Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 May 30 May >

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 no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Riggs

[edit]
Jeremiah Riggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be non-notable. Riggs has fought only two professional fights at local/regional events. Very sparse coverage of him on the Internet (mostly fight records and blog entries about the two TV shows he's appeared on). Seems his biggest claim to fame is either a one episode appearance on The Ultimate Fighter or being a participant in the reality show Daisy of Love. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Riggs has had plenty of fights. Some of the fights have not been picked up by Sherdog. He to me is a very notable mma fighter. I can understand why you would think he's not but to me and a lot of other people he is. Being on two reality shows doesn't make you famous but for Riggs I think there is an exception. He is known by a lot of people ranging from grown men to young girls. This article should stay but either way is fine. Justastud15 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not an over achiever, but he has fought professionally and that qualifies under wp:athlete. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. The status of being a professional in MMA is not equal to being a professional in boxing or the NFL etc. Most states sanctioning MMA don't have amateur status so everyone is professionals. If you take a look at WT:MMA we currently have a discussion going as for what the equals status to being a professional is other sports is, and Riggs doesn't even come close IMO. --aktsu (t / c) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two fights in total, the last one over a year ago doesn't equate to competing "at the fully professional level of a sport," in my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, I'd classify myself as a deletionist. Even if we leave out the fine points debate about what is or is not professional, this one goes a little past that. Aside from the two pro fights, he's also appeared on 2 national shows. Neither of those appearences would qualify him by themselves, but adding them to the 2 fights and membership on a notable team (HIT Squad), to me adds up to being notable enough. I'm staying with my keep at this point. On a seperate note, I read the discussion about fine-tuning the criteria for MMA notability and I think it's a good idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Mentifisto 17:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott James Windsor

[edit]
Elliott James Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hox, though I'll admit the genealogy of the royals is hard to keep track of. That and the BLP implications have me bringing it here directly for consideration rather than CSD or Prod. I can't find any information to support most of what's in this article. The smoking gun for me seems to be that he claims to be the grandson of Prince William of Gloucester, with the 1972 plane crash being the link. I can't find any evidence that William had any children, which makes the rest of the lineage rather suspect. ArakunemTalk 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the author has now cut the article back to a single sentence: "Elliott James Windsor, Earl of Hertfordshire is the only child of HRH the Duke of Sussex, who was born on 15th September 1960", but that is still fantasy - the title "Duke of Sussex" became extinct in 1843 - see Duke of Sussex. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7 (non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan James Melville

[edit]
Ewan James Melville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not sufficiently establish conformity to WP:N and WP:Notability (people) Intelligentsium (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, has been repeatedly deleted for failing notability, the person who apparently has a conflict of interest on this subject repeatedly recreates it despite warnings, which he removes from his Talk page without discussion. This is turning into a disruption. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are zero Google news hits for "Ewan James Melville", "Ewan Melville" or "Ewan J. Melville". There are zero Google hits for "Ewan J. Melville" at all. All Google hits for "Ewan James Melville" are to myspace and youtube and such sites. There are 30 hits for "Ewan Melville", with several people of that name, none of them apparently referring to this person. The like to the New York Times goes to their main page, not to any news article about this person. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SNOW Valley2city‽ 06:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denaldin Hamzagic

[edit]
Denaldin Hamzagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer player; was drafted but not signed to a pro contract; no pro experience; no significant amateur achievements; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Furube

[edit]
Kenta Furube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league that fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed with any references or support that article satisfied notability requirements. It is not enough to be a non-playing member of the team. Jogurney (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Fukushima

[edit]
Yutaro Fukushima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced BLP about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league that fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed with any references or support that article satisfied notability or verifiability requirements. It is clear that no such person is on the playing squad of Thespa Kusatsu. Jogurney (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Martial Arts

[edit]
The Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A band that just does not appear notable. AFD instead of A7 since the article has been around a while, in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers. I'mperator 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Mass Instruction

[edit]
Weapons of Mass Instruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of song is not indicated in article text; no references listed. Doesn't conform to WP:NOTE, WP:Notability (music), WP:SONGS, or WP:V. Pete (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer path analysis

[edit]
Transfer path analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Context is vague, but not IMHO vague enough for A1 CSD. It was listed as a copyvio, but most of that has been cleaned out. But in the end, I just do not see any indication that the subject is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of technical papers on Google that might show notability, but a lot of what comes up is nearly as dense as the article itself. These might be useful for researching and creating a more comprehensive article, but right now the article doesn't seem to have that track in mind. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL seems to be relevant. BassoProfundo (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article made a comment (now viewable on the article's talk page) that s/he would like to work on the article in a non-public namespace until it is ready for inclusion. This seems to indicate the creator and primary editor's desire to temporarily delete the page. BassoProfundo (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, under criterion G7. (article has already been moved to the user namespace) blurredpeace ☮ 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N and WP:V. Since this discussion was opened, no changes or improvements have been made to the article despite several participants stating they had sources which could be used to make this article more than just a very loosely connected collection of information cribbed from other articles. As very little has been done since the similar discussion three years ago, this article (as it currently stands) does not meet the requirements for keeping. If someone wishes to have the article userfied to be worked on, I will be happy to do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile ownership

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

The article is not a cohesive topic in its own right but is merely a loose collection of aspects, most of which have no bearing on owning a motor vehicle. There is no cohesive article that can be put together under this title - if everything unrelated were taken out, we would be left with a dicdef. Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Automobile ownership for more discussion on this point. The article was nominated 3 years ago but was procedurally kept due to being edited mid-discussion. Consensus then was that it was in bad shape but that we should "give it time" to improve. 3 years later and nothing has happened since then. Zunaid 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take your point that there are some synthesis of the various topics on the web falling under "vehicle ownership", however I still feel such a topic is fraught with synthesis issues covering mostly irrelevant material. I semi-support your merge proposal, however into an article title such as vehicle registration as that is a much more accurate and well-defined term, which should keep the article tightly focused on the topic. To pick the current article apart piece by piece: the section on vehicle maintenance belongs in a how-to guide or user manual, which Wikipedia is explicitly not. The section on types of automobiles is in completely the wrong article, likewise rules of the road. License plates too, as well as the driver's license section. There is very little information left in this article as it stands that could form a nucleus of any cohesive topic. Zunaid 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I'm at a loss to understand why this has ever been considered a suitably notable topic; it's so vague. Driver licensing might be of value to compare systems around the world. And merging anything useful into vehicle registration certificate I wouldn't oppose, though not the other way, into this one. Do we have articles on "radio ownership" (as opposed to radio licensing, for example) or indeed on "fish ownership"? Not encyclopaedic. – Kieran T (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite significantly - it's not a serious article in its current form, but a loose collection of unrelated topics. I think it should focus on what automobile ownership means in the US (and other countries if different), what documents prove it, and perhaps how to go about transferring a car to a new owner, in a more coherent way. All topics related to registering, driving (including obtaining a driver's license!) and maintaining a motor vehicle should be removed. Alternatively, a shorter version (a paragraph) could go to the ownership article under "Types of property," but we do need to keep information on auto ownership somewhere. --CFHerbert (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no view on keeping or deletion, but this certainly shouldn't focus on "what automobile ownership means in the US (and other countries if different)". If there's to be an article under this title it should give no more weight to the US that to any similarly-sized country or region. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, the good old "keep and rewrite", my all-time favourite AfD !vote, which ALWAYS leads to the article being immediately improved by hundreds of volunteers just dying to do the work! I'm sure they won't take 3 years to get around to it this time...</sarcasm></rant> Seriously, would you consider changing your !vote to delete unless rewritten? You are basically asking for an article dealing with vehicle registration, which has been mooted as a possible merge/redirect target. Zunaid 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact is that this article in its current state is unacceptable and has been for three years, there is little if any thing to be salvaged. If someone wants to rewrite it they can do so at anytime, an AfD doesn't prevent this, it can be rewritten during the AfD and kept, or it can be reposted after the article is deleted. --Leivick (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a highly notable topic as vehicle ownership has considerable legal and social consequences. It is our clear editing policy to improve such articles rather than deleting them. 99% of our article are less than good. This is not surprising as you get what you pay for. We have no deadline and so no reason to delete this. If anyone actually wants to build the encyclopedia rather than just being a critic, here are several hundred sources on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A jaded, spoiled view common to upper-class Western living could easily lead one to think that this topic is not notable, but to the vast majority of the world's 5 billion human inhabitants this is a very notable and important topic. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see how this is encyclopedic. It appears to be a navigation article about various US laws related to vehichle ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has a lot of information directly pertaining to the title. Some of the information should be removed, perhaps to a "see also" section. Sebwite (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Vigorito

[edit]
Mauro Vigorito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vigorito never played professionally. As no appearances record in Serie A nor Coppa Italia Matthew_hk tc 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no record in http://www.cagliaricalcio.net/ http://www.gazzetta.it http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/stats?id=115025&cc=4716 http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/clubs/cagstats.html Which match he actually played? Goal.com is sometimes reliable. Matthew_hk tc 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Cristiano Lupatelli played 23 Serie A games in all-time or 2007-08 or 2008-09 season? Non of above. Matthew_hk tc
Comment I was under the impression that goal.com is not considered a reliable source at WP:FOOTY. Unless a reliable source can be found to show that he has played a game, this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. King of the North East 14:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Guardian has him having never played a game for the club. This Source seems to place him behind Federico Marchetti and Cristiano Lupatelli in the pecking order at Caglairi, so unless a source other than the Goal.com can prove he has played a first team game, he is non-notable.
  • Delete I can ensure he has never played a game in 2008–09 season, I have checked at Gazzetta, Cagliari Calcio and Calciatori.com, none of them show him having ever played a game. --Angelo (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Dank, CSD G3: Vandalism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huner Buttonne

[edit]
Huner Buttonne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Limited notability. I don't even know if this character actually exists. gordonrox24 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article has no claim of notability for its subject. Probably a joke page by the creators of this character, since a joking reference to the idea that he doesn't exist was added soon after this AFD. BassoProfundo (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. In fact, I was about to put this up for a speedy. I'm rather certain that this is a hoax. No ghits on "Huner Buttonne". Tim Ross (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious hoax... Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:CORP (and therefore WP:N). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarab Studio

[edit]
Scarab Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corp. References given do not support notability. Fails WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete After reviewing the "references", I doubt any of them meet WP standards. One is a site hosted/maintained by a single person on a .edu domain, one is a description of work created by the company (in the company's own words), and the other, while possibly about a piece of work the company created, does not even mention the company... Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please take the redirect discussion to the talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Evilasius (Executioner)

