed WP:RS, WP:N and any number of other policies. WilyD, pointing out that someone may be an SPA is not an "attack" on someone; it's standard practice in AfD debates. If you don't like the spa template (which I certainly didn't create), nominate it for deletion, but don't impugn my motives. You should know better. - Biruitorul Talk 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice or not, it's an ad hominem. If you don't wish your arguments to be called ad hominems - don't make ad hominem arguments. WilyD 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template was created in July 2006 by User:Netsnipe (who became an administrator a month later). It's been used almost 3,000 times. It was speedily kept twice. You may think it an ad hominem, but it clearly has widespread community support, and serves its purpose well. - Biruitorul Talk 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Doval[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. References cited are mostly primary (controlled by the subject himself). No charted songs or albums. Article appears to promote the subject and little else. Fails WP:BAND. (Declined speedy, and prod removed by original author.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:47, 31 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. Xclamation point 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Uzbekistan relations[edit]

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

Contested prod. Only reason given was "rm silliness." No real relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example this, this, this, this, this, etc. Yilloslime TC 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mere existence of relations, even with embassies (covered at "Diplomatic missions of..." articles), does not equate with notability, as well established by now. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Uzbekistan has no representation in Colombia, and that was one of the main reasons why this article was deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm having a deja vu. Dahn (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nominator says, no real relations of which to speak. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another one of these Country 1-Country 2 relations articles. No notable relations to speak of here, fails WP:N. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant and growing relations documented in reliable sources (as is now reflected in the article). Romania accepted over 400 Uzbek refugees. The Romanian foreign minister visited Uzbekistan in November 2008 and the two countries pledged closer cooperation and relations. This is a bilateral relationship that matters and will continue to matter. A visit my a foreign minister of one country to any other country is almost always a sign of an important relationship. Cool3 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly has more substance than the sort of bilateral-relation-article that commonly gets deleted. (I think this is the first I wanted to keep in this debate) - Mgm|(talk) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability isn't inherited from brief visits from senior politicians or generated by small numbers of immigrants. In-depth sourcing is needed to meet WP:N, and that's not the case here. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, these aren't even immigrants: they're refugees, meaning (if they haven't departed already) most of them will not be staying in Romania for more than a few years, won't be getting citizenship, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's obviously something to say about the relationship between these two countries. Stick to deleting the ones which don't actually have any relationship. Hilary T (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hilary T might be posting in bad faith, but she/he has a point: there's a definable relationship here, & therefore something worth writing an article about. I suspect no one would seriously consider this article for deletion if hundreds of dubious "X-Y relations" articles had not been written, nominated -- & deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. No arguments presented for deletion that don't rely upon demonstratably false premises. WilyD 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And those premises would be....?Yilloslime TC 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yours, for instance, relies upon the non-existance of independent secondary sources of nontrivial depth, but they exist. As an example. WilyD 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one--just one--and I'll change my !vote to keep. Yilloslime TC 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we're debating trivial, but the first two references in the article are non-trivial, in my opinion, and give some coverage to the relationship. Unfortunately, you'll need Lexis-Nexis to access them, or a similar database. If you have access to one, I'd encourage you to look at them yourself, otherwise I'd be happy to provide the text via email to interested parties. Cool3 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sugar (Footballer)[edit]

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

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, now recreated. The subject is a fifth-choice goalkeeper for AS Roma (not even listed into the first team roster, which includes four goalkeeper but not him [31]) who has never played a single game in a fully professional league. The highest tier he played is Swiss Challenge League, which is not fully professional. So, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 15:41, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Stuart[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any sources for this article. If the content was true I would expect to find some references - particularly about ballooning in Africa or the exhumation of his body. It was created & edited by unregisterered users so I'm unable to inform them. — Rod talk 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, been through The Times archive and nothing leaps out. Very possibly a hoax. Hiding T 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? The original listing hadn't finished yet. What gives? Hiding T 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probable hoax, certainly unverifiable. It's not too clear whether he's Oliver Stuart or Stuart Oliver, but either way the only relevant things that turn up are obvious WP mirrors. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 31 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. Xclamation point 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Tunisia relations[edit]

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

Contested prod. Only rationale given was "Don't be crazy." Non-notable relations. Countries don't have embassies with each other. No reliable, secondary, independent sources given. No relations apart from just existing. Jd027 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not the most important bilateral relationship in the world (obviously), but relations do exist, and are notable. See for example [32]. Cool3 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They signed an agreement of cooperation in the field of culture in 2005. I don't think that really deserves an article in itself. Jd027 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A significant bilateral agreement means that the relations are meaningful. There are a lot of sources out there on the agreement and others, and I've added more material to the article. Unfortunately, most of what's out there is written in Estonian, and I don't speak Estonian. With the rough aid of Google translate, though, I can tell you that the Estonian media covered the Cooperation Agreement and the opening of the consulate pretty heavily. This is at least two separate significant (and covered by independent secondary sources) events in their relations, enough for an article. Cool3 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They can have as many agreements of cooperation as they want, but without non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources, this topic fails the general notability guidelines. Precedent has shown the the mere existence of formal relations does not constitute notability. Yilloslime TC 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established the usual way. No argument has been presented for deletion beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WilyD 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - honorary consulates are just that - honorary, " conferred without the usual prerequisites or obligations". That they signed a ceremonial document is also nice, but doesn't take us very far either. The two countries have zero in common in terms of history, geography, conflict or similar "hard" relations, and a few hundred tourists changes little. - Biruitorul Talk 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Experimental and utterly non-notable. Dahn (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is about diplomatic relations and relations do exist, bi-lateral agreements signed and is confirmed but independent sources. Shared history, geography or conflict is irrelevant, other articles would cover those topics anyway if needed. Martintg (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having a cultural agreement isn't notable relations. Secret account 11:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus to delete and so I did. The sources presented by Cool3 may be good enough to make something out of this article, but I'm not entirely convinced. If he feels he can write something that abides by the guidelines about this, I will gladly userfy this article. —Admiral Norton (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland–Uruguay relations[edit]

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

We've recently deleted a lot of articles on bilateral relations of countries that don't have embassies with each other; see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations. Now let's try taking things a step further. Poland and Uruguay do have embassies. They do pay rent on an embassy and do pay diplomats to do something, presumably more than sitting in the embassy compound and watching videos. I don't deny that. However:

  • There are no cultural, political or territorial ties between the two, and very few economic ones - after all, they're on opposite sides of the world, and neither is a major power capable of projecting much influence that far afield.
  • The existence of the embassies - which is precisely what this "article" details (nothing more) - is documented at Diplomatic missions of Uruguay and Diplomatic missions of Poland.
  • It is telling that the site of the Polish Embassy in Uruguay ([33], for those who can read some Spanish) has approximately zero to say about this relationship. It says a lot about Poland, but basically nil about its relationship with Uruguay. Other sources are not forthcoming, either in English, in Spanish or, as far as I can tell, in Polish. If that's all there is, we may as well be satisfied with mention in the "Diplomatic missions of..." articles.
  • Yes, the embassy site does inform us that Poland's Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister visited Uruguay for two days in 2007, but a) that's not a very high-level position b) I'm not claiming they have no relationship, just not one meaningful enough to have a separate article for, and the visit doesn't do much to establish notability.

With this in mind, I think the case for deletion is strong. Biruitorul Talk 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no real relations of which to speak. No reliable, secondary, independent sources given. Mention in "Diplomatic missions of..." should be just fine. Jd027 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Embassies or not, there needs to be sources if we're going to have an article on this. Yilloslime TC 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because the two countries have an embassy in the other country doesn't make a relationship notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the mere presence of embassies does not indicate that there is anything noteworthy about the relations between the two nations. That type of information is adequately covered in the articles about the foreign relations of the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per precedents. Dahn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's history between the two. A high-ranking Polish official fled to Uruguay (many years back) causing some tension [34]. Culturally, there is a Polish film that focuses on the life of the Polish Ambassador to Uruguay [35]. Uruguay hosts a Polish expatriate community [36], with over 1000 Poles in Montevideo alone. It;s just a forum, but here is more discussion of Poles in Uruguay [37]. There is a "Days of Uruguayan Cuisine and Wine" held in Warsaw [38]. After an attempt to close the Polish embassy in Uruguay "tempers flared", indicating that many in Poland value the relationship [39]. To put it quite simply, while it's never going to be an article of the length of US-Russia relations or something similar, Poland and Uruguay have a relationship documented in reliable sources. We can write a neutral, verifiable article on their relationship, and that is the true standard for inclusion. Cool3 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) That a Polish diplomat in the US happened to flee to Uruguay is, if anything, more a function of Polish-US relations than of Polish-Uruguayan relations.
2) If the film (which is fictional) is notable (and it may well be, as Zanussi is a pretty well-known director), it makes much more sense to have an article on Persona non Grata (2005 film).
3, 5) I didn't say they had no relations, but a book fair and a wine tasting are not exactly notable in the field of international relations.
4) A forum is, well, a forum, and as the book fair link says, there are "few" Uruguayan citizens of Polish origin. If they're really notable, that's reason to create a Poles in Uruguay article, not to keep this one. By the way, I didn't see mention of the "over 1000" number.
6) Let's provide the full context: "tempers flared" because "more than 10 Polish embassies, including those in Costa Rica, Yemen, Tanzania and Uruguay" were slated to close. Nothing indicates the relationship with Uruguay in particular was the cause of flared-up tempers; the matter is far more an internal dispute between the Polish President and Foreign Minister than an expression of attachment to the relationship with Uruguay. - Biruitorul Talk 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one has content. DGG (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well this one doesn't have much content, others similar articles on AFD does. Secret account 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. Sources unearthed by Cool3 are more than sufficient. No argument for deletion exists. WilyD 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although i appreciate the effort to bring arguments to keep it. it's commendable. but come on:
Poland-Uruguay relations are foreign relations between Poland and Uruguay. Poland has an embassy in Montevideo. Uruguay has an embassy in Warsaw.
See also
Foreign relations of Poland
Foreign relations of Uruguay
External links
Direction of the Polish embassy in Montevideo
Direction of the Uruguayan embassy in Warsaw

You can not be serious about keeping this as an article. I suggest first to have an article Poles of Uruguay, and only if that is deemed worth existance, re-consider re-creating this one, too. Dc76\talk 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominating account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. BJTalk 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson[edit]