[edit]
Saint Evilasius (Executioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's exactly one Google hit on this saint. I would think there would be more than one for anyone canonized by the Catholic Church. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect to Fausta of SirmiumComment--Searching "Evilasius" without the "St." yielded more than 600 Google hits. The reason seems to be that he is paired up with Fausta of Sirmium, the girl he is said to have tortured, rather than discussed separately. Here is a particularly graphic telling of the tale. He does seem to be a legitimate Catholic Saint and thus (I assume) prima facie notable. I haven't had a chance to read through if there is There is perhaps enough to justify a separate article for Evilasius, but if not, I'd prefer redirecting it to the existing stub Fausta of Sirmium, which already mentions him, and which could be expanded as well.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Fausta of Sirmium. There are actually about 678 google hits for the name as per here. However, he does seem to be tied to Saint Fausta, so for the purposes of having articles of reasonable length, it probably makes sense to have them both covered in the same article. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both subjects are notable, but not independently of each other. i don't see how the two articles could ever differ in actual content. Thus I would say merge, except this is a very implausible search term. I have created Saint Evilasius and Evilasius as redirects to Fausta of Sirmium. If this closes as keep those will need to be re-pointed--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected Fausta of Sirmium to Anastasia of Sirmium, as her only claim to notability is that she is the traditional mother of Anastasia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Saint Fausta, as his notability is tied solely to hers. More detail on Evalasius can be found here: [4]. For the record, he is an Orthodox saint, not a Roman Catholic saint. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be interested in knowing where the details of the story originate from - obviously it makes a big difference if the details weren't added to centuries later. Either way, they can be included in the Saint Fausta article, but I need know where they come from to properly write the article. If anyone finds anything let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as failing WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aria (software)

[edit]
Aria (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed. I am unconvinced this is notable enough and currently fails the general notability guidelines. Otterathome (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to have been recently updated, but needs a bit of polishing and sourceing work. Old Death (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not in anyway address the concerns raised.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. I do think indeed it might be notable enough for keeping. Also (just something that occured to me), it seems to be available in 26 languages, which is quite much. Maybe we could agree on giving the article some months more of time and reconsidering deletion at a later time? It sounds more logical to me giving the article a 'second chance' then deleting it directly. Old Death (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability on the first few pages of Google search, CNET doesn't have anything about it. The sourceforge page says "It is being actively developed by Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa." Should qualify for A7. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge with future article about aria2), and what is the problem IF "this is not notable enough"? what is the problem with that? Sorry, but I don't believe in deleting articles based ONLY on notability issues (and there is not even any policy that says that articles should be deleted due to lack of notability). As a side note, this program is in the Ubuntu repositories, so that is indication of SOME notability. Besides, there are not so many download managers for Linux (if there were many many, maybe deletion was justified to do some clean-up, but that is not the case) -- SF007 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you don't believe on deleting articles based on notability, maybe you're on the wrong website. The article fails WP:V+WP:OR which are policies.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per policy, SF007; WP:DEL#REASON "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"  Chzz  ►  03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I still strongly think it does not make sense to delete an article based on "notability" (or lack of it). That way we end up deleting useful stuff, and we keep useless "fan-material" (pokemons/youtube_celebrities/joe_the_plumber/whatever) just because it is popular... it just does not make any sense to me. I don't care about blindy folowing rules without even thinking. SF007 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't a project devoted to documenting every piece of software someone makes available for download. Notability hasn't been shown - the article actually disclaims notability, saying it is defunct. Miami33139 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not "defunct", this article is used for both Aria and Aria2, Aria2 is Aria, think of it as version 2. Aria2 redirects here, so it is not "defunct" ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of MXC episodes

[edit]
List of MXC episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, does not indicate notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t19:04z 19:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- As I understand it, a list of episodes of tv shows is a perfectly acceptable type of page. Not to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on this afd, but examples of other ones might be: List of Scrubs episodes, List of House episodes and List of The Shield episodes. Aside from the fact that they're different shows, I really don't see what makes this particular list any less acceptable than the examples. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those articles all have third party sources, tho I've put a NoFootNotes tag on the Shield article. wp:v states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The MXC list has no sources, not even a primary one. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-01t06:02z
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although this type of list is perfectly acceptable and I usually endorse a keep in these instances, but, the purpose of a list is to bring together like information for navigation to the related, Notable, Articles. Everything on this list is a RedLink with (IMHO) little hope of claiming notability of the individual shows. I dont believe a List of Permanent RedLinks is acceptable. If even a few of these episodes had BlueLinks, I would prolly feel differently, but they dont. I would accept a Merge to MXC. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • if you look at the lists I linked, you'll notice a lot of them don't even have blue or red-links, just an episode title and description. So if the episodes were de-linked, as Peregrine Fisher suggests, why would that make it any different? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The House list has a blue link for every episode, and mostly blue for the writers and directors. About 60 Scrubs episodes are blue links. The Shield list has only 1 episode link. Many of these episode articles seem to be poorly sourced tho. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-01t06:02z
  • Keep but delink eps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid and verifiable subtopic of MXC that would be too large to merge into the parent article. Delink the episode titles if notability cannot be established for individual episodes. DHowell (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

James Fairchild (transport)

[edit]
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manhattan College. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Beta Fraternity

[edit]
Alpha Sigma Beta Fraternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fraternity at a a single college. The only thing of conceivable interest is that NYC Mayor Rudolph Guiliani applied to it, but was rejected. Many trivial mentions in GNews, [5] but none that show significance. Thereare other fraternities of this name: This is the one at Manhattan College. DGG (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 18:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Tone 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Ghana

[edit]
Modern Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to support notability -- fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of colour sorts of Platy fish

[edit]
List of colour sorts of Platy fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

strange and pointless list. Highest Heights (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Is currently nominated for speedy deletion under A1 - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana S. Nau

[edit]
Dana S. Nau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this professor particularly notable? And the fact that the article was created by an user named Dsnpost (talk · contribs) suggests some interesting conflict of interest issues. Unless notability shown, delete. Nlu (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Full disclosure: I am not Dana Nau, but I am one of his many former research students; it should be obvious from my edit history that I have only a passing familiarity with Wikipedia. I assume (though I don't know) that Dsnpost was Dana Nau, and clearly any self-promotion in Wikipedia is fraught with peril. That said, I read WP:ACADEMIC, and Dana Nau seems to qualify for notability rather easily, both by criterion 1 (see his citation statistics, as well as the references to SHOP2 and some of his other work at Hierarchical task network) and, as a AAAI fellow, for criterion 3. Philosophically, though, I don't know where Wikipedia stands on articles that should have been created, but probably not by the editor who created them. Incremental Improvements (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social ERP

[edit]
Social ERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A7 CSDed once, the second time A7 was declined as an ineligible subject. eligible subject or not, I see no sign that this meets the project's notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator / WP:SNOW keep. SoWhy 08:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald G. Fink

[edit]
Donald G. Fink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

President of a professional organization. Not listed on the organization page's listing of notable presidents. Thus, IMHO, not indication of separate notability for this person. Unsourced as well. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not listed on Wikipedia's page for notable presidents you mean? The man has numerous books, including text books, that he published and/or edited. There are over 12,000 ghits for him. In 1979 (30 years ago) an award from the IEEE was named in honor of him, per the organization, The award is named in honor of Donald G. Fink, distinguished editor and author, who was a Past President of the IRE, and the first General Manager and Executive Director of the IEEE. That alone is enough to make him notable enough for an article. The IEEE's bio of Donald. If you can read that and still conclude that the article fails our notability criteria...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: The IEEE's page looks like a wiki that uses the same software as WP, but it does not appear to be a wikiclone. I can't find the article or author on WP.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, the subjects work and the award are mentioned in numerous Wikipedia articles and references. An article would be a useful addition as a target for wikilinking. SpinningSpark 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the Bio I linked can be used as an RS... it looks like a wiki to me. BUT if it is a wiki, I give it more credence than I do most as it is monitored more closely by the IEEE.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I think this one is sufficiently reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this one even more so. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if we needed another, here's his NYT obit. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original nominator, I'm now striking my original position. The article is no longer a "one line biography", as someone put it, and plenty of sources for his notability have been found. Good job, all. As there are no other Delete opinions, IMHO anyone who would like to snowball close this as Keep is welcome to do so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lodekka

[edit]
Lodekka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep No. Some evidence of notability, worth to keep. Highest Heights (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only argument for retention was based on passing mention in sources, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Reggae Band

[edit]
Unity Reggae Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I A7 CSDed this a while back, but was then persuaded that the local coverage was at least enough to be an assertion of notability, invalidating my A7. But even so, with only that one peg to hang notability on, I just do not see the group rising to the level of WP:MUSIC that is needed. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are misremembering the history. It has never been through a full deletion debate, and thus never closed "Keep". The history you are remembering was with me, and A7 Speedy Deletion. I A7 deleted it, you pointed the one local coverage article out to me on my talk page, and I reversed myself and restored the article. The point was that the one article was enough to invalidate my A7 deletion. but that was Speedy Deletion and this is a full AFD deletion debate. The key difference in this case is that the two have different thresholds of notability that must be passed. A7 Speedy Deletion just needs an assertion of notability to be invalidated. The local article gives that. AFD requires fully meeting WP:BAND. And it is my position that the one local article is not enough to meet that threshold.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to correct the history of the page, that it has not been through a previous full deletion debate, but only shown that it was not eligible for Speedy Deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And anything turning up in A news search. --Loodog (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chapman Family

[edit]
The Chapman Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted for copyright violation, the new version appears much better in that regard. But this time the only real claim to notability appears to be the NME references. These do not signal notability in my mind, but I'll toss this for AFD instead of A7 CSD in case I am missing something here. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Georgia relations

[edit]
Denmark–Georgia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination noting the external link put in by article creator refers to Georgia-France relations. Georgian foreign ministry notes no state visits by either leader, total trade less than USD12m, and only 1 bilateral memo of understanding (as opposed to real agreement) for cooperation for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which means they'll both implement Kyoto really. hardly any coverage, almost all is multilateral or about a place called Denmark in Georgia (U.S. state).[7] LibStar (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Denmark supports Georgia's entrance to NATO and the EU", most EU nations support other nations in the periphery joining, and they issue statements as such, it is not really a sign of actual bilateral relations, I once found a joint press statement where 2 nations in different 2 continents condemned terrorism...does that make bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and no clear decision on a target, so that is left as a separate editorial discussion outside AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution issues

[edit]
Evolution issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am completing this AFD nom for User:Nowimnthing, who added the {{subst:afd}} tag approximately half an hour ago, but hadn't yet followed up here. Nowimnthing wrote "almost the textbook example of POV forking" on the article talk page. (I'm still neutral, but will come back with an opinion on deleting once I've read more.) My opinion below. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at new title, should be the main article expanding on the material summarised at History_of_evolutionary_thought#Late_20th_century. This needs a rewrite focusing on the proposed hypotheses and the data that they explain. Presently it is a list of data (for some reason called "issues") and a list of hypotheses, with little connection made between the two. A very poor article, but one that does now deal with a clearly-defined and notable topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happy with Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this material is already touched on in the evolution article and also in history of evolutionary thought, this article would expand on those summaries, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. But if you think this material should be merged, which of these two articles would you merge it into? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your new intro, I kind of lean toward Modern evolutionary synthesis. It seems the critiques do revolve mostly around that. I will defer to your judgment since you are much more active on the evolution page than I am. If it does stay as an independent page I would like some kind of sentence stating that these critiques in no way call into question the fact of evolution just some of our understanding of exactly how it works.Nowimnthing (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are all questions about which mechanisms apply and which are most important, but I have to say that even the current version of the article does a very poor job of making this point clear. On the other hand, this is a notable topic, even if the current text fails to explain that topic to its readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a merge target Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Further_advances is the correct place, but this article will have to be trimmed dramatically to fit into the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. That could be good for it, however, since much of the current content is unreferenced and very poorly written. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a trim would do it a great deal of good.  :) I'll help with the merge if that's the eventual outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the title and direction added by Tim Vickers, I support keeping this article. The merge proposal by S Marshall (and the given reasons) is sound, but each related article is full of good information, and adding more would not be desirable. There are many people (such as myself) who are interested in the topic, but don't work in the field. Provided the article sticks to its current title (and doesn't wander into POV discussion like but what about irreducible complexity?) general discussion of current research trends would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a telephone switchboard page. Frankly, I do not regard this as "Current research ine volutionary biology", more like a dozen poorly-understood ideas thrown onto the screen and inadequately described. The present content ranges from OK-ish to incomplete, unclear, quite wrong, and POV. The very idea that Altruism, which has tested the best minds we have for half a century, can be adequately summarised in a paragraph, is quite ridiculous: and that's one of the best sections... As for merging out, it would not help the relatively well-written articles to have to deal with this lot. Better by far to use the article as a swithboard to direct newcomers to the dozen or so best WP overview articles on evolution (many mentioned above), plus articles on specific technical concepts. No substantive content: each section would simply tell readers what they can expect to find if they look up a particular article. The basic justification would be to make sure a keen student would not miss anything relevant. All articles listed on the telephone page would be of B standard or above, and of at least mid importance. That is doable; mending this page, if possible at all, would divert scarce expertise from other, more fruitful, activities. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY or merge per WP:BEFORE. I could find a cite or two. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on your comment a bit please, I find it difficult to understand. In particular, what merge target would you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I kind of lean toward Modern evolutionary synthesis" per Nowimnthing. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. changed my mind, Tim convinces me this may work with some heavy editing. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I understand the difficulty here. The question is: Does "modern synthesis" (AKA "neo-Darwinism") refer to a specific set of beliefs regarding the evolutionary process expressed in the 1942 book by the same name and typical of 1940s thinking on the subject? Does "modern synthesis" specifically exclude later concepts such as group selection and evolvability? OR does "modern synthesis" expand with new discoveries and really mean "current thinking" or similar, including at least to some extent group selection, evolvability, and gene-oriented thories. The latter view is what is conveyed by the evolution article. However, there are vocal scientific factions that currently believe in the former view (possibly including some of those reading this and possibly the authors of the modern synthesis article). That is why I suggested a separate article. As I understand it, the largest currently extant "issue" (please excuse the expression) has to do with the definition of fitness. Does fitness only refer to the ability of individual organisms to survive or reproduce or can it also include benefits to evolvability, groups, or genes? This in turn is driven by one's thinking regarding propagation of mutational changes. Post-1950 discoveries in genetics can be interpreted as dramatically complicating propagation. Some such (ref 45, 46) are mentioned in evolution. The material I submitted was intended to catalog in summary the observations that conflict with the individual fitness view and briefly describe the above-mentioned adjustments to 1950 thinking that have been developed in an effort to solve these problems. Igor233 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, if you wish to write about the unit of selection, there is already an article on that topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my college experience, Modern evolutionary synthesis is very much the current state of evolutionary research and a combination of a variety of different theories. It may of had its start in the 1940's but it has progressed far from that humble beginning. I think you would have a hard time making a case that the most common usage is the early view. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kash

[edit]
Kimberly Kash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No notability established. Hasn't won a championship in a notable promotion. No third party sources to help indicate notability. Nikki♥311 15:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:ATHLETE says that people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable. I did some sleuthing and found that Kash does meet this guideline; [8] contains an interview that the subject of the article has been in Elite Pro Wrestling, Adrenaline Rush Wrestling, NWA Indiana, Fight Sports Midwest, KOTC Charity Show - the NWA is the National Wrestling Alliance. According to the Wikipedia article on the NWA, The National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) is the largest governing body for a group of independent professional wrestling promotions and sanctions various NWA championships in the United States - it seems to me that this qualifies as a 'fully professional level'. So, yes, I would say that Kimberly Kash does satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE and I think this should be kept. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, professional wrestling is different from being a normal athlete, as the "professional" part isn't as clearly defined. Working in small time independent promotions does not make someone notable. Yes, the National Wrestling Alliance itself is notable, but not every promotion within it is. I would compare it to the restaurant chain McDonald's being notable, but not the individual restaurant that is down the street from my house. Or, you can consider small-time promotions equivalent to a "farm league" in baseball. I'd like to point out precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Madison. Madison, like Kash, only competed in a few small-time promotions and did not have any reliable third party sources when her article was deleted. It was continuously deleted as non-notable for months, even after she joined Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (the second most high profile wrestling promotion) and wrestled on television several times. Nikki♥311 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Hi Nikki, OK, so you're not objecting to me saying that WP:ATHLETE says 'people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable, but you're concerned over whether the NWA is the professional level of wrestling? JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear, so hopefully I can explain it a bit better. Kash competed in NWA Indiana, which is a minor promotion within the control of the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). The NWA itself just oversees the territories (from minor to a few bigger ones, see List of National Wrestling Alliance territories), but is not a promotion itself. Also, the NWA was a lot more notable in the past than it is in the present. Not every promotion within it is considered "notable". What I'm saying is that Kash hasn't worked in a "fully professional" capacity because she hasn't worked for any larger promotions or held any championships, within the NWA or elsewhere. She has, however, worked for Shimmer Women Athletes, but only in their Sparkle division. According to the official website [9], "SPARKLE is the pre-show at the live SHIMMER events. It serves as a method of trying out potential new female talent for future appearances on the SHIMMER DVD series without putting their matches on the main show, or releasing those matches on video in any form. Since the SPARKLE matches exist specifically to be dark matches, and to give opportunities to new talent before appearing on our DVDs, we do not release the SPARKLE matches on video." Therefore, I wouldn't consider that meeting the requirements for "fully professional" either. Nikki♥311 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no notability within the article nor in my search for enough information to justify the article. Will probably become notable one day. Once she is covered by more reliable sites and works for either ROH, TNA, or WWE. Though if she is very pretty I see WWE picking her up since they couldn't care less about anything else. Anyway, once then, she may be notable, but for now, I don't believe she is. Unless she is related to Kid Kash, and then....she will still not be notable.--WillC 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable womens wrestler. Afkatk (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XBT Client

[edit]
XBT Client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentVolve

[edit]
TorrentVolve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torium (software)

[edit]
Torium (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was deleted before concensus could be generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Tyler (talk • contribs) 29 May 2009

ZOMG!

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

No imporvements in notability since last afd. Still only appears in press releases. Last afd seems to have been closed without any valid reasons to keep. neon white talk 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 popular culture. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
In popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very silly XKCD fanwank. Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It may be possible, with all the varying opinions of Wikipedia, to find some sources that actually talk about the idea of "In popular culture". If that's the case though, then they are almost certainly editorials or opinion stuff. If the article is kept, the xkcd will go in the "In popular culture" section. XD Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, fails several criteria. Better a speedy close. Tone 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Korean War

[edit]
Third Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

War is not certain, good candidate for speedy delete as unsourced future conflict A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal-ball comment - I have no issue with creating an appropriate article such as Korea, DR, v Korea, Rep, war (2009), if war does come to pass. Should that happen, the new article would not lack for sources. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion, no proof, no sources. Delete. Intelligentsium (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article is about some novel or comics based on an imaginary plot.--Caspian blue 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right-- it reads like imaginary literature. "It happened after..." as if it's already occurred... Let's hope no news organization picks up this story before it's deleted! Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R.A. the Rugged Man

[edit]
R.A. the Rugged Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One-referenced BLP, tagged for notability since March. Has been edited by the subject, but no sources for various claims (mostly removed) have been provided, despite several requests, so COI issues as well. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, لennavecia 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No deletion argument referring to our policies or guidelines, and arguments that only seem to be extensions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin American Jews

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    List of Latin American Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    List of Argentine Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    List of Chilean Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    List of Brazilian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    List of Venezuelan Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Delete. These lists are nothing more than a dumping ground for red links (over half of the content), promotional material (Edit Comment: "remove promotional material,"), relatives (Edit comment: "Levi Marrero was my grandfather"), etc...

    "Clean up and keep" doesn't make sense here unless you want to tackle the cleaning up, as there's a reason its been stagnant for 3 years, averaging about 15 edits per year, most of them by one-time users who just want to add an obscure name. Nobody wants to tackle it because its impossible to tackle: more than half the names have few (if any) sources actually showing notability. Sourcing for Judaism is nearly more impossible because so many names can only be found on Spanish websites. For the sources that do exist, many are un-heard-of and few are strong.

    Some names that actually have been given articles were speedily deleted. "Removing backlinks to Alvaro Bayona Gomez that has been speedily deleted per (CSD A7);"

    For most of the blue links, the people are not truly of that country-ethnic-origin. For example "Geraldo Rivera" and "Joaquin Phoenix" are somehow Puerto-Rican Jewish Americans through a completely different method than you would expect. Their Caucasian relatives were Jewish.