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

Not Notable Munchkin77 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Munchkin77 seems to have a personal interest in the subject matter, judging by his or her edit history. Keep. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notability established. Jonathunder (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. These Munchkin accounts severely butchered a reasonably well-referenced text. Restored. Twri (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there is an explanation forthcoming as to why this would be non-notable, the nom did not provide a valid reason for deletion. The ample referencing proves WP:GNG is met. -Mgm|(talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the sources are inappropriate for a WP:BLP but the subject is still notable according to our BIO guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding Non-notability: The article is based on three claims of notability, but they all fail the established rubric.1) That Henderson is an author. Both of his books are self published therefore they do not meet notability guidelines. The fact that a recognized publisher did not pick up the books for publication indicates. 2) That his website is used by government sources and in news reports. Being interviewed for a news story does qualify as notable or every witness to an accident would have a Wikipedia article. And the government sources he lists are nothing more than a long list of sites that list his site as one of many links. That is not endorsement by the agency, but rather evidence the government sites’ webmasters found his site in a search. 3) That he has been sued as a result of his books. Being sued does not establish notability or every neighbor who has been sued for a fallen tree would have a Wikipedia article.Munchkin77 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the tone of your edits and the fact that you have only ever edited this article, it would seem that you have a personal interest. Please review WP:COI. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross Sale[edit]

Blue Cross Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, I place it here for your consideration. The original concern was lack of notability. Tone 14:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this a contested prod? I see no challenge to it - it just never got actioned. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article opposed the deletion on my talkpage after the article had already been deleted. --Tone 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Sounds marginally notable, but Google search yields a bunch of unreliable sources related to this usage, and a lot of hits related to Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association or crosses. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article may be accurate, but it is hardly encyclopedic and seems not to have met notability requirements. To expand on the history above, this article was removed by prod in 2006, recreated at some point, removed by prod in 2008, and then restored when the article creator made a request to the deleting admin (Tone) just now. Seems most of the community has been perfectly happy to let this article stay dead in the past. Indrian (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't agree that the article is unencyclopedic, it defines a marketing term and gives some of its origin and history which is certainly a suitable subject and correctly treated. Its main problem is the lack of referencing. I found a couple of passing mentions in books [50],[51] but nothing that could be used to build the article. Everything else online is either even more tangential or not WP:RS. In short I cannot ever see this being expanded into a substantial article, especially as its use seems to be limited to a handful of large UK stores only. The material has a place on Wikipedia, but imo it is as part of a broader article. If there were a general article on "sale" that would be where it should be, but quite to my astonishment no such article exists. January sales redirects (not entirely appropriately imo) to Christmas and holiday season and the sale dab page points (for this meaning) to Discounts and allowances, again, not exactly the same thing. My suggestion to the author, if they are willing, is to work on the article in user space, expanding it to a more general article on "sale (retail)" or some such title. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cult. Procedural close: the redirect itself has already been done. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultist[edit]

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

nn term Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-notable, but a cult member is a cultist, so redirect to cult. - Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a redirect to cult five times in its edit history already. Whether it should be has been discussed on its talk page. And there's no involvement of the deletion tool, or any other administrator tools, in making it a redirect again. A deletion nomination is not the answer, here. Don't always reach for {{subst:afd1}} whenever you see a problem article. It's not the only tool in the toolbox. Oftentimes, as in this case, you have the tool yourself for fixing the problem. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we maybe protect the redirect to avoid the problem in the future? - Biruitorul Talk 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no pressing need for doing so. It's not being edited very frequently. The article stood untouched for a year and a half at one point. And why should we prevent an editor coming along later who can prove everyone else wrong by finding that an article can be written, from doing so? Anyone is supposed, in general, to be able to edit here. If there's a dispute as to whether the article should be a redirect or not, and if that causes an edit war, then we protect to prevent the edit war, and to encourage (further) talk page discussion. But there's no reason to protect the article now, when that hasn't happened. Indeed, such protection would stop ordinary editors from exercising the "R" part of the B-R-D cycle. There's no reason that administrators are the only ones who should have that function. Everyone has the edit tool, and that's the tool that is appropriate to this kind of situation. Not an administrator one. The administrator tool is there to prevent the edit tool from being mis-used for reverting when using it for discussion is called for. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. The redirect has an obvious target and the current article is about a made up word. - Mgm|(talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. (actually, I've already done it). The article which replaced the redirect is incoherent nonsense and does not really deserve such a formal discussion. SpinningSpark 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indians commemorated in the editorial page of the New York Times[edit]

List of Indians commemorated in the editorial page of the New York Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, extremely broad and narrow list. Delete Secret account 14:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete terrible precedent; "commemorated" is a bit of weaselword - does that mean mentioned? eulogized? the subject of an editorial? by the NYT or by any other guest editor? letter writer if the letter appears on the "editorial page"? Anyway, whatever it may mean do we want 200 nationalities times thousands of newspapers who may commemorate people from each. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if sources were added, editorial comments occur every day in the New York Times and other newspapers. As the nominator notes, this is too broad (more than a billion people in India over the years) and too narrow (people "commemorated" on a particular newspaper's editorial page) at the same time. And why aren't Geronimo and Sitting Bull on here? Just kidding. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall we also have List of Mexicans in the editorial of the Bombay Times? Or List of celebrity chefs mentioned in the Catholic Herald? No, a clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR point 5; "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". SpinningSpark 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Mine[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Article is blatant advertising for a company that is barely a month old and has not achieved notability. The supposed "sources" are either non-existent, do not mention this company, or are self published. I still think it's a speedy, but others apparently disagree, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article in its current form is blatant spam. The article was de-spammified by Ged UK (talk · contribs), who declined the speedy, and then the spammy content was re-added by the creator, Cwc06 (talk · contribs). The references in both versions of the article are blatant puffery. They are either a) press releases or b) invalid urls. A Google News Archive search for sources returns no relevant results. IMO, this should have been speedily deleted; the article made no assertion of importance to pass A7. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these sources legit? [52], and [53] Both are written specifically about the company. The other sources I have found are all very transparently press-releases: [54]. I think all but the first article may simply be the same re-published release. The first article seems more legit to me though. I'd say to keep the article if we can find two or more reliable sources covering it in the same detail as the first one. Cazort (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source is a legitimate source that I somehow missed when I was going through the references in the article. The second source is and reads like a press release , so in total, this article contains only one reliable source. My delete stands, but if you are able to uncover another reliable reference, I will switch my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel particularly compelled to look for more, especially given the spamming situation.  :-) Cazort (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one from Adotas is the only ref that even comes close, and it is an industry-insider website, I'm not sure they meet the bar of WP:RS either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GedUK  13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not sure why speedy was declined. Spammy article about a non-consumer business, not referenced to anything other than local or quasi-local (i.e. advertising industry related, non-general-interest) publications. Reads like an ad brochure, and therefore ought to be deleted even if the business were notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Industry mags/websites can rarely be considered reliable. Most of the material is supplied by the companies themselves, but even when written by the magazine staff they are under great pressure to keep it positive. I agree the article reads like spam and in the absence of any truly RS, I am for deleting. SpinningSpark 17:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as an article without any content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tremulousness[edit]

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

With no incoming links from articlespace and no significant amount of visitors [55] There is no need to have this link. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so links like this should not be encouraged for obscure words that aren't being used. Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Pasciuta[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:V. Ghits: "Andrea Pasciuta". --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC) --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:49, 31 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 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Tail Magic[edit]

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

Spamtastic software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a legal software used by Internet Marketers. Do we only talk about products owned by billion dollar companies? Tell me what do you require for validation? The product has it's own web site (LongTailMagic.com), it has an online demo, product is available for immediate purchase, it has a list of customers using it. Do mention if we are only going to list products from Microsoft, Google or other Big companies and not let the small companies list their products that are of the same potential as the big companies. Blokhra (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: From this image page, it also appears that you may have a conflict of interest. You are strongly cautioned against writing articles to which you have a close personal/financial etc connection. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would it be worth editing this article and making it a complete software spec sheet or would everyone just want to have it deleted because it doesn't make sense to have product information listed here, besides of course the big giants?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blokhra (talk • contribs)
  • It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the software is a big giant, it's that the article isn't notable under our standards. The article is written like an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article (and making it into a software spec sheet is just as bad - we want encyclopedia articles, not software manuals or spec sheets). There's precious little information about this software that is verifiable in reliable sources written by third parties. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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... melting...!

Tom Clancey's H.A.W.X. Bugs and Errors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tom Clancey's H.A.W.X. Bugs and Errors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place to store information on bugs and how to fix them. There may be errors like this, yes, but 1) they shouldn't have their own page and 2) until there is a better reference than a fan forum they shouldn't be here at all. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Hopefully this'll snow and get taken care of quickly. GlassCobra 12:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article is fact based. The facts are provided and confirmed by All users of this software. So that's OK. *ahem* Seriously, delete per massive failure of WP:NOT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a bug tracker. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete effectively a game guide, and the only source is a web forum. JJL (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the bugs were notable, then perhaps it would be worth mentioning in the main article (as per my merge proposal), but as yet noone has come forth with any evidence of notability apart from a forum (an unreliable source). Astronaut (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant game guide content and original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of verifiability and per WP:NOT as indicated by everyone above. Nothing verifiable to merge, and a redirect is not feasible since "Clancy" is misspelled as "Clancey" in the title. MuZemike 17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's snowing Wikipedia is not a gameguide or instruction manual. The first post on the talk page: "This article cannot be merged with the original H.A.W.X. wiki page. This do to many prior attempts to add these facts to the H.A.W.X. page before. They have been removed many times over by someone trying to hide the facts about this faulty software. All the information added here is true and up to date. making edits to this page to make it more factual would be more appropriate." IE this is a fork apparently created to spread the truth! No thanks, virtually every game has bugs and virutally every game's bugs are either pointed out in multiple reliable sources or not worth the time of day. Someoneanother 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per statement listed in the PROD I placed 30 March 2009, as well as tags I added 30 March 2009. 130.85.241.123 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Apologies, 130.85.241.123 post was by me, forgot to log in.Compassghost (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: if it's not notable for inclusion in the main article, why would it be worthy of its own article?? spǝǝpspɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete. Per above WP:GAMEGUIDE. MLauba (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastree.com[edit]

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

A Google search seems to return only the site itself, ads or blogs. Moreover, the websites the article mention are in the same categories, and sometimes do not even mention Dynastree. It looks like an ad to me. Goochelaar (talk) 11:28, 31 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 - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures[edit]

Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn memes. Zhongyunghe (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: I am not familiar with the language of the references so feel uneasy about passing judgment here. However I did find interesting points (in English) raised in the talk page hereto: Quality improvements and also Media coverage. Media coverage refers to a French source (I can read French). This source claims that the creatures originated as a Wiki hoax! Without being able to comment on the Chinese text, I think that some of the English sources may meet notability guidelines, eg New York Times. Looks like a difficult case. In my opinion, opinions of editors familiar with the language of the references should be given before passing judgment. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest early closure. Whatever else can be said about the subject, the reason given for deletion is entirely too insubstantial to justify debating the suitability of an article that appears to be impressively referenced to mostly foreign language sources. Note also that starting this AfD is apparently this user's only edit. This is particularly problematic when the subject of the article apparently involves tweaking the noses of Red Chinese censors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quote Czar Brodie: "This source claims that the creatures originated as a Wiki hoax!" No, rather it is a Baidu Baike hoax. This article is about the meme which arose from the hoax. This event is very significant in Chinese modern culture, ask any Chinese netizen and they would have heard of it. Also, it also has to do with resistance against censorship. This meme is very notable, saying that it is non-notable is blatant ignorance. Zhongyunghe, this AfD nomination is without justification, reason or negational evidence, and is therefore a Argument from ignorance. If you've had the time to research, I can assure you that you will definitely change your mind. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding my quote, the French source (which is referred to in the article) states "Tout a commencé lorsqu’un Chinois a mis en ligne sur le Wikipédia local, Baidupedia, une fiche sur cette fausse créature...", which translates as "the hole thing started when a Chinese person put on line in the local Wikipedia, Baidupedia, a page on this false creature...". I was not aware of this being a reference to Baidu Baike, as when I clicked on the link at the French site (the link being the words sur le Wikipédia local, Baidupedia ) this directed me to Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures at wekipedia. re very notable, can you translate some of the references to shew what they are and how they address the subject? re User:Zhongyunghe, I think it is not correct to read into an editors name or motivations, nor to refer to the editors amount of posts; see WP:ADHOM. All are permitted to take an article to this Articles for Deletion page, whether they be members of the Chinese government or not. What is at question here is not User:Zhongyunghe but the article Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Please do not make presumptions on other users. What is at question here is whether the article is notable (at last I think this is what is meant by "nn", ie WP:NN). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to Zhongyunghe's statement: "nn memes." How can you justify that it is non-notable without any backup argument? This AfD should not have even surfaced in the first place.
      • Do a google.cn or baidu.com search for "草泥马" and tell me how many results you get. Also check Baidu Tieba.
      • This meme has been mentioned in the New York Times, France 24, how is it non-notable?
      • The Chinese government has criticized the publicity of the meme. This is how serious it is.
      • Regarding quality, I believe that this article meets WP standards. Check how many views this article has. This article has even been slashdotted [57].
      • There are Chinese and Japanese WP articles on the meme. Why aren't they up for AfD?
      • If this article is so controversial to the point that it attracts trolls, why don't we protect the page?
      • There are a few English sources. Do any of them contradict to what has been stated in the article, and by myself here?
These are my arguments. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A very notable subject in China, very famous. Fits wikipedia perfectly. Also, this exists on other projects as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Czar Brodie regarding sources: Sources are as follows:
Sources
  1. 【贴图】百度十大神兽_水能载舟亦能煮粥 - A description of every single animal in the meme.
  2. Hoax dictionary entries about legendary obscene beasts - Eng source describing the meme.
  3. Wines, Michael (11 March 2009). "A Dirty Pun Tweaks China’s Online Censors". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12beast.html?em. Retrieved on 12 March 2009. - NY Times report on the meme.
  4. 山寨版“动物世界”介绍草泥马走红网络_资讯_凤凰网 (Phoenix TV official website) - Phoenix TV article regarding the meme.
  5. 网友创造"十大神兽" 百度百科沦为粗口百科 - CNBETA article, explains that the meme is widespread in China.
  6. 网友创造“十大神兽” 百度百科难避低俗质疑 CCTV.com 中国中央电视台 - China Central Television brief details on Cao Ni Ma.
  7. The Song of the Grass Mud Horse - YouTube - Meme video
  8. 国新办等七部委开展整治互联网低俗之风专项行动 - net.china.cn regarding internet filtering
  9. 对传播低俗内容网站的曝光与谴责(第5号) - more on internet filtering
  10. Chinese Bloggers’ Respond to the Internet Crackdown - China Digital Times - ENG source, explains the relation to censorship in China
  11. 世界四大珍稀物种雅蠛蝶，草泥马 ，法克鱿，菊花蚕(有图有真相) - Info on the 4 main animals
  12. 百度贴吧 十大神兽吧 - from Baidu Tieba, meme info
  13. 百度十大神器 = a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Mythical Weapons"
  14. 百度十大神秘美食 - 金枫网络 - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
  15. 卧槽，又来一个！百度十大神秘美食~~ - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
  16. Example of meme following: CCTV Fire: Funny Photoshops By Chinese Netizens, chinaSMACK (Resulting from manipulated images of the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire)
  17. 草泥马 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  18. 2009科普之--草泥马(原创整理)
  19. 童声合唱《草泥马之歌》 - Youtube - Meme video
  20. 动物世界特别篇 马勒戈壁上的草泥马! - Youtube - Meme video
  21. 什么是草泥马 - Youtube - Meme video
  22. Plush Your Mother: Grass Mud Horse Dolls In China - details of the plush dolls being sold in China.
  23. 法克鱿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  24. 雅蠛蝶 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  25. 菊花蚕 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  26. 鹑鸽 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  27. 吉跋猫 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  28. 尾申鲸 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  29. 吟稻雁 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  30. 鹳狸猿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  31. 达菲鸡 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  32. 潜烈蟹 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This is clearly notable, as it has had non-trivial coverage in multiple publications in more than one country, thus satisfying WP:N. The French quote refers to Baidu Baike as 'the Chinese Wikipedia', which initself is irrelevant to the issue. The key is that this hoax has been widely reported and the 'animals' are widely referred to by Chinese citizens on the Internet. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having gone through the references (I do not speak Chinese so my view may be flawed), I can come to the following summary: 1) the article is about a hoax, however Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes, see WP:NOHOAXES#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. 2) while many if not most of the sources are self published WP:SPS, i.e. youtube, open wikis, (the Chinese wiki Baidu Baike), blogs (PhoenixTV)...etc, some of these sources may pass WP:SELFPUB (but not all). 3) Several of the references do give credible notability, e.g. The New York Times. 4) My concern is that the self published references outbalance the notable references (see 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources at WP:SELFPUB); and there are few English references, (see WP:NONENG). However, to many self published sources and not enough English sources is not, in my view, reason to delete. The article needs a good clean up, not deletion. Article can claim to have notability, accordingly - keep. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC). post scriptum thanking User:benlisquare for the list of references, but I had noted them on articles page. CB. post post scriptum, an amusing thought, it is the 1st of April, how appropriate. CB.[reply]
  • Keep: Notetable subject both within China and oversea Chinese community, important subject within the topic Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China, noted by New York Times and several human rights group as notable efforts by Chinese to overcome state censorship, and some new Chinese characters were created for this meme. And lol at the User: "River Crab" Jim101 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just posted a number of reliable sources as external links, which I intend to incorporate as references into the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it is about a hoax, it is nonetheless a notable subject that is thoroughly cited with credible news sources. Why delete a perfectly normal article? The nominator User:Zhongyunghe seems like a one-time hit-and-run troll.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep: Cultural phenomenon in the world's largest country that's been called "an icon of resistance to censorship." Clearly at least as notable as Don't tase me bro. <eleland/talkedits> 03:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = It's notable enough to have received interest in two foreign (from China's point of view) countries, France and the US. It received full articles in the New York Times, considered the American paper of record, and Le Monde, France's paper of record. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. This type of article has already been repeatedly discussed on AFD, and it stands no chance of survival. Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia Game[edit]

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

Per WP:MADEUP. decltype (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - surprised that the article is still here, surely speedy delete was appropriate. Snow delete anyone? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was tagged for speedy deletion under G3: Vandalism. But even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. Also, creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism." After a declined prod, AfD was the only option. decltype (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the speedy only declined because the reason was wrong? What about the prod? It seems a long-winded way to delete an article that's obviously going to get deleted.....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as far as I know, none of the criteria for speedy deletion apply to this kind of article. The author of the article contested the prod by simply removing the prod tag. decltype (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok....pesky authors :D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:07, 31 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 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands–Uruguay relations[edit]

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

Another one of Groubani's articles, this time concerning "relations" between the Netherlands and Uruguay. The only thing on this page is saying that they have an embassy in the other country, and previous debates (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland) have shown that merely having relations with another country is not enough to confer relations per Wp:NN. There might be some relations between the two, but the only link that works is in Dutch, a language I have no knowledge of. The other link results in a 404 error. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Dutch source gives the sizes of the populations of the relevant immigrants and emigrants, says that Uruguay does most exporting to Europe through Dutch ports (and mentions what the Dutch export to them), Dutch banking is the most active Dutch business sector in Uruguay, they also worked on cleaning the bottom of some Uruguayan river. There are no significant cultural relations or human aid being shared. In other words, no political relations to speak of (though the source mentions a couple of other links) - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another article on the topic of X-Y relations for which absolutely no sources exist.Yilloslime TC 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to suggest this is notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • U R Gay? What???? MuZemike 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources exist. The source in the article calls Netherlands the "gateway to Europe" for Uruguay, which is significant. In my opinion, the exchange of Ambassadors is a significant enough act in and of itself to confer notability, as it is an official action undertaken at the highest level due to an important bilateral relationship. If that's not enough for you, the two recently signed a treaty on customs laws [58]. Another treaty in 2005 [59], the gist of which I find it hard to get, but suffice it to say that countries without any real bilateral relationship don't bother with bilateral treaties. An agreement on investments in 1988 also "the traditional friendship existing" between the two countries (although that is in some sense just diplomatic language. There are more sources out there, but I think this is more than sufficient to show the notability of the subject. Cool3 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that ambassadors are exchanged is recorded at Diplomatic missions of the Netherlands and Diplomatic missions of Uruguay. Treaties are not inherently notable: we do not, for example, have articles on every extradition treaty or treaty of friendship out there. If you have third-party sources indicating these treaties as a body, or even one of them, are notable, that might be a start, but per WP:PSTS, we cannot on our own infer notability from the fact they were signed. And then the usual arguments: they're on opposite sides of the world, they have no historic ties and very few commercial ones, etc. Nothing to see here, really. - Biruitorul Talk 04:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Russia relations[edit]