    With similar categories, there's truly no point for these lists and they just stick out ugly..ly. Bulldog123 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment: I'm not sure why we have ANY of these lists. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of WIkipedia lists in general, but somehow labeling people for the purpose of placing them on a list just seems wrong. But that is more a personal opinion than anything else. --Susan118 talk 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Pointless lists that don't seem to be relevant to anything else. Checking out what links to this list, most of it is other "lists of Jews". Do any of these lists tie in with articles? If not, what is the point? --Susan118 talk 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep No valid reason provided for deletion of a list. This list of part of an entire structure of such lists, which provide info to WP readers. Lists are perfectly acceptable types of articles in WP. POV opinions about lists are not. Lists need improvement? Then work at improvement, not these deletions. Hmains (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then improve it. Be my guest. If you were to, which I know you won't, you'd see it's a virtual impossibility to properly source these lists. That's why no one has. What is the point of keeping useless, ugly material on wikipedia that just causes problems and will sit in limbo forever? Also, your argument is against the deletion of "all lists" - which is not what this AfD is about. We're talking about these specific lists. What does "lists are perfectly acceptable types of articles in WP" have anything to do with what I wrote in the nomination? Bulldog123 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: It should be mentioned that Hmains and I have been in numerous content disputes over ethnicity lists together. So, needless to say, his is not necessarily the most neutral of viewpoints. Bulldog123 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about POV and I've crossed out my comments that reflect POV. However, I still fail to see how any of these lists are useful. --Susan118 talk 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where to start.. "encyclopedic" - No, it's not. "sourced" - No, it's not. "constant proposal of deletion ... become increasingly disruptive." You want to just get rid of the AfD process then? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani This is relevant to bring up concerning Badagnani's radical view on ethnicity lists. Bulldog123 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The meaning, as usual is those in the group with articles in WP or obviously qualified, and where both the nationality and the Jewish identification is demonstrated in the article. If it is, the items are sourced. We could of course copy the references to that establishing them, though frankly it seems just a little silly, because that's what internal links are for. Bering a Jew in a particular Latin American country is very often culturally relevant, so the list is not a meaningless intersection. DGG (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you haven't addressed anything I listed as a reason for deletion, I assume that you plan on sourcing these lists properly for every entry. I'm looking forward to seeing you there if the lists are kept. Bulldog123 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew nomination with no user favouring deletion (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Far Out Recordings

    [edit]
    Far Out Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. Article is lacking any substantive content and is basically just a list of internal links. in violation of WP:NOTLINK. The only third-party source currently included makes a passing reference to the subject, but is not enough to establish verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. The references brought to our attention here do, in my opinion, surpass the requirements of WP:NOTE. The page does need some cleaning, but I intend to help with that myself. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As a follow up, I'd also like to note that notability is not inherited, so the fact that the label may have published notable artists does not necessarily make the label notable. Vicenarian (T · C) 16:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was to speedy keep. Article is well-referenced and should not have been nominated. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gospel hospital

    [edit]
    Gospel hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable company RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion indicates that there is a possibility of the book being notable, but the notability of th individual is not established. Given disagreement over the notability of the book, WP:PRESERVE cannot be applied by me for a move or merge result - this discussion therefore lends itself to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David Stack

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

    Delete: minor academic who meets none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. No WP:RS coverage forthcoming to date, and none adducible from a {{find}}. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless the article can be resued. As it stands it is completly inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Weak delete. He seems to be a successful academic, but the article presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF and it's not clear how to find such evidence if it exists. I tried searching for "social darwinism" in Google scholar to see whether his book ranked highly among scholarly publications on that subject, but it doesn't, and other searches also failed to turn up anything that could be used to show a pass of WP:PROF #1 (academic impact, usually the easiest to satisfy). He may have appeared in a documentary on atheism but his role in it is apparently sufficiently minor that he isn't mentioned in the seven paragraphs of our article on that documentary. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      (interposing Comment) Are you not overlooking criteria 6 of WP:PROF, since someone had to have appointed him or elected as the departmental director of Teaching and Learning at Reading University? --Firefly322 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only a single WP:RS review has been discovered to date -- insufficient to meet WP:BK. And it's not as though this article provides any substantive coverage of the book in any case (only its title and the title of the book it was in response to). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and help to improve (finding sources) to this meritorious figure. PTorg (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "Senior lecturer" is scarcely a major title in academia. The "reference" from "HighBeam,com" shows only that the book was reviewed by someone (quite unfavorably indeed), and nought else. As for the book being "scholarly" the review states " This is a politically engaged work (Stack uses, for example, "our predecessors" to refer to earlier generations of leftists)" which, to me, suggests that is it more a tract than a scholarly work. A minor left theorist, without any actual faculty position. Does not meet minimum notability at all. Collect (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Delete - persons below the rank of Associate professor rarely meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    em..er.. that's not a very good comprasion - the title itself doesn't mean much about the impact of someone's work and if they meet WP:PROF. In my first position after finishing my PhD, I was an SL and that's because it was old poly that has become a university and they can be pretty slack about such things. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. What does "Departmental Director of Teaching and Learning" mean? Is it akin to a department chair or program coordinator? Bearian (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Nature and artifice the life and thought of Thomas Hodgskin, currently in more than 750 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support your deletion nomination here Hrafn, but I think you should be careful not to make specious arguments. Synthesis and original research are not forbidden when we are attempting to determine notability. If it were, we'd have to find a source that specifically stated each subject was notable... an impossible standard. Gigs (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree that the argument is specious. The relationship between the criteria and the stated evidence is extremely tenuous (hence "highly suspect" synthesis). Allowing the substitution would allow all manner of WP:BIGNUMBER arguments. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A scholarly book would not be in this many major libraries (> 750 WorldCat-listed libraries) if it had not had a significant impact in its scholarly discipline. Also (addressing a previous comment), many scholarly books reflect one or more political views, which do not make them non-scholarly.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a book with "significant impact in its scholarly discipline" it seems to have remarkably few citations to it turn up on Google Scholar. I remain skeptical that WorldCat holdings are indicative of anything beyond the simple facts they state. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeleteWeak Delete I do not see the exceptional impact that is the spirit of WP:PROF being met here. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Again, doesn't his appearance in the show The Trouble with Atheism also give some additional weight to noteablity besides just the books he wrote? (See the links in earlier comments to view his appearance in documentary.)--Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      2nd Comment: Again, I've added material, somewhat better explaining the importance of his work. Could you please review the article again?. ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our standards for professors are superficially higher than general notability standards, because professors, even run of the mill ones, by nature of their profession, publish lots of work that gets archived in reliable sources or published as books. Nearly every professor is the "leading scholar" on some very specific and often obscure topic. When they are the leading scholar on a wide ranging or important topic, we generally always include them. I will amend my opinion to "weak delete". Gigs (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Academic of uncertain notability. A book published in the area that has been reviewed by peers does not establish notability since many academics publish books that are have little, if any impact. No honors or awards have been mentioned. Does not hold a named chair. Senior lecturer is not the highest post in academia. No evidence of significance in the field. No evidence of being highly cited is provided (and I could not find mention of the person in either Scopus or Web of Knowledge). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. also seems it may have been withdrawn but ran its course so might as well keep. Valley2city‽ 06:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Duncan (physicist)

    [edit]
    Robert Duncan (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    NN individual. Fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC) per fellowship. Passes WP:PROF. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment OK, he's been in Scientific American and on 60 Minutes. At the moment, I don't see that he's made the news for his contributions to science, but he apparently has a knack for explaining things to laymen. Not voting to keep, since the article doesn't indicate much. But I won't be surprised if he becomes more notable in the future. If he can't be proven notable at the end of the 7-day debate, consider bringing him back if he becomes a regular on news shows. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Last week the following people were on 60 minutes in just one story: Christoph Westphal, David Sinclair (biologist) (possibly written by the subject or someone close to them), Ricki Colman, Richard Weindruch. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite, as per WP:VAGUEWAVE, can you please explain why you want this article deleted? It's not enough just to link to WP:PROF without explaining why you want to undo someone else's work. Thanks. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I want this article deleted because it fails the guideline on the notability of academics. You know, because the guy dosen't have the cold fusioneers eagerly watching his biography, or, heaven forbid, he changes his mind on cold fusion, it's just another target for the greatest engine for personal defamation of all time. Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT: I find this deletion request a bad faith one. quite a few news stories mentioning this guy I think a speedy keep would be appropriate. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:PROF is not the only notability guideline to be considered, but also a general notability guideline.93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for assuming my bad faith. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome. Deeds speak more than words. Thank you too. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Results on Google scholar. Salih (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Web of Science does list 10 research articles and 13 proceedings papers. The highest-cited one is a Phys. Rev. Let. paper from 1997 (37 citations), but this output is not particularly prolific for physics. His UM website indicates he has a very responsible position, but I agree with Vicenarian that it is not sufficient by itself. The overall picture does not seem to add up to one of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep. Please be aware, there is ample recent reliable source on Duncan, due to his recent appearance on CBS Sixty Minutes. Please also understand that the nominator here and at least one !voter are heavily involved with an anti-Cold fusion agenda, and Duncan is now prominent as a physicist who was retained by CBS to investigate the topic, and came up with a reversal: originally skeptical, he is now convinced that the matter is worth investigating, and there is not only the CBS article and video as a source, there is also a prominent lecture that he gave to a major conference at the U of Minn, and other sources mentioning him, such as a press release from the American Physical Society. The YouTube copy of that video (link was just removed) was made when the U of Minn temporarily took down the video (I'm sure they received a firestorm of complaints) and there are people who don't like censorship....) But I've received email that it is back up, the original, I'll cite it later, here and in the article. --Abd (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009
    Missouri Energy Summit notice the prominence. There is a video there. The CBS special, which talks about Duncan, it doesn't just mention him, he's much of the focus, i.e., his journey. He organized a seminar today, it's going on right now, and the speakers include most of the major figures in Cold fusion. The Missouri Energy Summit put up a bio.[21]. I believe there is other source on Duncan, but I certainly know of him from the CBS special. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator bias is not relevant to whether or not we keep the article, but it is relevant, sometimes, to the credibility we assign to uninvestigated evidence. Consider me biased. Both I have been very active with Cold fusion recently. So are Hipocrite and Verbal. It is not some random accident that Hipocrite nominated this and that Verbal showed up to !vote. (I'm not alleging canvassing.) I created this article because there was another Robert Duncan, and I'm sure a lot of people were, because of the CBS special, googling his name, and they were getting the article of Robert C. Duncan (astrophysicist). (That was originally Robert Duncan (physicist),I think. Hence I believed that a stub was useful, and I didn't have time to make the article deeper with more sources. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it proves much, but this is a link to today's seminar. Duncan, whatever he was in the past, is now most notable for his "conversion" to Cold fusion. The APS was exercised to issue a press release that, contrary to the original CBS video, the society itself had not "recommended him." That was technically correct. CBS had asked a prominent member to recommend an "independent scientist," and Duncan was on a list provided. (A copy of the press release: [22]) I'd say that before this, he was marginally notable. With the CBS special, he's definitely notable; people will be looking for our article on him, and I was originally confused by the other Duncan, for some days I thought they were the same person, and that the astrophysicist had simply moved to Missouri. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. IMHO, the purported agenda(s) of the nominator and/or any !voter is completely irrelevant to the discussion of any article deletion. Deletion discussions and decisions should based only on the merits of the article and not the editors involved. Thank you. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. The article at present is an inadequate stub. Scholarly publication record seems very average. Position as administrator does not, of itself, confer notabilty but cold fusion connection could do so if the article is improved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep. His contribution to the field of "Low Temperature Physics" as seen from the number of publications (as key author) in Google scholar is sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as noted by Salih, he's made a significant contribution to the field of "Low Temperature Physics". In addition, while Vice Chancellor of Research isn't the highest post available, it is a major post; the "Gordon and Betty Moore Distinguished Scholar" position is not enough to establish notability in itself, but is a reasonable honour; and he is a fellow of the APS. Taken as an overall picture, he seems to meet WP:PROF well enough to justify inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the combination of a strong WP:PROF combined with the 60 Minutes piece creates a strong enough case to justify inclusion. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the evidence for the "strong WP:PROF". Verbal chat 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is point 3. fellow of major society, namely in this case American Physical Society. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recreation, not even with the same amount of content, userfied some time ago -> deleting this one. Tone 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikinfo