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

Another article about bilateral relations between two countries. While these two share embassies, there's no content actually discussing relations inside the article. It lacks cotent to the point I'd speedy delete it under criterion A3, but I'm bringing it here, because I know such an action would be controversial if done unilaterally. Delete Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Russia–Sweden relations for the sort of content an article actually needs to be viable (ignoring the fact it's unreferenced). - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky to Russians they never dared to wage war with Cyprus :)) seriously, before the Crisis Cyprus was ranked third or fourth "investor" in Russian assets, so they will not. NVO (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the last crisis in Russia? Some 6-7 years ago, many people I know in Russia had their salaries paid in foreign currency, directly into Cypriot bank accounts. Of course, it wasn't just the normal Russians who took advantage of the Cypriot banking system (and of course the resultant avoidance of paying taxes in Russia), but also the Russian Mafia, and Cyprus became (if not) the number one destination for Russian money in the early 2000s. Is it still the case these days that people have their salaries paid into Cypriot bank accounts? Or am I right in remembering that inter-governmental agreements were signed in order to put a stop to this? And who can forget the Russian sale of S-300s to Cyprus in the late 90s, which caused an absolute shit-storm with Turkey and Greece (with others standing by on the sidelines opining left, right and centre). I'm struggling trying to understand the reasons why these have been brought here, even as they were they wouldn't be eligible under A3 of speedy criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating (same reason)
Reasoning not clear? I thought I was pretty clear when I said it lacked content and that encyclopedic content could not be provided. I'd be happy to reconsider if you can find something encyclopedic in the hits you found. Just a bunch of big google numbers mean nothing especially when you didn't look at the words as a whole using quotes. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already have added materials to meet basic notability criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharing embassies is not enough for inclusion. There is previous precedent from similar aricles written by the same user. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a die-hard inclusionist, I very much disagree. Just because "other precedents" weren't lucky to be caught in due time does not mean deletionists can now go on with trigger-happy deletion sprees.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:35, April 1, 2009 (UTC)
Google hits are not the same as sources. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both notable and interesting. What is wrong with them? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than sufficient references. Cool3 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real content in the article apart from S-300 deal.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The threshold for inclusion into WP is whether the relations are notable. The S-300 deal is demonstration of the notable. Everything else can be dealt with Template:Expand or WP:BOLD. --Russavia Dialogue 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have content, are sourced, notable. feydey (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both I don't care about precedent in this case: exchange of ambassadors is evidence of a serious relationship between two countries. I think Russavia has made some important points about the notability of the relationship between Cyprus & Russia -- although I'd like to see some reliable sources for the banking statements. As for Belgium-Russia... sorry, Mgm, but the word that comes to my mind here is silly: these are 2 established European countries who undoubtedly have had a history of interactions over common interests: technology, investments, aristocratic connections, shared interests during the 2 World Wars, the behavior of the Communist Party of Belgium, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's one source relating to the laundering of money thru Cypriot banks, and it also includes what NVO stated above about Cyprus being a major investor in Russia, quoting "Until recently, most of the island's 14,000 or so offshore companies were Russian -- the majority "brass plate" firms with no physical operations there and opaque ownership structures.Cyprus has also become one of the largest foreign investors in Russia, due mainly to Russian money re-entering the country." -- I also remember the BBC investigation into Sibneft which revealed that the (previous - now controlled by Gazprom) "owner" of Sibneft was a lawyer operating out of a non-descript building in Cyprus? So yep, relations obviously are notable, but AfD should not be used instead of Template:Expand. I may work on the relations articles after I finish an article I am currently working on in userspace. --Russavia Dialogue 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well Russavia, (1) when I wrote the above, there was no section in the article that mentioned this fact, so this was the only place I could ask for sources; (2) I wasn't addressing you specifically, just throwing out a suggestion to anyone who is interested in the topic; & (3) providing that link -- or a generalized reference to a series of newspaper articles or a book -- is quite sufficient in this forum. (I simply hadn't heard of this phenomena before, & expressed an interest to learn more about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey Llywrch, I wasn't addressing you specifically either, I just saw your post and comments, and thought I'd throw the link in, just to show in general the notability, etc, etc, etc, etc. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more than passes the standard of WP:N - I see no reason to treat this as an unusual case. WilyD 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both are real relationships as the sources given show. Hilary T (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary, I looked at the appropriate logs but I did not see any deleted edits for you. Can you point to where these edits were -- or did you misremember what happened? -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He got Kavron deleted which I edited from my first account User:Hilary T In Shoes Hilary T (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that was patent nonsense, as the deleting administrator ruled. In no way was I attempting to "discredit" you; I was simply seeking to remove nonsense from the encyclopedia. Do review WP:AGF. - Biruitorul Talk 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith up to the point where people start lying, then I stop. Hilary T (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikroglottika[edit]

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

I'm unable to locate secondary reliable sources to determine notability. Possibly there are some in German?  Chzz  ►  08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Hi, I'll search for them. I agree with you it's necessary to add other references. --Auslli (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found the book can be sold in the major internet bookstores, and I don't know if that could be referenced, beceause i thnik this is publicity, but certainly is a notable source.--Auslli (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Basically because knowledge and specifically academic portals and scholar research should never be banned from Wikipedia. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past, Present & Future(album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Past, Present & Future(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL  Chzz  ►  08:38, 31 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 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Fight[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable download-only game  Chzz  ►  08:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had a look around but I couldn't anything substantial and reliable that would help verify the article, or even much discussion on forums about it, which suggests to me that this is a small-time mod. Usually mods like this don't get the media attention until after they're released, and even then the vast majority get no attention. --Bill (talk|contribs) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argumenting for non-deletion.

Hi I am Severin Hansen leader of the project of Improving Fight... Don't delete the article! Go to www.devolitioncorp.webs.com to get information or www.devolitioncorp.webs.com/improvingfight.htm ! I can verify this article with any imformation you'dd like! We are currently working on the game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danskesever (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Severin, please understand that this encyclopedia is not a directory of all games and mods that exist. Entries need to pass a certain notability threshold (see WP:Notability), and informatin in the article needs to be verified through independent sources (WP:V). Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mod is a milepost of the mod creation. The hole mod is improvised with no sketchs or plans. Please don't remove the game entry . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.217.226 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Crystal balls all round. Tonywalton Talk 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication that this mod passes the notability threshold for inclusion. No prejudice against recreation should it get a lot of attention through ModDB or other reliable gaming press. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PANTOKRAATOR[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND  Chzz  ►  08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable rock band - no charts, no awards. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all, g3, hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Life[edit]

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

Probable hoax. Article is about a supposed future television show that cannot be verified by a third-party source. It seems like the author just tried to add in every single Disney teen star into the cast list. Radiant chains (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also describe unverifiable future Disney works, written by the same author:

List of Teen Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMixer 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMixer 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMixer 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Radiant chains (talk) Radiant chains (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Once again we have another example of the Disneymania/Sher'qaun Johnson Vandal striking with a new sock. Multiple successful AfD's here, here, here, here, and here. Show doesn't exist, albums do not exist, and Sher'quan Johnson doesn't either. User:WhytShyt91, creater of all the articles has been blocked for disruption. Nate • (chatter) 09:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as utter tripe from a long line of the same. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:47, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tianhui Michael Li[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF  Chzz  ►  08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Should have been Speedily deleted under A7.--Unionhawk (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, it goes without saying that he fails WP:PROF, although with a record like that he has a very good chance of making it someday. I also don't think he has significant coverage under WP:BIO - the coverage on such a list would hardly count as significant. RayTalk 03:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rubino[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, no indication that he meets the criteria for creative professionals, no indication he meets general notability guidelines. PROD removed by anon based on being selected for some "young guns" award by the Art Directors Club but the ADC doesn't strike me as being terribly notable itself and its award doesn't IMHO get its recipients over the notability threshold. Otto4711 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notable awards, news stories or reviews that I can see = no reason for inclusion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:08, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Chakras (Crystal Illumination)[edit]

The Seven Chakras (Crystal Illumination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context or content, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related article below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activating Your Chakras Through the Light Rays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Titanic (1997 film). MBisanz talk 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm King of the World![edit]

AfDs for this article:
I'm King of the World! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A line from a movie; poss could be merged into the movie; no RS / significant secondary sources; unlikely to evolve into an article beyond a few lines. Surely we can't have an article for every 'famous' movie line.  Chzz  ►  07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the article somehow indicated it was heavily parodied or something, I would've supported keeping this in some form, but as it stands, it's entirely trivial. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Shaun[edit]

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

no indication of real life notability; no sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:29, 31 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. Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Chile_relations[edit]

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

Non-notable foreign relations. No wars, exceptional events, common origins, non-notable inmigracy data that has nothing to do with foreign relationships (not refugees from wars, no notable reasons to choose that country, no political refugees from that country) etc. Only embassies, embassors, some diplomatic events and awards, belonging to the same associations in non-notable manners. Info already covered more efficiently by Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile. Part of a series of short articles created by a few users. The article list is taken from Template:Foreign_relations_of_Chile.

Previous deletions and consensus for similar articles, click on the word "show" on the right corner to read them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Americas
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Oceania
    • Australia–Chile relations a good bunch of trade agreements, fishing agreements for the South Pacific and stuff, also both states are big exporters of farm products so they have common lobbying interests in the international market

    Some of the articles were already labelled with PRODs by other users, because they felt that they had no notability. Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I stroke out the Chile-US one.
    I wasn't aware of the Canada-Mongoliaone. The first commenter cited some sources for notability, like Canada being the second largest investor in Mongolia. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These policies should be well discussed and established. E.g. Should an article be up for deletion if there's no High Commission/Embassy etc. Because in that case much of the US-Caribbean relations could be up for deleition too since the U.S. only has a few embassies in the Caribbean region. E.g. Or like if there's a trade deal in place or not. etc. Whether the leaders have visited one another. etc. A global rules base should be established on what forms of _whatever_-_whatever_ relations should be entertained. CaribDigita (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Biggest problem I see is that they fail the general notability guide in the first place, by not having third-party independient sources talking about those relationships, so they wouldn't qualify for an independient article in the very first place, and should have never been splitted out from their mother articles in the first place. (the "mother articles" being Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To my mind government sources have widely been accepted as being credible across Wikipedia. If not, there are many articles on Wikipedia that would need to have sources from Governments removed or complimented if they aren't credible sources. E.g. Almost the entire basis of the North American Union being called just a "theory" is that the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico have put out statements saying there are no movements by them towards a North American Union. Without their statement as a source, then what is to say that the North American Union is just a theory? CaribDigita (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think you are confusing notability with verifiability. Government sources a great (and usually very appropriate) for establishing facts, and for that reason they get cited all the time. But notability is different. The main question is not, "Are these sources creditable," but rather, "Has this topic been discussed to a significant degree outside of wikipedia and by sources other than those close to the topic?" If the answer to the later is "no," then wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the topic. (The topic could still be covered by wikipedia somerwhere, just not in a stand alone article.) So in a nutshell, yes government sources are widely accepted as credible across wikipedia, but doesn't mean that they can be used to establish the notability of a topic. Yilloslime TC 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Chile–Italy,Greece and Russia relations too.
    errr, this is because of the inmigrants? Those are already covered by Greeks in Chile, Italian Chilean and Russians in Chile. These are articles in foreign relationships, not in inmigracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. Take for example, Australia-Chile relations, where there is a free trade agreement in place (this is notable), and I see numerous sources going back to early 1900s at [62], and also Australian investments in Chilean copper under Pinochet (who was the magnate who was involved here?). And Russia-Chile relations, there's some 7,000 news results, and funnily enough only 3 days ago it was announced there would be a state visit by Chilean president to Russia to further expand ties. This nomination should be kept in its entireity, because the way in which it has been done is potentially disruptive as we are unable to judge each article on its merits. I have to question why many articles were nominated, and then immediately stricken (by the nom?). AfD is not a "requests for expansion". Bring them back one by one. --Russavia Dialogue 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No way. Most of those articles are simply without merit, many have been already been proded, and several AfDs have already been closed by SNOW. There is precedent for mass AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland (read the reasoning of the closing admin) and the time can be extended if there are unresolved issues.
    Also, don't use google searches as proof (the ones you are using have a lot of false positives). Make a bit of legwork and point at specific sources, that's what will save a specific article. Do it like this:
    • for Chile-Australia: "[the Minister of Chile, in a 1947 address to the Victoria League (a local bussinessmen association?), referred to] the relations that existed between Australia and Chile during the past century, particularly during the gold rush years"[63] (this source actually says that there was little contact between the two countries even during the gold rush, and not much inmmigracy [64] pages 195-197) and talks about a bilateral trade agreement, a "regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the South Pacific" and some other stuff like "Australia had worked closely with Chile in pushing the case for freeing up agricultural trade." [65]
    For Chile-Russia I can only find the break of diplomatic ties in 1947 in WWII, which should be covered in the history articles, and some meetings, but the sort of meetings that are not notable because they get done with any visiting countrty, and the usual declarations of friendship and goodwill. Point at specific notable stuff. And you don't have to convince me, you have to convince other commenters and also convince the admin who will close this discussion.
    (and sorry if I came out too harsh) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And did you bother to check in Russian or Spanish? Also, one who has only been able to find that diplomatic relations were broken off in 1947 (after WWII btw), obviously has not done a search, and dare I say it lacks a knowledge of general world history (at least when this topic is concerned); given the Allende link. Anyway, I've established basic notability for that article. --Russavia Dialogue 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbados–Chile[edit]

    Barbados outlines Chile as one of its principle diplomatic relations in the neighbouring Latin American region.

    • See here and select "Barbados & Latin America" then "Go".

    It states. "Though Barbados' only diplomatic representation in the Latin America region at the moment is through its embassy in Caracas, expansion of diplomatic and consular representation is being given serious consideration by the Ministry. Currently, however, within the Latin America region, Barbados' principal relationships are with: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela" under your suggestion the only notable tie with Latin America would be Venezuela. I have no problem with just working on that article if all the rest would be regularly up for deletion though. I strongly look forward to hearing what the upcoming consensus is.

    CARICOM and Chile are considering a the creation of a free trade deal. "CARICOM/Chile Relations"


    CaribDigita (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, I see all of that as diplomatic fluff, florid statements in documents that get published only in embassy pages, or in newspaper articles that parrot mindlessly whatever fluff politicians spout out when visiting another country. You can't trust what those documents say because you can't distinguish the real notable stuff from the exaggerations. Those sources are not independient, not third-party, not reliable.
    I would only keep articles with strongly sources, and those sources showing notable stuff like, dunno, bitter border wars, long-standing mutual economical agreements that have important long term effects in their economies, strong cultural ties that influence their foreign relationships, old wars that still influence the current public opinion about the other country. Anything less notable than that is not enough to write a good solid article, will only be a list of trivia and indiscriminate info (WP:IINFO), and can be covered on the main articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chile–Mexico relations[edit]

    (comment moved from nomination) Chile and Mexico has a long history of diplotic relations, migration and trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 07:53, 31 March 2009

    Please provide sources for these relationships, or simply explain what the relationships are so we can search for sources. The articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Chile don't mention any of that. (by the way, thanks for striking the Chile-Turkey one, I had missed the reference to the statues)
    P.D.: I found some myself The agreement of economic complementation between Mexico andChile, a 3 year old economic cooperation treaty [66], Treaty of free commerce between Chile and Mexico 1999, Chile-Mexico: two transitions front to front --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Freddy Hutter[edit]

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

    Created by subject. No notability other than a self-published website. The article for the website (Trendlines) was deleted as non-notable long ago. NJGW (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Earlier the article included unreferenced puffery, including being the first to create some particular kind of display on a website, and it wasn't clear that he had achieved notability for it even if it were true. As for the rest of it, it basically says he has a website, and he does stuff. Also，here's what I wrote to WilyD when he denied my speedy request on the grounds that the article "transparently asserts significance". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:07, 31 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. CSD G3. Obvious hoax and blatant disruption; WP:SNOW — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seksi Pipol[edit]

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

    Hoax. There is no Finnish MP with that name, this search tool is only in Finnish, but I think it should be fairly obvious how it works. Also Seksi means Sex in Finnish... – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't this be in the biographical sorting category rather than the media and music one? JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fixed. Twinkle only notified the creator and listed the Afd, but didn't create the AfD nomination itself. I copied the headers from another nomination, which happaned to be a music nom. – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - A Finnish MP whose name is pronounced like the English phrase 'Sexy horny people'. Obvious hoax and disruption. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, it's a legit G3 then. I read the name as if it were Finnish (pronunciation is a bit different). – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Finnish, unfortunately (or any other Fenno-Ugric language) - but the name given looks like plausible phonetics for the English phrase in question. Thanks! AlexTiefling (talk) 13:52, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anubys Gutierrez[edit]

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

    Either a hoax or just a failure of WP:BIO. He was born in 1991, making it unlikely that he has won "three championships" since he's about seventeen, I can find no evidence that World of Wrestling exists, in Texas or anywhere else, and the wrestlers he claims to have been in relationships with both draw similar blanks through the normal channels (en-wiki, google, etc). In addition if you look at the sites used as references; they look like they were designed in MS paint. At best someone in a tiny, unremarkable wrestling circuit, at worst a complete hoax Ironholds (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • His age doesn't make me particularly suspicious. Katrina Mumaw flew a MIG 29 when she was 11, Connie Talbot received Gold and Platinum certifications for her first album when she was 6 or 7 and Louis Barnett has had a chocolate factory since he was 15. Kids can do things that are at first glance hoaxy looking because of their age, but turn out to be true. The lack of evidence is more damning. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is more that "world championships" are held about once a year at most, meaning winning three would have started when he was 14. Feats that require physical exertion for a 14 year old are legally dodgy at best; there are various biological issues with too much physical exercise, for example, 14-year-olds are incredibly unlikely to do anything but get booed out of the room, so on. Flying a mig is not based on physical strength (well, within reason - I've flown before), neither are making music and starting a factory. Early mental development that would give an 11 year old the ability to run a chocolate factory is much more common than the sort of early physical development that would allow a 14-year-old to become a professional wrestler. Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete: Could he actually be a three-time championship winner at 17? Unlikely, but possible. A three-time championship winner at 17 with zero Google news hits? Even less likely. When you look at the two sources given, http://fans.wwe.com/ccg.wwe.com is just a fan page, and none of the words anubys, cuban, windtwister, or twister can be found on http://www.wowtexas.com. Finally, add in that the article creator is User:CCGAnubys (an SPA), and I think that it's just his wished-for autobiography.
    Upon looking a little further, I noticed these:
    • Anubys Gutierrez: "Throughout his career, Wind Twister has consistently used the gimmick of being the extreme Cuban, a lifestyle he follows in real life. Depending on alignment as a crowd favorite or villain, different aspects of the culture are emphasized to encourage the desired audience reaction."
    • CM Punk: "Throughout his career, Punk has consistently used the gimmick of being straight edge, a lifestyle he follows in real life. Depending on alignment as a crowd favorite or villain, different aspects of the culture are emphasized to encourage the desired audience reaction."
    • Anubys Gutierrez:"Anubys Gutierrez has made reference to two girlfriends in his early life. During his time with KWA, he was romantically linked to professional wrestlers Stephani Trevino and Carmen Ramirez. After joining WOW, Brooks began dating Maria Ramirez, who was working there as an interviewer."
    • CM Punk: "Brooks has made reference to two girlfriends in his early life. During his time with Ring of Honor, he was romantically linked to professional wrestlers Shannon Spruill and Tracy Brookshaw. After joining Ohio Valley Wrestling, Brooks began dating Maria Kanellis, who was working there as an interviewer."
    • It appears that some or all of Gutierrez's "signature moves" are copy & pasted from Punk's, to the point where the footnote numbers are still in the article.
    I think it should be speedied. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 31 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) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chew lips[edit]