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

    Article has been removed trough AFD before around a year ago - Currently has no indication of notability, context et all. We still have an old version of it here. AFD to see if consensus on this article changed since the last removal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]





    Truely Neutral, Only nominating for establishing new concensus, no personal opinion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Hammer

    [edit]
    Alex Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article is essentially a vanity page for a minor political candidate with little possibility of making an impact. This is the second time this candidate has run for governor of Maine in 2006 his candidacy received no official votes and raised only $420.00. Highground79 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Bernie Sanders was also a quixotic political candidate once. A candidate that had no chance of winning. Then, he won. Maine has had a history of electing independents to office. While conceding that this is no Jesse Ventura, there is a populist anger sweeping the country, and if this guy is any kind of politician at all, he might be able to take advantage of it in a way that he wouldn't have been able to before. In 2005, this probably wouldn't be notable. However, it is 2009 and the world has changed. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In 2006 Alex's candidacy received only $420.00, due to the fact that his campaign was derailed by a major auto accident in which he was struck by a pickup truck while a pedestrian, which occurred in Nov. 2005 approximately one month after he announced his campaign, and landed him in the hospital for for 29 days (and almost a year on crutches). As a write-in candidate in 2006 his vote totals may not have been required to be submitted to the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.64.29 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2009

    Actually, I amended it, keeping some of the negative information but trying to put it into some context. If it is ok, I am trying to put out a basic starting Wikipedia entry with information that others may not typically have, which can then be modified etc. as the larger community wishes. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexforME (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bravium Computers

    [edit]
    Bravium Computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    moving from declined speedy deletion request. Non notable local computer store. No indication of notability. RadioFan (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bravium Computers is the only computer manufacturer in South Africa that exclusively develops desktops and servers powered by Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.96.68 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Are there better sources available to help demonstrate the notability of this company? Wikipedia is not an appropriate reference and the other one is self published. Also the rewrite now calls this company a manufacturer. Can you expand on that? I'm still not convinced that this is more than a small business selling preloaded linux systems and not notable as a result.--RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my comment below which essentially agrees with you. This is nothing more than a local tech business assembling and selling PCs. Zunaid 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Selling hardware with a free operating system does not qualify as notable. Article needs to provide sources on the company which treats the company as the primary topic and gives it in depth coverage. Being South African and a computer geek I can also comment that I have never heard of this company before (not that that is a deletion criterion). Note that the company is also less than a year old so is hardly likely to have established Wikipedia's required level of notability in that time. The article thus comes across as self-promotional. Zunaid 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put this into a bit more South African context, the company is a local PC vendor of which there are literally thousands in South Africa operating in shopping malls, main streets or business parks. They are not one of the major PC wholesalers such as Rectron or Sahara Computers, nor are they one of the big PC retail chain stores such as Incredible Connection. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they have achieved the required level of third party sourcing to meet WP:CORP in the one year they've been in existence, Google backs me up on this observation. This Google search brings up only the company's website, the Cape Linux User Group's wiki and listings on various retail and business directories. Zunaid 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Virtual On. redirection simply as a plausible search term Fritzpoll (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Virtuaroid

    [edit]
    Virtuaroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    Non-notable list of robots in a video game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diocles777 (talk • contribs) 2009/05/29 01:49:12

    Oppose The article won't stand under the current bylaws of wikipedia, But I don't think deletion is the appropriate course of action. I'd say move it to userspace, institute a redirect to Virtual On, then transwiki it or merge it with the list under the parent article. 75.39.15.195 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me. I forgot to log in. Tealwisp (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominik Hofbauer

    [edit]
    Dominik Hofbauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. The article was originally PRODded by myself with the rationale "fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-pro league." The PROD was removed by Varbas (talk · contribs) who claimed that "plays in the fully proffesional FA Premier League WP:Athlete." However, as the player in question has yet to make an appearance – simply signing for a team is not enough – he still fails WP:ATHLETE and the article should therefore be deleted. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was deleted snowball, no likelihood of a consensus to keep, moreover this is a CSD A7 speedy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Meghna Rajshekhar

    [edit]
    Meghna Rajshekhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    While it is amazing that this girl was fortunate enough to survive the Indian Ocean tsunami in the manner she did, I do not feel that this makes her notable enough for her own article on Wikipedia (although at the time, a Wikinews article might have been appropriate).

    My first thought was that the article should be merged into a bigger article about survivors of the tsunami, but it does not appear that one exists (nor do I personally think one should), so I think deletion is the most apropriate course of action.

    Note that the article contains no inbound links apart from one page in userspace that appears to simply be a list of articles edited by that user. Also note that although the article is in need of a rewrite (it looks to be written by someone whose first language is not English), this is not part of the reason for this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    India is country of one billion people. How many survival stories from India you find on internet or wikipedia?
    If the person who nominated this AFD is going by edit summary, 'creating article on Indian' then let me tell you that I was supposed to type 'creating article on Indian Ocean Tsunami survivor'. But somehow 'enter' key was accidentally hit. I seldom use computer. I post to wikipedia through mobile. If the article needs to write to meet wikipedia standards, I will improve this article.
    But if you want to delete this article, go ahead and delete it AbhiJeet (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the person who nominated this article, I'll clarify that edit summaries are completely irrelevant to the this nomination. I noted at the start that the style of writing was not a reason for the nomination - indeed if this article is kept I will do some copyediting and other basic improvement on it. Equally the availability of reliable sources for Meghna's survival is not the issue. The issue is that she is notable only for this one event - there has not been follow-up about her, as far as I can tell, in the years since the tsunami. In this respect she is no different to any one of millions of survivors from hundreds of thousands of disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, bombings, air crashes, mud slides, floods, ferry sinkings, etc, etc) worldwide over the last hundred years. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fisrt you nominated this aticle for deletion claiming that this girl 'Meghna Rajshekhar' do not deserve notability criteria. Now you are saying that 'reliable sources' is not the issue. On Wikipedia, we decide notability criteria from third party reliable sources.
    Follow-up? What follow-up you want of this survivor Alcides Moreno? And what follow-up media is taking of this survivor? This 13 year old girl was out there in sea clinging to door without food, water for two days, rescue helicopters didn't spot her 11 times, she was swarmed by snakes on the beach, entire print and electronic media in India covered her story and you are saying that she is "no different" from millions of survivors? Applying your logic, please explain how this Alcides Moreno deserve article. Because quoting you, "In this respect she is no different to any one of millions of survivors from hundreds of thousands of disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, bombings, air crashes, mud slides, floods, ferry sinkings, etc, etc) worldwide over the last hundred years.": Do you want me to dig Wikipedia and show articles on porn females created only because their names were mentioned few times on websites claiming those websites as reliable news paper sources?
    Why exactly you nominated this article for deletion? [1] Is it because of notability criteria? [2] Is it because article is not written in standard way? [3] Do you have some problems with Indians?
    Make up your mind. And if you are Administrator, go ahead and delete it. If admin want me to improve article, tell me. But don't waste my time.--AbhiJeet (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I nominated this article is solely because of your point 1, notability criteria. As I have said before, points 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the deletion nomination.
    Regarding Alcides Moreno, I was not aware of that article before now but it was itself nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno - which ended in no consensus. I would have voted delete on that article, as like this one, I don't think that simply surviving an accident or disaster does not make someone notable enough for a wikipedia article. I don't have time now, but I will be nominating Alides Moreno for deletion again later.
    As for porn actors and actresses, there are specific notability guidelines for them, see WP:PORNBIO. If there are any you feel do not meet the criteria, then please nominate them for deletion. The existence of one article that does not meet notability criteria, does not mean that others that do not meet the criteria should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Nja247 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Kingdom of Perpetual Muin

    [edit]
    The Kingdom of Perpetual Muin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Keep. It is clearly the first step in documenting the activities of a long term art project. The exhibition referred to is a first public showing and the project seems intended to continue for years. The entry does not disguise the fact that it is an art project but gives full detail of who and what is involved. I don't see why this should be different from any of the existing entries for an artist or a band on wikipedia.The project has it's own website and clearly exists and so should be documented. [francis mckee] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blimp77 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No real secondary sources. I feel it fails the Notability guidelines. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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—early closure by nominator. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gone Fishing (album)

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Gone Fishing (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Previous afd closed as no consensus due to sockpuppet taint. I quote from the prior nom: "Non-notable mixtape with no coverage of substance. Everything I could find amounts to "this band released a free mixtape, here's the tracklist, artwork and link". (OK, one Belgian entertainment blog/website wrote three paragraphs about it—still, insubstantial.) Fails WP:NALBUMS." TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moldova–Spain relations