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

    Non-notable, self-promotional band article. MBisanz talk 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep I've already justified the creation of this page twice before. It was speedily deleted, then recreated, then marked again for speedy deletion, but was then accepted after I provided proof that the entry merits inclusion as it satisfies WP:MUSIC rule #1 - subject of multiple non-trivial published work - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chew_lips for references. Also, I refute that there is anything self-promotional about this article; I have no connection to the band. bbc_richardb (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Needs work but thats no reason to delete on notability grounds. Google search [67] gives articles by the BBC, the NME, and on the next page, The Times. Notable in my book Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. BBC coverage seems to establish notability. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notability seems reasonably well established. Although the band is new and has only released the one album, it seems to be with a major label and they have attracted a fair amount of media attention. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I made an error tagging it with A7 (I removed it shortly after), but I do believe this meets the notability criteria. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Group has no listing on Allmusic.com, and they include just about everybody. Just one non-charting single release is not enough to satisfy the minimum criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Untick (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment allmusic isn't the be-all-and-end-all though - if there's plenty of other good sources it should stay in. Equally, if allmusic was the only source the article probably shouldnt. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and move to Chew Lips. Notability established via the reliable sources on the talk page, meaning WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl!sm hey! 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings[edit]

    CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Indiscriminate list of TV rankings that does not contribute to the topic. MBisanz talk 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - The viewing figures are actually veriable (the BARB website), so I've struck out the OR part. The other two still apply. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: agree with nom and DitzyNizzy ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Title not something you'd search for (thus no need t redirect). Anything of use should be (if it isn't already) on the CSI main page, the LOE page, or some season page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - unreferenced list. Untick (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Libertarian Solution Radio Program[edit]

    Libertarian Solution Radio Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. Original PROD reason was, "No third-party verifiable reliable sources. No sign of notability. The KXAM website doesn't even bother to list this as a featured program on their front page." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I can't find any significant independent sources for this local radio program. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Very likely brokered programming: KXAM probably doesn't have anything on it because they paid to place their show on the station, and usually disclaim that the views of the hosts are not those of the station. No sources and likely not much notability. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional comment Please also note that on the show's homepage (separate from KXAM's page), there is a an appeal for advertising. This is a hallmark of brokered programming, where the entire hour is purchased from a station by the group and advertising can be solicited by the purchaser rather than the station itself. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retain. I don't produce it, but I listen to it and find it notable enough to include. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not yet developed clear, specific criteria for inclusion of anything. So it's all just opinion and bias. It's wrong to exclude it on the basis of being "brokered". Without clear guidelines, I must be an inclusionist to be on the safe side and not be slanting WP. Korky Day (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete = I was the person who did the research to put the PROD notice on the page, so I agree with myself here.  :) There are no reliable sources available about this small radio program, and as mentioned in the original PROD notice the local station that broadcasts it doesn't even bother to put the program on its front page. It gets just a paragraph buried in among everything the station plays, shown on an interior page. In reply to Korky Day, we really should take into account if the program is brokered, since that means that the "radio program" is really paid for like a long commercial. Also in reply to Korky, we have notability and more importantly verifiability rules. This article fails both of them, and most importantly it fails the vitally important verifiability rules. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retain. The show is paid for by ads. People who read only the front page seem rather trite. The station aires it so they must at least defer. Freedom of Speech is not a new concept. (This vote was made by User:Hobbies beyond (talk); I am placing it here because the editor placed their vote in their edit summary rather than on this page. Also, this is the user's first contribution. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Retain. The show hosts were asked to air the show on KXAM by the station's general manager Don Sandler. He can be contacted at the station. The show's description appears at http://www.kxam.com/programs/. According to KXAM the local broadcast footprint for this show is 3 million listeners during the prime time broadcast slot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.37.168 (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC) — 68.231.37.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment = The people commenting about the front page status of the show, or the paid/non-paid status of the show, are failing to reply to the meat of arguments about this article, which is that it fails Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sooooo....from the comments below I'm guessing that (1) there are no resources that match our verifiability and notability requirements so the only response is ad hominem attacks, or (2) everyone who thinks this article isn't a proper fit for Wikipedia really is anti-libertarian? I hope that people who come to this page understand that for all you know, I am Ron Paul. Or the reincarnation of Ayn Rand. Or Jesus. Come on, guys, respond to the arguments. If you don't, you're just making our arguments look stronger. This lack of engagement with the meat of the issue would be really bad in a discussion during the radio program... Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are Jesus :) I enjoyed your appeal to reason as I ask people to be reasonable all the time. I suspect you of no malfeasance (finger pointing just never works out for me) AND I am a Libertarian. Being a reasonable man, I must point out that Notability is subjective while Verifiability is not. This article can, for the most part, be verified. Please feel free to ask me questions about the content of the article because, as my friend Nick noted, that which we cannot prove to your satisfaction can be removed. Would Notability be influenced if I told you that many of our listeners are in other states around the country because we stream our shows, podcast them, and offer them as free MP3s at our website? We have gotten calls from as far away as Maine. Thanks for joining in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that we can't base an article on statements from you as a person involved in the radio program (per Wikipedia:SOURCES). Both our notability and verifiability rules are specific about what's required, and this program just doesn't match them. I'm sorry, really I am. I'm sure that you're fine people, but there are nearly seven billion fine people in the world and Wikipedia has decided by consensus to have rules regarding which of those seven billion people (and hundreds of millions of organizations, radio programs, companies, etc.) get to have articles here. :) One of the biggest requirements on Wikipedia is called "verifiability, not truth," which means that we require that facts be backed up by reliable sources. That doesn't mean that we don't trust you to tell the truth about yourself, it means that we require that the statements about you have to be written by someone in a place that has editorial control and standards. This is actually for your defense - it means that no one can come along and write "Joe Smith is a Nazi," self-publish it on Publish America or Lulu.com, and have it show up on the Joe Smith article. The statements here need to be from reliable newspapers, scholarly books, specialist encyclopedias...something that shows that (1) the subject has been looked at by several people whose jobs it is to separate fact from fiction and/or misinformation, and (2) the subject has been considered notable by several reliable secondary sources. I hope this (very wordy) explanation helps explain what's happening here. It doesn't mean that we think you're bad people or that you don't have a right to speak. It means that the encyclopedia has to decide what to keep and what not to keep, and your radio show doesn't yet have the notability to be kept. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comments about verifiability have been argued. Most if not all of the content in the article is easily verifiable with little effort. If portions of the article are not verifiable, then feel free to contest the unverifiable portions, not the entire article. Regarding notability, please reference the portions of Wikipedia's notability guidelines not met by the article. Stating simply that there is no notability is not a valid argument. Nickcoons (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I think you're being needlessly defensive here. We're not attacking you or your radio show. Second, I have laid out my arguments in detail in several comments here. I looked for sources, and couldn't find them, before putting the PROD notice on the page that led to this article being brought here to AfD by SchuminWeb. The replies to our arguments so far have been ad hominem statements that those who think the article doesn't fit our rules are evil anti-libertarians, or have been statements that we're wrong with no proof that we're wrong. Negation of our arguments isn't proof of anything. We've had offers of direct input from the people who make the show, but can't base an article on statements from the people on the program, as stated in WP:SOURCES. Our notability and verifiability rules are laid out in the links I gave above, and this article doesn't meet them. I don't know what to say beyond that and beyond what I've already said. It seems to me that you're saying is that because I'm not explaining the notability rules in more detail, that means I'm wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Honestly, we expect the person who closes this debate (who will be an uninvolved administrator) to weigh our arguments and we expect that person to understand the shorthand of statements like "no notability" or "no third-party sources." I know that Wikipedia's rules can sometimes be complicated and frustrating. I find them that way myself, sometimes. If you like, I can explain in more detail what's up in this discussion, if you tell me what you don't understand. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not intending to be defensive, I just don't believe that your claims about verifiability are true, and I think it's easy enough to demonstrate. Let's look at what the article says and break it down a bit:
    "The Libertarian Solution Radio Program is a political talk show that discusses the libertarian philosophy and its practical implementation in local, national, and world politics."
    Is there a question as to what the show is, and what it discusses?
    - http://www.libertariansolution.com/about/
    - http://www.podcastdir.net/podcast-description-572.php
    - http://www.evliving.com/2008/09/09/1236/the-libertarian-solution-launches/
    "The program airs on Independent 1310 KXAM, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Wednesdays at 7pm MST. It can also be heard live via internet streaming or in the audio archives at the Libertarian Solution website."
    Is there a question as to where the show is broadcast, or how it can be listened to?
    - http://www.kxam.com/programs/ (the synopsis here was written by the station, not the producers of the show)
    There are also various claims about the hosts. Some of the claims are verified by providing links to the claims. Some of the claims are not substantiated, but can be. Others may not be substantiated by any referencable online source (such as the stated birthplace of Richard Sutton), and it can be argued that these individual claims can be removed. But no argument has been presented that the article as a whole is unverifiable and therefore should be deleted. Given the five minutes I spent Googling to find the above information, any argument claiming that none of the article is verifiable should hereby be dismissed.
    I'm not asking you to explain the rules. I've read the rules. I'm asking you to be specific about your claims. You say there is no notability. Surely you can point to something specific in the notability rules with which the article is not compliant in order to substantiate that claim. Since the initial claim, that the article is unverifiable and not notable, is yours, isn't the burden on you to demonstrate it rather than just stating it? Isn't it only after you attempt to demonstrate your claims that you can expect anyone to attempt to refute them? Please forgive me if I've misinterpreted something. Nickcoons (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our requirements are 1) Significant, non-trivial coverage (WP:N gives as an example "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial."), 2) Coverage that is completely independent of the subject of the article (which knocks out the libertariansolution.com source as coming from the source, the www.podcastdir.net link as a mere reflector of the libertariansolution.com RSS feed, and the evliving.com link as a reprinted press release that is sourced directly to you, Nick Coons), and 3) Several other requirements, but since I've now shown that the given three references can't be used here, we don't need to go through those requirements. As to notability, you're asking me to prove a negative, and I'm not going to play that game. The notability requirements are positive requirements - that is, they give goals that must be met. There is no third-party who has taken notice of this radio show. There is no significant coverage. No one, in short, has considered this program worth writing an article or book about in the New York Times or National Review or a scholarly work about libertarian radio shows. I did actually Google your show before putting the original PROD notice on the article, so I know what I'm talking about. Thus, replying to your snide comment about "five minutes I [Nick Coons] spent Googling", I actually did the research before marking the article for deletion. You don't understand our notability and verifiability rules, as shown by the three links you gave, and I'm sorry about that. I've done my best to explain, but I'm done explaining now. You want to know what the worst part of this is going to be? I'm certain that someone on a friendly web forum or even in a call-in or letter/email sent to to the radio program itself is going to say something goofy like "Some guy with a rabbit-based name is trying to squelch our freedom of speech," a prediction I base on comments by other people in this discussion. And at this point, I'm done. I'm tired of trying to explain this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There may be parts of the article that are not verifiable, but it is disingenuous to claim that the entire article is unverifiable. If verifiability is an issue, remove the parts of the article that cannot be verified. If you'd like me to edit the article to post citations for the verifiable claims, I'd be happy to (but I've been avoiding editing the article since its initial post due to the COI issue). Nickcoons (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retain = The show is notable here in the Phoenix Metro radio market among Libertarians; over ten thousand people are registered Libertarian in the county, and most are aware of the program even if they are not regular listeners. In addition, the guests on the show are often of local and regional notability. On these points, the show should meet the notability requirements under Wikipedia. As for verifiability; it is true that one of the show's founders and hosts created the entry. I would be happy to verify that the general information about the show is true and accurate. As for online, linkable sources - I can see from a review of the Category: American Radio programs will reveal that a number of them have the same verifiability problems that TLS does, in your eyes. Those do not seem to be marked for deletion. For example, Radio Home Visitor, which is a show out of Pennsylvania, has absolutely no references at all, including several unverified, unsourced claims. The Neutrality of the person who marked this particular show comes into question for that reason alone. Finally, I understand that the show does have a couple advertisers, and is not a brokered program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.225 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that this article was tagged and not the other one you referenced is because someone saw this article and not that other one. I'll go look at the one you've complained about and if it doesn't match our needs, I'll delete it. I don't edit Wikipedia out of a political bent, although the number of people who think I'm anti-libertarian is making me consider going to clean up the grammar on the Ron Paul article and make it better just to prove 'em wrong.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dang, I just went to look at that article. So in a nutshell your complaint is that because I didn't mark an article about reading newspapers to the blind for deletion, I'm an evil anti-libertarian who wants to see the libertarian movement wiped from Wikipedia? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm done debating with you. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Comment = There is an "Appeal for advertising" because the show needs advertising. Please source your claim that appeals for advertising are a "hallmarks" of brokered programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.225 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response When you buy an hour of programming on a radio station, unless you're someone who can afford it that money either goes to your cause or producing the show. It doesn't go to the staff and the only thing the station does is collect their money and hope the purchaser doesn't do anything to risk their license. The station doesn't sell the advertising, the purchaser does. That's why it meets the definition of brokered programming. Also I have no issues with the article to speak of, it's the fact that it doesn't establish notability that is my reason for wanting it deleted. I have asked for deletion for other articles on this type based on the same criteria, no matter their political viewpoint. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment = The producers of this show made an appeal on a Ron Paul website attacking proponents of deletion as "socialists" and asking people to come here and vote retain. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.202.142 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted this to RPF, and I apologize for the rash judgment. I've edited my post on that forum to remove the bias, and have noted such in the post. Nickcoons (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment = I am one of the shows hosts so to address several of the comments made here I will add only to the information. When the show aired it's first episode we had 3 advertisers (non-host advertising). We offer advertising on our show because TLS is a for-profit business. Companies or individuals buy advertising, with us or somewhere else, because it is good for their business. This should not be a surprise. Also note that we had Ron Paul's presidential campaign press secretary on as a guest last year and we are still in contact though I have made no appeal to the Ron Paul Forums. Even so it seems they are free to express themselves in this nation - even if not on this excellent website. The proponents of deletion may all have many motivations among which may be a bias against the show's political content - There is simply no way of knowing (short of asking - if even that would help) so I would not, myself, suggest such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The arguments of those whowant to "retain" are enough reason. Local radio talk shows are very rarely notable,and there is no evidence this is different. Possible G11 speedy as promotional DGG (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:SOURCE, WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. —Danorton (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Lack of references to present notability of artist Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:38, 31 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 Non-admin close- article is a re-creation of deleted material, and has been submitted for G4 speedy deletion. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RosenkreuzStilette[edit]

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

    See previous discussion. The game is still not notable, is still self-published, and the only sources are a messageboard and the official website. Suggest deletion and salt. roux   03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom, previous AFD.WackoJackO 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - If not speedy as recreated deleted content. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • - You're right, it should be a speedy for recreating deleted content.WackoJackO 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • - What's the policy - in this case - on nominating an article for Speedy deletion in the middle of an AFD?WackoJackO 11:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect the best thing to do is to go ahead and tag the article for speedy deletion, and go ahead and close the AfD. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • - I tagged the article for speedy delete. However, I didn't see where they mentioned how exactly one closes an AFD, when I read through close.WackoJackO 12:24, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Open Education Institution[edit]

    List of Open Education Institution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article is nothing more than an internet directory (WP:LINKFARM). Potentially, the article could be re-written to use internal links instead of internet links; but that requires a fundamental re-write that's just as easy (if not easier) to do from scratch. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I looked over the article before I even saw the nomination and my first thought was "EEEK! A linkfarm!" At the very least the links have to be paved over and independant sources be put in their place. Deleting the linkfarm leaves an OR essay, which is also unacceptable. Barring a fundamental rewrite within the next... oh, five days, this should be deleted. ThemFromSpace 04:07, 31 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of controversial books of poetry[edit]

    List of controversial books of poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete per the usual AFD thing about lists that tag the topic as "controversial". Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 31 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 Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory#Schools. MBisanz talk 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    St Bedes Primary School Red Hill[edit]

    St Bedes Primary School Red Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable primary school. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:40, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Davud Sadinlija[edit]

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

    A junior tennis player, does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Very little mention in secondary sources; only one relevant hit on Google. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. User was responsible for at least one other NN bio which I deleted. I too got only one possibly relevant Google and maybe two others on this one. The notability claim is what kept me from clobbering this and I was going to bring it here myself. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:23, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadmehr Aghili[edit]

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

    no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 02:30, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pierre Cotant[edit]

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

    Player has never played in a fully-pro league and fails WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD; removed by IP with no rationale given GiantSnowman 02:00, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Chesner[edit]

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

    Delete insufficient coverage by reliable 3rd party sources to meet WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 31 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 List of sex positions. MBisanz talk 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Widely opened position[edit]

    Widely opened position (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable sexual neologism. KuroiShiroi (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a neologism. JJL (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Not a neologism, as the subject is described in the Kama Sutra (see, e.g. this copy of the Richard Francis Burton translation). JulesH (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I find it quite amusing that a phrase used in an extraordinarily famous book, first published in the translation that uses the phrase in 1883, is described here as a "neologism". Is this some kind of record? JulesH (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also question whether any of the commenters above who described the term as a neologism bothered to search for sources before commenting? Multiple copies of the Kama Sutra text turn up on the front page of a google search for the exact term in question. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete/Redirect - Google doesn't show it turning up for anything other than Burton's version of the Kama Sutra, which seems to indicate that it isn't a widely used translation. It's really just a single line in the linked text- certainly not enough to support an article. Redirect to List of sex positions per Atmoz. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? it shows just the opposite - that Burton's translation is the most widely used Kama Sutra translation in English. The phrase turns up in many other books (like as not traceable to Burton but often not credited). I agree, though, that it is difficult to see how this could ever be expanded much on Wikipedia. There are sites out there that have a page length article on the position, but these mostly amount to "how to" descriptions which is not really suitable material for Wikipedia. But if someone were to present an outline of how this article could be expanded eventually then I would be willing to !vote keep. SpinningSpark 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry- I mean that translating whatever the underlying phrase is as 'Widely open position' seems to not be popular with post-Burton translators, not that Burton's translation is unpopular. That indicates to me that 'widely open position' may be an idiosyncratic translation, and so wouldn't be the best choice for a title if the article were capable of being expanded. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ivan Gašparovič. MBisanz talk 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Googlovic[edit]

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

    Appears to be a neologism, no evidence of significance of the term; may also be thought of as a pov fork of the Ivan Gašparovič article. Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. TeaDrinker (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to Ivan Gašparovič. I did this, but it was undone. It is possibly a viable search term, but on its own, it should be removed. KuroiShiroi (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. It's a likely search term, but it doesn't warrant an article of its own. It should be included in the article on Gašparovič. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: Its possible to redirect it with Ivan Gašparovič. South Bay (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had considered redirecting as well, but I didn't think the term was notable enough for mention in the Gašparovič article (although I know little of Slovak politics) and it seemed unprofessional to use an insulting term as an (uncommented) redirect; a bit like redirecting TOTUS to Obama in my opinion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think it should be redirected to the presidents name because it is not notable enough. However, if someone comes around the term Googlovic he or she should be able to find in an encyclopedia like this what it means (and that it refers to the Slovak incumbent president). In the internet forums on politics we often speak of Googlovic did this or that, so in my opinion people should be able to find the term in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueray1978 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just do a google search on Googlovic and it comes up with several entries Ivan Googlvic, or Googlovic. So if someone reads it and looks in wikipedia for Googlovic, he should be able to find what it means. Redirecting Totus to Obama is same like Googlovic to Gasparovic. I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueray1978 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you still wanna delete, or is the outcome that the article should stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.88.114 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to his real name. A mention of his nickname in the main article is sufficient, provided that it has reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article should stay. I do not see why not. I vote against redirecting for a simple reason: it would be the same like redirecting Totus to Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.245.195.116 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Bole[edit]

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

    no referencees, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete - non notable, too many red links are suspicous. Deletion Mutation 15:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - found evidence at Allmusic.com that he has released an album [68], and further evidence of notability with a review [69]. Untick (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MUSICBIO is clear: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). (emphasis added) Also, what you call a review is not anything published in a reliable source, but is actually a website that's selling the album. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rainforest Stakeholders[edit]