    [edit]
    Moldova–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    another random combination. the article is largely uncited and contains trivial coverage. almost all Moldova-spain relations is in a Moldova-EU context. and very little coverage of actual bilateral relations [23]. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I count over 10 sources now used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Pure synthesis. Non-notable subject, lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The minimal bilateral trade and relations appear unimportant to these two countries. Drawn Some (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet the relationship is notable enough for the BBC to repost Moldavia news sources on their International News site on diplomacy, and there are multiple news sources on Spain's effort to mediate the Transnistrian conflict and on Spain's energy company that bought part of Moldova's energy distribution network. Remember the topic isn't only about diplomacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no there have been bilateral articles with minor agreements that have been deleted. If there is substantial third party coverage of these agreements then perhaps there is notability. One of the agreements is "Highway International Transport" I don't know how that works given that they don't share land borders and driving from Spain to Moldova...well that's a massive distance on roads of other countries.LibStar (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, such articles should be restored. But of course, you are using an argument under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which I think you previously said doesn't apply in these situations here). Of course, that's just an essay and not wikipedia policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    in that case I was referring to you stating Ethiopia Qatar relations for other stuff existing. If you believe articles should be restored then request deletion review. please explain to me how this highway international transport agreement would work? I've only seen it between countries with a land boundary or within the EU (as EU requires common motoring standards). LibStar (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s absolutely excellent recent improvements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    and lacking citations from reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what the ref tag is for, not AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I count over 10 sources now used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete actually the absence of reliable independent sources that discuss the topic is in fact a reason to take something to AfD.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - aside from being started by a banned activist and being dreadfully boring ("This guy met with this other guy. Then some other guy met a bunch of other guys. Then this guy..."), there really isn't anything substantive here. A few millions in trade, a couple of pieces of paper signed (and no, Cdogsimmons, WP:PSTS isn't thrown out the window here; we still require secondary sources to validate the importance of those documents), no embassies, and, conspicuously, no third-party sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul Talk 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to be unfamiliar with WP:GNG, which requires sources "independent of the subject"; Spanish-government sources cannot be used to validate the notability of activities of the Spanish government. Moreover, as the present article is a direct translation of p. 23 ff. of the linked PDF, it's also a copyvio, and thus liable to speedy deletion. Actually, thanks for giving me that idea - I'll tag forthwith. - Biruitorul Talk 05:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any depth, regardless of how much can be written about non-notable primary documents and raw data dumps. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There is nothing notable in these relations. Searching Moldova for "Spain" shows that Spain is one of seven countries where Moldovans have sought work. Searching Spain for "Moldova" shows nothing. There is no secondary source saying that the relations are notable. Fails Bilateral relations. Heroic efforts have attempted to rescue this article. However, I believe those efforts are fundamentally misguided because the result is simply a list of various non-notable events: In September 2000, two people met; in November, someone traveled to Moldova; in 2005 a Spanish ambassador visited Moldova, and more. In any other article, we would ask for a secondary source that indicates the events are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be aware that Wikipedia is not meant to be a source for information to write other Wikipedia articles. You should never be using a tertiary source for research to create another tertiary reference work. You are using a self referential argument. You argument appears to be, and correct me if I am wrong, "It doesn't already exist in Wikipedia in other article space, so it should not appear in Wikipedia in the future." It is the Johnuniq Self Referential Paradox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that you are confused over primary sources vs. secondary sources. When two countries sign a treaty and a government run news agency announces it, that is a secondary source. The primary source is the text of the treaty itself. And there is no ban against using the text of the treaty, just a caution to not engage in original research as you interpret it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have misunderstood my comment about the fact that "Moldova" does not appear in Spain. Let me explain: Spain is an excellent article and its contributors have covered everything they consider to be important. They clearly believe that matters relating to Moldova are not important to Spain. Of course that does not prove anything – and at any rate it's rather difficult to prove something is not important.
    Now we have some editors saying that the Moldova–Spain relations are sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If so, why not explain in Spain how important Moldova is? The answer is clear: there is nothing about Moldova that is worth saying in Spain. All the "keep" side have is a list of some non-notable facts (there is not an embassy; there is significant investment; a letter was sent; some people attended a NATO summit; various meetings occurred, one of which was about a conflict and was held in Spain; someone hopes something; there is an intention to open an embassy).
    Let's see what WP:SECONDARY actually says: "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."
    Articles should be about notable topics. Sometimes common sense applies (we don't wait for a secondary source to analyze a disaster before writing an article). In general, however, you need a secondary source (or a defined procedure like WP:BIO) to decide if something is notable. If there is anything notable about Moldova–Spain relations, can you suggest something that could be added to Spain? Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If this were another one of Groubani's spastic creations, I might feel differently, but this was started by an editor (User:Moldopodo) whose field of interest is topics involving the Republic of Moldova. The original reason for looking at notability was to see whether some of the Groubani stubs had potential for expansion, and we've gotten rid of a lot of stubs that had been mass-produced. I don't view notability as a judgment about whether an editor's nation of interest is big enough. Although I have a great deal of respect for Biru, I certainly don't agree with the suggestions of a copyvio or a speedy delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is a direct translation of a spanish government document. Who cares who created the article? The topic isn't covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. Just to note (not that anyone cares anymore) some canvassing going on here [24] [25][26] [27].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore -- you cared enough to share some of my talk page with everyone else. But there's a difference between "canvassing", and asking someone whether they can suggest improvements for a particular article. Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the message as sent was a request for "help" but one need only look at those sought after for help. Editors with some great interest in spain or moldova? Or a group of editors who vote "keep" more or less without fail on this class of afds? And what was your response to the request for sourcing help? To come and make a keep argument based on the article "not having been written by groubani." I wrote "not that anyone cares" because it appears the canvassing restrictions aren't enforeced anymore. I think they should be, but understand that's a minority position now.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "editors who vote "keep" more or less without fail on this class of afds"? You don't know me too well. Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People would ask you to help find references if you had a history of contributing to these articles, I only see you on the AFD pages, I don't see you contributing to the article space except to add a delete tag. You only contribute to the deletion effort, I haven't seen you adding sources to these articles. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonesense. I wrote Australia-East Timor relations which is an actually notable bilateral relationship supported as an encyclopedia article by multiple reliable sources independent of the two nations. I definitely don't vote to keep articles that are absent reliable, independent sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I apologize, you did participate in one, with your last entry before today on May 14, 2009. I count at least 10 delete votes in the two weeks since you added info to the Bali article. It is not one that I contributed to, so not on my watch list. The first page of your user contribution list is almost exclusively participating in AFD votes. I think any reasonable person would assume your are not a person to contact when requesting help in doing research, but would be a good person to contact for participation in an AFD debate. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask to be contacted and I don't want to be contacted. I noted the canvassing in the hopes that it would stop. Yes, the vast majority of these bilateral articles are non-notable in my opinion (an opinion supported by the paucity of reliable sources, as in this case). Again, my complaint about your canvassing is not that you failed to canvass me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandsford, I have two points to make. First, the article text is actually a direct translation of the linked Spanish government document. That says "copyvio" to me. Second, while Moldopodo was indeed interested in Moldova, this link may give you a hint as to the nature of that interest. - Biruitorul Talk 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of Moldopodo's indefinite block (kind of a Modopodo-no-go) and I appreciate that you brought it to my attention; as stated, I respect your concerns about a possible copyvio -- I hate plagiarism-- but the factors of attribution of the source, uncertainty about whether its copyrighted, and the use of a machine translation would offset that. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." I have requested help in research in article space, I have made no effort to direct people to discussions taking place in Wikipedia meta space. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines before referring to them, so you are more familiar with the concepts involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand you're playing the fool. So be it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please behave. There is no need to make personal attacks on me even if you do not like my contributions to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. When the sources are actually looked into they show very little relationship between the two countries. The mentions are incredibly brief, that may serve for purposes of verifiability, but not notability (multiple reliable sources talking about the subject matter in depth). The article at present is also quite deceptive in the manner it which it synthesises information from the sources. For instance, from the lead, there are 3 sources to back up the claim that Spain is a mediator in the Transnistrian dispute, but none of the sources actually say this. These trumped up claims of notability make the article unreliable. (I know this isn't totally relevant to the AfD discussion, but a cursory glance of the article without checking the sources may give an incorrect impression of the relations between the countries which are pretty insignificant). Quantpole (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I was asked earlier today if I could help source this, but I think it unnecessary, for I think it already adequately sourced to show notability. I find it strange that people do not realize that the establishment of relations between counties, are enough good sources already What is needed is an explanation that countries establish diplomatic relations for a purpose--its a Big Deal. If they do it, it implies that both of them thing that there are significant relations between them, enough to justify the trouble and expense. The formal relationship between these two countries is rather new, but that does not mean it is un-notable. The article goes on to discuss some of the actual matters that made the formal relations appropriate. The article would be justified by the economic relations alone, and they are fully explained in the article. If one country makes significant investments in another, there are significant relations between them. That's the very meaning of the words "significant" and :relations"! I admit i was not happy initially with the thought that most of these pairs could be justified this way, but so they can. The only actual argument is that it would mean a great many articles, but thats what we're here for. It's a positive, not a negative, indication. If we come to realize we can do 10 or 20 thousand articles we hadn't realized were significant, that's actually an excellent thing. I look forward to many more of them. The idea that we're running out of topics is disproven, unless there are people who think we ought to limit the number of topics. I'm reluctant to think there are, for I thought we all realized the implications of NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- there have been a number of articles about the bilateral relations about peripherally related nations. Those articles have been trivial, and there deletion was no loss. But this is a significant, and interesting, article. Also worth noting -- Moldova, and its neighbor Romania, are the only two countries in Eastern Europe where the major language is a Romance language. This is a significant tie to Spain. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    significant tie to Spain based on being in the same language class? do you actually have reliable sources for this? In Mozambique they also speak a romance language (portuguese), therefore it should have a relation to romania which speaks another romance language. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Come on, people! I know at least as well as anyone how crap a lot of these articles are, but, seriously, babies and bathwater! Having viewed the revision history, I'm not surprised, given the form it was in when it was nominated, that it was brought here but, in the light of RAN's brilliant work on the article, I believe this discussion is now redundant- that said, perhaps it needed to happen- no skin off the nose of LibStar. HJMitchell You rang? 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's too bad no multiple, independent, reliable sources actually discuss "Moldova–Spain relations", and that the "brilliant" work you mention consists of plucking random bits of out-of-context trivia (which would never attract our notice outside this series of nonsense articles) and dumping them in here, which can never actually substitute for in-depth coverage of a topic. - Biruitorul Talk 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I can't believe that this article has been nominated for deletion! I think the nominator will nominate Greece–Turkey relations for deletion soon! Anyway, the relations between Moldova and Spain are obviously notable. I searched it on Google and I found lots of sources. I'll add them to the article in my free time. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    comment on content not contributor. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to add content to the article, or fix grammar to be considered a contributor to the article. You added the AFD tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    can't help yourself, can you? LibStar (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Greece–Turkey relations article just mentioned, and Australia – East Timor relations mentioned earlier, are excellent examples showing what a real article looks like. Reading any comprehensive work about Greece shows plenty of mention of Turkey, and vice versa. Same with Australia and East Timor. By contrast, no one has found anything more than trivial mention of Moldova and Spain in the same work. All we have is a directory listing of random events related to the movements of politicians. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Nja247 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of university-educated footballers

    [edit]
    List of university-educated footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This turns out to be a list representing a very unusual cross-categorization which, in my opinion, fails WP:NOT#DIR. In addition, due to its own definition, it is hardly maintainable due to serious potential issues with WP:V and WP:RS. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of University-educated footballers for a more thorough discussion about its notability. Angelo (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Trivial intersection, education has no bearing on notability of a footballer. List is generally non verifiable as information regarding whether a player is higher educated is not readily available. List likely to become overly large if proper research is done into it - 90 000 plus articles on footballers, it is not unreasonable to assume that 10% of them are educated, particularly in parts of the world where they do not earn millions of dollars a year and they'll require a living after their football career. List will only ever be a partial information snippet of no reliable value. A list of this sort will not reliably tell me if <insert any random footballer here> has a degree.--ClubOranjeT 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Very much a trivial intersection. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Trivia GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Trivia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, pure trivia. GiantSnowman 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per nom. Also pretty funny, in that all U.S. "footballers" playing professional U.S. football attended some college. Any who went from high school to professional football would be quite unusual, and have considerable press coverage of the fact. Edison (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The most famous example is Otis Sistrunk ("from the University of Mars" was just a joke). Deor (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is likely to be an article on every subject somewhere, but that doesn't mean it is practical or even desired to have a list of every occurrence, it just becomes listcruft. Can you reliably verify which of these people have ed-quals? when you have done that, step up to these people, and keep going until you have done all those listed under these subcategories, because that is what it takes to make this reliable information - and if it can't be reliable information, it should not be included in an encyclopaedia. Having a university education is not in and of itself notable, and therefore it usually isn't noted. Where it is by exception add it to the players' articles--ClubOranjeT 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Venture Capital Investment Competition