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

    Article in its current form is simply a definition (violation of WP:NOTDICT). It does not seem to me like this article could be expanded to anything beyond the definition of who someone interested in protecting the rainforest could be. Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or redirect to Tropical rainforest#Human uses. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As Rcawsey points out, we already have anything that might appear here covered already. The word "stakeholder" is not only aesthetically but morally offensive, being part of that class of jargon that's vague to the point of evasiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. Dictionary definition unlikely to be expanded. However, the title is a plausible search term, so redirect to Tropical rainforest#Human uses. -Atmoz (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no notability of the term comes up that could be discussed as its own article. It appears to be a neologism. A google search shows two results; one of them being, of course, this article. 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. Agree with the above. This is a neologism that only a handful of random people on the internet have actually used. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 31 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OnBoard PowerSeller 2[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Would appear to be little more than a set of technical specs, and a link to the companies' web page. Partial advert, and dubious notability (though there is a possible claim based on the number of transactions - though this is not from an independent source). No independent coverage. CultureDrone (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. A non-consumer tech product: a device produced and marketed to the passenger transit industry to perform onboard retail transactions. In other words, a hand held, radio controlled credit card swiping gadget meant for use on vehicles. Such a product is highly unlikely to generate third party notice in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can find nothing to indicate notability for this product/device. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 31 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 Show-Me Institute with no prejudice against reverting if notability independent of Show-Me Institute can be established (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Hannasch[edit]

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

    non-notable vice president of the Show-Me Institute, a local organization, whose Wikipedia article, is also currently the subject of an AfD discussion. TommyBoy (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Just an average guy at the head of a local community organisation. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this should await the outcome of the Show-Me Institute AfD. I'd like to suggest merge and redirect to the Show-Me Institute if that article survives, and if not this should simply be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I can't find any news articles mentioning this person. All of the links seem to go to the Show-Me Institute, which is just his employer. I don't think this should be merged either. According to this article he is just a vice president, and there is nothing to show that he is notable enough to be included in that article. Locke9k (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The organization has just been found notable by a SNOW close. DGG (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because his employer was found notable doesn't mean that he is. Or am I missing your point? Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    of course not,but its enough to prevent too rapid a close in the other direction till we can check further. :). I remind you that argument for deletion seemed to emphasise the unimportance of the organization. Your're trying to have it both ways. DGG (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not sure what you mean. In fact the organization was not found notable through a SNOW close - the nomination was withdrawn. Not the same thing at all. The point is that an employee of a notable organization is not necessarily notable themselves. I haven't been able to find any significant independent coverage of this individual to show otherwise. Locke9k (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the Show-Me Institute. The institute may be notable, but this guy is better shown in relation to his company. It cuts down on the BLP problems that come with his borderline notability. ThemFromSpace 01:48, 31 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 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DeSoL[edit]

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

    It may well be true that this band is well-known in some circles, but there is no evidence of notability in the article - which has been created and added to by a suspiciously large number of one-off users Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Billboard AC Chart Listing and a blurb on Billboard commenting on it being the highest debut in AC history.
    Does the Adult Contemporary Billboard chart count as a national music chart?
    Here's two more articles from Billboard that discuss the band itself a bit more...although they seem like they might overlap a bit.
    Washington Post article & New York Times article. --Onorem♠Dil 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just checked the interwiki links and they are fake. Deb (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Onorem. Coverage by Washington Post and New York Times makes them notable. Ancemy (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as they have a charted single on a major chart, coupled with significant source coverage. Hot AC is indeed a notable chart. Not sure where the AAA charts came from, but sure as heck not Billboard. Oh yeah, and having the highest AC debut in the history of that chart, isn't that a good assertation? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 31 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, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth McLaughlin II[edit]

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

    Can't find any independent reliable sources Nerfari (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No indicator this is notable. Ancemy (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to The Clique (film). It might not be independent, but there is no reason to doubt the official film website regarding her involvement in the project. She's a reasonable search term for people who look her up based on the film. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete When she's ready, she'll get a page Vartanza (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of characters in the Hitman series. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Purayah II[edit]

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

    Not notable. Could be redirected to List of characters in the Hitman series. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    Agent 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mark Parchezzi III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy redirect per nominator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - no justification for a seperate article at this time. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm somewhat wary of these recent nominations, we're dealing with a new user here, who wants to do things right, but doesn't seem to understand or know of relevant practices here. Have any of the nominators in the recent discussions attempted to explain and guide the user in question here? I'm becoming concerned that these AfDs may inadvertantly lead to us driving him away. -- Sabre (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contacted the editor a couple of times to offer guidance. He/she isn't particularly talkative. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. These three articles appear to me to be the result of an inexpert user of English attempting to create video game character pages. I don't play any video games, but I know there are other video game character pages for more notable characters. What's the line in the sand where one article deserves expansion and another deletion? Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The availability of reliable sources. Someone like Lara Croft, for instance, has been talked about all up and down reliable sources like GameSpot, GameSpy, IGN, etc. in various articles and features. These Hitman characters are minor and have received little or no coverage. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 31 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 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuziyah al-Ouni[edit]

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

    Contested Prod (don't know why). There is no assertion of notability here. She's named as a human rights activist (so am I) who was "involved" in an abuse case (how involved). A source has been provided which "mentions her", but all it does it relate a bland quote from her about this one case. Google News gives nothing - and Google itself not much more than this one case and "activist". Sorry, probably a righteous woman, but unless we can say something significant about her, and verify it, we need to delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • All Google gives are attributions of the same quote [73] to the Saudi Gazette: "By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty." Good quote, but not nearly enough to justify an article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This article did survive the first attempt at deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuziyah al-Ouni. Have things changed much since then? PatGallacher (talk)

    No sources were provided then either, and only three people opined. I hope we can do better this time. Can you find anything else on this woman that would make her merit an article? Why do you think she does? I can't see the case for keeping this at all? What is it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete almost A7; one article mentions here. She was "involved" in something which although tragic apparently isn't very notable. "Involved" is a big weasel word - if some guy holds the door open for Marcia Clark during the OJ trial is he now "involved" in that trial (a notable event unlike the minor case in which this subject was "involved") and get a WP bio? Does chivalry=notability? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Contrary to the nominator, there are 4 sources via google news if you remove the time restriction. Notability is not temporary. I added those sources and more as external links, which could be made into references. Jwray (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trivial: the first source mentions the subject near then end and all it can muster is: "Fuziyah al-Ouni, described as an activist by the paper, said she was outraged by the case. “By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty,” she said."; the second mention is vebatim the first; the third source doesn't even mention the subject; the fourth source doesn't mention the subject either; the fifth source repeats the first's one-liner verbatim. There is one source with one line about the subject here. Do not be fooled on April Fools Day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tough to get news about women activists in a part of the world where they have so few rights. Might not even be surprised if Fuziyah al-Ouni herself received a few lashes for speaking up. Are their any Arabic wikipedians who could do a better search? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Heder. MBisanz talk 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Heder[edit]

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

    Relationships do not confer notability. No indication that the rest of his bio would qualify him for inclusion (WP:CREATIVE) without that relationship. Rd232 talk 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete so he has a notable brother, went to acting classes with a notable actress, and is distantly related to a notable sportscaster; but what has he done? a few bit parts, only one of which in a notable show, and he's been on Letterman. Woo-hoo, so far fails WP:GNG that if this is the measure of notability - most actors in tv commercials, local plays that get reviewed in the local rags, and game-show losers qualify. That isn't the case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 31 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 to delete, so kept through a merge and redirect to Takaful per debate below. Hiding T 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The World Takaful Conference[edit]

    The World Takaful Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Declining db-spam and taking to AfD, I'd like comment from people from the region if possible. Google hits suggest this is probably nonnotable by our standards, but it's possible people from the region will have a different view. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 31 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Derek Brook[edit]

    Peter Derek Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has no sources and I couldn't find any to add. His book (his main claim to fame) is from a vanity press. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - non notable self promotion. TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable with no sources. Ancemy (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only possible thing he's done that could make him notable was writing a book, but this was as mentioned from a vanity press and apparently garnered no reviews. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 31 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) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Backup Direct[edit]

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

    Advertising a business Be-technical (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Linguist. The article is a stub, so it's just missing references. It seems they do exist. Ancemy (talk) 00:21, 31 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. The lack of independent sourcing in a subject like this is a serious issue, and none have been found in spite of attempts during the course of the debate. The secondary sourcing alluded to by Gigs has not materialized. Hence, the delete opinions get the nod on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevan Shaw[edit]

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

    Poorly sourced article about a lighting design consultant. Some passing references turn up in Google news searches, but no significant coverage. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Seems to be notable enough to have a good scattering of secondary source coverage. Should be trimmed down to WP:NPF standards though. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Since I posted this article, I clearly think it is valid. I have cut it right sown to its core as suggested by Gigs.Fiunary (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Much of the article is unsourced, and I can't find independent sources other than those that establish his existence. Sancho 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I went through the first few pages of google hits for "Kevan Shaw" and couldn't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Yilloslime TC 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret account 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs) [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Clatworthy[edit]

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

    Prod contested with no reason given by an IP editor.

    also nominating News 140
    Two articles on a sixteen schoolboy and the internet news channel he has set up. Unfortunately, and despite claims in the articles, there is a distinct absence of coverage in the news or any other reliable source of either subject. Hence, failing WP:BIO and WP:ORG (or any others available) Nuttah (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The age of the kid is not relevant to the debate. Lacking sources is deleteable for articles about people of any age. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of both articles felt it is relevant to include references to the age and educational status of the subject, so I included this in my summary of them. At no point was this information given as a deletion criteria, so I'm not sure how you arrived at that incorrect assumption. Nuttah (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I arrived at that conclusion because you mentioned it. Age is frequently used as a reason to "prove" someone hasn't yet lived long enough to establish anything. Your clarification is appreciated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all of the references are written by the subject, not about the subject. I failed to find any other sources about him. He has not received significant attention worthy of being recorded. Fails WP:BIO. Delete News 140] also. Lack of reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both per Atmoz's reasoning - the article does a good job of making his achievements sound impressive, but it's all very minor and obscure appearances, with no coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca t|c 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 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 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deja Chan[edit]

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

    No evidence whatsoever that subject meets Wikipedia:BIO#Pornographic_actors notability criteria (no awards, etc.) Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No sources indicate lack of notability. Ancemy (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. She is featured by Hustler, which is a sufficient criteria according to WP:PORNBIO. We also need time to contact her agency or herself - she probably does not know about this article and has not had any say. Longhairadmirer (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contact her agency or herself? Why? I could go into a lengthy explanation of my point but I'll just link to WP:AUTO and take any questions if you have any after reading that. Dismas|(talk) 09:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Previous AfD discussions have discounted the notability of Hustler Honeys.[75][76] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:21, 31 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, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Felix's machines[edit]

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

    Non-notable art. KuroiShiroi (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom, unless third-party evidence of notability is produced.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unless it comes up with some proper references - quick Google search comes up with nothing that fits the bill though Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_31&oldid=1142644055"