    [edit]
    Venture Capital Investment Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Speedy deleted as a7 (no assertion of notability) - overturned after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 23 and now listed here as a largely procedural matter. Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Nja247 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    James deaker

    [edit]
    James deaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable. One google news hit and that is [probably] a PR release by the company. ("NEW YORK -- Rapt Inc., the industry-standard provider of advertising yield management solutions, today announced the formation of its Advisory Services practice."...) Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - according to WP:BIO, a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All I can see in a Google search of Deaker is a whole bunch of Facebook and Twitter profiles. Additionally, the part about being the son of a sports broadcaster does not establish notability - see this guideline - 'notability by association' appears not to establish notability at all! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Can anyone tell me what "reserved media monetization" means? The only ghit for it is this article. He does appear to be head of "Publisher Advisory Services" (whatever that is) at Microsoft, but they employ a lot of people and there will be many heads of departments of varying degrees of notability (or otherwise). He's probably doing a good enough job - Microsoft took him over with Rapt.com and kept him - but is that notable? Hardly. Peridon (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit made to address the concerns of Peridon on use of "reserved media monetization". Included additional external references. Tried to make it clear that the claim of notoriety is based on the reputation as an expert in digital yield management. Not on his relationship to the sports broadcaster. Given that the claim of notoriety is based on being an expert in a very tightly defined space, request an opinion from an expert in the digital media space on whether this meets the threshold for notoriety prior to a deletion decision Phiman NZ (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Much clearer. However... I'm still not convinced of notability. BTW, I think that Phiman NZ might have made an interesting Freudian slip here. We are looking for 'notability' rather than 'notoriety', although the latter may ensure the former. In the case of someone connected with banner ads, I wonder.... Peridon (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirected back to Les Misérables per WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Plot of Les Misérables

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Plot of Les Misérables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Comprises a overly detailed but well written, and well sourced plot summary and outline of Hugo's Les Miserables - and that's it. While a sufficiently detailed plot summary is useful in an article about a notable piece of literature, and is necessary to place literary criticism, impact, and any applicable controversy in context, not only does Plot of Les Misérables over-duplicate a very well written plot summary already in Les Miserables which serves the purposes stated above very well, it is also too overly detailed to be encyclopedic.

    Although very well written and sourced, this does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that any amount of reworking or addition of criticism will produce something encyclopedic that won't duplicate what is already in Les Misérables, or supplement it without being redundant, in fact, material from this summary has been used to improve the main article (see explanation below).

    This was deleted via AfD two years ago, and its deletion was upheld in a successive deletion review. Since it was determined that the material in the article could be used to improve Les Misérables, a history only restore was opted for. About a month ago with no prior discussion, a user reverted to the last revision prior to the redirect being put in place, his only explanation being that the original AfD discussion and deletion review were invalid and in his opinion, consensus was overridden. No improvements or work have taken place to address any of the original concerns since then. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Transwiki somewhere... Wikia Annex? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I intend to expand this with literary criticism. In any case, the original AFD actually had a majority in favour of keep. There is no valid reason for deletion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete One of the hazards of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that you can edit an article to write the perfect explanation for something, and moments later, someone else will edit your version. This applies whether you're explaining the plot to Les Miserables or to Police Academy 4. Since the article about Les Miserables contains a large description of the plot, I suspect that this page was created out of frustration with the editing process. Understandable, but Wikipedia is not Cliff Notes. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Nja247 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page has been sitting for 5 years untouched and orphaned. It doesn't assert why it is notable, and I can't find any references that support its notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete is the consensus. If someone wishes to wikitionary it fine, ping me and i'll provide the source Nja247 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uberveillance

    [edit]
    Uberveillance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable neologism. Not a word. The barrage of references are the result of a campaign to try to popularize the word and get it voted by some organization as their Word of the Year. None of this makes "Uberveillance" actually a word, or notable. Tempshill (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Nja247 08:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of tree species common to Cuba and Florida

    [edit]
    List of tree species common to Cuba and Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An arbitrary list of species common to two areas... seems to me to fail WP:NOTDIR. Vicenarian (T · C) 06:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete From what I gather, this was an attempt to find those trees that are in Category: Trees of Cuba and Category: Trees of Florida and then put them into a list. It's a bad idea, and I'm not sure what type of context this could be put in (unless there was a Juan Pepita de Manzano running around). Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you've added sourcing, but it's the topic that's the problem. A list of tree species common to place #1 and place #2 can have endless combinations (Cuba and Florida, Maui and Oahu, Great Britain and France, etc.). Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phytogeographically, Florida is extremely interesting as a transition zone between a temperate flora and a tropical flora. Since tropical floras are much richer than temperate floras, the places where they intersect are usually dominated by tropical elements. Florida is different; the tropical elements are relatively recent (mostly within the last 5000 years) and have had to colonise the peninsula across water. The major sources of colonists have been Cuba and the Bahamas. While the Bahamas are low-lying and relatively young (and thus, relatively species-poor, and relatively low in endemic species), Cuba is very old geologically/topographically complex, which means that it is species rich, with a lot of endemics. The issue of shared species between Cuba and Florida is phytogeographically interesting. It has been addressed in the literature, although often in the broader context of relationships between the Yucatan, the Caribbean (especially the Greater Antilles) and south Florida. It's also interesting to the wider public because of the cultural links between Cuba and Florida, and simply the general question of how the tropical elements got into south Florida. I think there's a pretty strong case to keep this article...it isn't simply a random list of shared species between two random areas, as Hip and Eddie Willers would suggest. It's an issue that's of interest both in terms of Caribbean phytogeography and in terms of the biogeography of south Florida, and it's certainly encyclopaedic. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, just rename the article "Caribbean phytogeography" and nobody will notice it, let alone nominate it. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. consensus clearly delete Nja247 07:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song)

    [edit]
    Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A completely unsourced and unverified fancruft. The creater is resorting to vandalism of the other articles of this singer by inserting this article continnuously. This should be deleted. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to The Fame (album). WP:BALL does apply, but it's still a (non-notable) song on the album. In retrospect, I should have explained more clearly to the creator why I did the redir in the first place, but it should be clear to them by now that their behaviour is not acceptable. decltype (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think a delete of the page followed by blocking of the page creation should be appropriate since inspite of the deletion tags the user is still continuing to resort to vandalism. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. You need to provide reliable sources for it. Or else it will be deleted. And a blatant attack on my talk page doesnot help things either. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TDTH here-Look i have contacts who have contacts in which my friend just called up interscope and red one verifying it's contents in which they claim it is a true single and most proberly the last since Gaga is already producing her new album in which is claim on a red one interview ok i have contacts if you don't believe me i will come to you personaly to explain ok it is true and i never lie.(that interview was true she was doing a competion on her tour in USA with was a interveiw in which i won ok) Soz about the blandishment but it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.74.142 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TDTH-Plz i beg you it is true im telling you plz don't get rid of it i lov Gaga don't delete her plz oh and i saw paparazzi its a hot video so far and poker face is 3rd for me 4th is just dance with her visachies 5th bdr and 2nd love game and good is eh eh but any way, plz don't deleate something of her(well it's not hers but it is her next single and a song she made on the fame). I lov Gaga and its one of her personal favorites ok i know the record companys and lady gaga I beg you plz don't get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.250.137 (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess we got a case of a fanatic. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TDTH-Whats fantic??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TDTH-Im not frantic and what will it take to keep it non-deleted and to post it on the fame and stuff becuase i told you the truth ok im dying to keep it and to enhance the fame and stuff ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TDTH-PLZPLZPLZPLZPLZPLZ[PLZPLZPLZPLZPLZ dont get rid of it for it is the next single even people i know have seen it i posted it on my myspace and over 367 peolple have seen it and started gettiong it ok it's not a hoex and not lies it TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. (I had to take it of beacuse of you you know ok just keep it and let me put it in the fame article and stuff ok thats all i ask i beg i will do anything im telling the truth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDTH (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I'll concede that in its present form it violates this "Crystal" policy. However, instead of proposing that it ever be deleted, did anyone ever consider simply deleting the parts that brought it into conflict with the policy in the first place. I wonder why people seem so eager to delete everything as soon as it is created. That kind of response could have a chilling effect on people even submitting articles. I do feel that this topic is notable because Lady Gaga is a very prominent entertainer right now, and, this does seem to be a song on her album. So, clean up the parts of the article that violate "Crystal" and leave it up. It is a notable topic and deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was tried. Also, according to WP:MUSIC, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I do not know the subject matter very well, but since the nom (who has worked on several Lady GaGa-related articles) endorses the deletion, I would assume that the song is relatively insignificant. decltype (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Sorry but there is not at all anything that will allow to keep this article. I personally edit the Gaga related articles and people there know my work. Hence I myself state that this needs to be deleted asap, a deep case of a fanatic devicing imageries to support statements. If this indeed would have been a single, then why no media representation? And is it not clear from the creater's rantings that how much a case of fanaticism this is? --Legolas (talk2me) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. overall consensus seems to be a spam or promotional article with little or nothing to merge or reason to redirect Nja247 07:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawnay Day AV Analytics Private Limited

    [edit]
    Dawnay Day AV Analytics Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No indication of notability for this company. Article borders on advert; created by SPA. Searching for potential sources turns up only press releases. Jfire (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy deleted G12 as copyvio, no prejudice against re-creation. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Valplast Flexible Partial Dentures

    [edit]
    Valplast Flexible Partial Dentures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Blatant product placement, fails notability. Listing to see if people think stuff can be salvage from this. Would personally send to speedy. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete, advert. Tempshill (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - With a re-write to make it less promotional as there is some interesting bits about how the dental appliances are made etc. Or perhaps someone knows somewhere the relevant bits can be merged into. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyvio (non-admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seven Editions of the Divine Law

    [edit]
    Seven Editions of the Divine Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This purports to be a Christian theological concept, but I can find absolutely no coverage of it in reliable sources. It appears to be complete original research on the part of the author. Robofish (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiddlers' Bid

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Fiddlers' Bid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Does not pass WP:MUSIC, awards mention are not major ones, album releases are not on major labels. RadioFan (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Screw the guidelines then, keep, IAR riffic (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not convinced those are major labels. Riffic and flaming seem to be familiar with this band and those labels, can you explain more on why you feel they are major? --RadioFan (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't major labels, there are only four major labels. oh notable. yes it probably is notable, see discussion over at the other afd riffic (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So... The outcome of this AFD depends on the outcome of this one. [flaminglawyer] 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say not, notability isn't subjective riffic (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the result does not depend on that outcome. wp:music does not talk about notable labels, it talks about "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Two different things. Labels can be notable without releasing a single thing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, got it. So (if I'm reading this right) this label does satisfy the criteria listed there, meaning that the band is a keeper. [flaminglawyer] 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. The label's article does list a lot of artists but some are of questionable notability, others there is no evidence they are or were on the labels roster. More checking would be needed to be sure. I think I have now enough sources to make it not matter here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    allmusic link (includes two album reviews). Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy Sindane

    [edit]
    Happy Sindane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable per WP:BLP1E. لennavecia 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The frederic algorithm

    [edit]
    The frederic algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    very recently created by a student, no sources, no suggestion of any applications outside of the students program or any recognition outside of the program. Beach drifter (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans Ongelungel

    [edit]
    Hans Ongelungel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced BLP, fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. لennavecia 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Truth or Dare (film)

    [edit]
    Truth or Dare (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Limbo (2009 film)

    [edit]
    Limbo (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Only One Will Survive

    [edit]
    Only One Will Survive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cook-Off (film)

    [edit]
    Cook-Off (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable film. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    San Remo Summer Course

    [edit]
    San Remo Summer Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Spam for a non-notable two-week class. No independent sources provided. Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hannah Lay

    [edit]
    Hannah Lay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable BLP. Has only held minor roles. لennavecia 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) as A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Non-admin AfD closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreamtrybe

    [edit]
    Dreamtrybe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No 3rd party sources providing evidence of WP:MUSIC notability criteria; article barely asserts notability. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernestown Courses

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

    No brainer really, this list info isn't even notable enough for schools pages, WP:WPSCH/AG. ForgottenManC (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The issues have been addressed, deletion does not seem an option here. Tone 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas v. City of Jeannette

    [edit]
    Douglas v. City of Jeannette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a rambling personal essay presumably presenting the background for a court case which isn't discussed. It's just a story about Jehovah's Witnesses passing out brochures. There is no assertion of importance or significance. Wikipedia is not a legal textbook or a directory of court cases. Only one reference is given. Drawn Some (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • NOTE: Amending to request Speedy deletion as copyright violation per author's admission of the source and the copyright notice at that source: "Copyright © 2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved." at bottom of page where author below admits to taking material. Drawn Some (talk)
    You may wish to consider this. Just because a company slaps a copyright notice on a web page doesn't mean that they own the rights to everything on the page. Some of it may be public domain and putting up a copyright notice doesn't change that fact. --Richard (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Apparent copyright-infringing material has been eliminated and there is now assertion of importance or significance in the article. I am willing to have this case closed but I am concerned about the hundreds or thousands of legal cases collecting here half-finished, bloated with rambling copy & pasted copyrighted text, lacking explanation of importance, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've actually seen these hundreds or thousands of articles or are you just casting aspersions because you've seen one and are now assuming that hundreds or thousands more exist? This is really a disguised insult but I will refuse to take offense and assume that you meant it in the best of faith. Since you're concerned about the multitudes of poor articles on SCOTUS cases, perhaps you would care to review the cases listed in United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. This comment is only half snarky. I attempted to create articles for each of the cases listed in that article. Some of the articles are better than others. Some are quite stubby and in need of expansion. Not all of the articles were created by me so some of them may even be quite good. I'll let you try to figure out which are the god-awful ones that I created and which are the high-quality ones that were created by others. If you have the interest, feel free to critique these articles and suggest areas for improvement. After that, there is a longer list in List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment. Most of those were not created by me (except perhaps some of the JW-related ones). And then, when you get done with those, you might consider looking at Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. That'll keep you busy for a while. However, you will at least have a chance to assuage your concerns about the "hundreds or thousands of legal cases collecting here half-finished, bloated with rambling copy & pasted copyrighted text, lacking explanation of importance, etc." Hey, if you look hard enough, you might even find some that are not notable. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff, join WP:SCOTUS. We're looking for a few good men (and women). --Richard (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep an incomplete article on a US supreme court case. such cases always have hundreds of references. A place for a nice quick speedy non-admin close. DGG (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Only one reference is given but it is a reference to the actual Supreme Court decision. That ought to be plenty. This is an incomplete article but that argues for completing the article, not for deleting it. All U.S. Supreme Court cases are inherently notable. If the Supremes chose to accept a case, it means that it had sufficient merit to warrant their consideration. (They decline to hear many, many cases each year.) The only part of the article that has been "written" so far is the "Facts of the Case" section and, although it may seem like a "rambling personal essay", it is actually a verbatim copy from the actual decision of the Supreme Court. Because the decision is effectively a publication of the U.S. government, the text should be in the public domain and so no copyright violation should exist. I do admit that the verbatim copying of the text from the decision does not yield the ideal prose for an encyclopedia article. However, that is an argument for rewriting the text, not for deleting the article. (NB: I'm an admin but I won't speedy close this AFD because I'm the creator of the article and closing the AFD could be construed as a conflict of interest.) --Richard (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you assert that ALL Supreme Court cases are inherently notable and should be included in Wikipedia or only United States Supreme Court cases? This article makes no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. I probably went too far out on that limb. I'm sure we can find some cases that aren't really worth much of an article. However, if you let me off the hook on that somewhat rash assertion, I would point out that this is one of the Supreme Court cases having to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses and I definitely assert that every one of those cases is notable (see United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses) because of the impact that the cases as a group have had on First Amendment constitutional law. (really... read the article). This particular case that you have nominated for deletion is one of four cases known in constitutional law as the "Jehovah's Witnesses cases" because the Supreme Court ruled on four JW-related cases on the same day (May 3, 1943) This day is important because the rulings on these four cases mark an important reversal on the part of the Supreme Court where they went from saying that the need for patriotic national unity trumped First Amendment rights to asserting the opposite. --Richard (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Harper's Island characters#Christopher "Sully" Sullivan. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher "Sully" Sullivan

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Christopher "Sully" Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Non-notable minor fictional character. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 before AFD nomination could finish. Non-admin closure.FingersOnRoids 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgotten hope

    [edit]
    Forgotten hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Add on for computer game - I can't see any particular notability Passportguy (talk)

    Response- This mod is in the top 3 for battlefield 3 and features more content then bf2 itself. There are almost 100 servers running this mod. This mod is a comperitor with another mod that does have its own page. (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Reality)

    01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    Comment The articles shows no sources for the notability of the add-on. Also : The text is a copyright infringement and hs been tagged as such. Passportguy (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Transwiki with soft redirect. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaungoikoa

    [edit]
    Jaungoikoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is totally ethymological, so it would me better fit into wictionary. As far as I can see, it does not bring enough encyclopedic information to foster an entry Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can't see an encyclopedic article being made out of of this. It's not an English word, so en.wiktionary doesn't have a place for this. The word is listed as an unverified translation on their page for God. Hmm, that said there is a very brief entry for Dieu.[46] Let Wiktionary work out what to do with it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft redirect to wiktionary. Outright deletion's inappropriate because someone who doesn't know the word might very well look it up on Wikipedia; plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Awake (Skillet album)

    [edit]
    Awake (Skillet album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:CRYSTAL, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is not a reason to delete all articles about upcoming events or product releases; it is a warning to avoid speculation. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." The last album of the band was Grammy-nominated, the producer is Howard Benson, and once it is released the album will definitely have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, Explicit, did either you look for sources? (see WP:BEFORE). This article verifies that they are releasing an album in August 2009, but doesn't give the name:[47]. These articles confirm the name and that it is finished recording, and give some info about the recording process:[48][49][50][51][52]. Seven sources is enough to verify this release, due in a mere 3 months. Fences and windows (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material. Still, I have struck my comment above. — Σxplicit 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I too wish that editors creating articles would provide some sources. It'd save us all a lot of trouble. Fences and windows (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rawtenstall#Transport. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rawtenstall bus station

    [edit]
    Rawtenstall bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can't find a single real RS for this piece of nn buscruft. Even the picture makes lack of notability startlingly apparent. Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find 4 sources. 3 mention crimes that occurred there, the 4th just implies the station has a terrible reputation. All are casual mentions of the station (although they convinced me to avoid the place). Delete based on this evidence, not enough sources for a proper article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Despite all the naysayers, I found plenty of non-trivial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources and added them to the article. Please consider the merits of the arguments and not just the !votes when closing the case. Clearly notable. Drawn Some (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 05:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obamaball

    [edit]
    Obamaball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Self-invented game, non-notable Passportguy (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SNOW, please. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please carry on improving the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of art cars

    [edit]
    List of art cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is unreferenced and there is no identification that these "art cars" are "well known". There is no clear way to determine what goes or does not go into the list. The lead does not identify the criteria for determination. Most affirmations of notability include fark.com and slashdot, which are not reliable sources. There is nothing in this article that could not be better dealt with at the main article of Art Car.  Logical Premise Ergo? 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete.Neutral It seems to just be a list of art cars that the article creator knows of. Any particularly well-known examples could be mentioned in Art car, but I don't see the purpose in listing them all, especially as most of the sources seem self-published. Fences and windows (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually the article creator did give these thoughts on the talk page: "Most of the cars in the original list were featured at Petersen's Automotive Museum. Inclusion criteria should in my opinion be fairly high: been on exhibit in a notable gallery, show or museum, are well-known like Batman and Wienermobile, are by famous artists or designers... not someone who has hot rod flames on their GTO or the like but seriously notable vehicles." So there is some attempt at rigorous inclusion criteria. The sourcing is terrible, but could be improved, so that's not an argument for deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep if the articles is improved and some sources added GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I changed the lead to read: "This is a list of art cars which have been exhibited in a notable gallery or museums, or become well known by their appearance in the media." That'll clear up any confusion as to why everything on the list is notable. Dream Focus 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The list compliments the main article and the lead now explains what is the criteria for inclusion. --Jmundo 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Nja247 07:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Plastec Ltd

    [edit]
    Plastec Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable plastic pipe company. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom and comments support delete Nja247 07:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Svetlana Stepankovskaya

    [edit]
    Svetlana Stepankovskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Person whose claim to fame is to have been "Miss Krasnodar". Lost another pageant and is a contestant in third contest. But as she hasn't won a major prize, I'd say she does not pass the notability threshhold. Passportguy (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I think. I'm not sure how to gauge the notability for pageant girls, but if it's similar to athletes, competing in the Miss Russia pageant is probably worth something, especially coming in second. Representing Russia in a world pageant is surely notable (Olympics of pageantry), of course it isn't until December. لennavecia 04:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the problem with the Olympics comparision is that there are a large number of competing "world" pagentries, so the level of lnotability is not comparable to that of being an olympian. Passportguy (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Given this more consideration and considered Passportguy's point, she's marginally notable at best, but without a guideline on what determines notability for pageant girls, I'm going to have to lean to delete. Considering also that such competitions, or participation in them, rarely leads to significant coverage in reliable sources, there is no article to write here. لennavecia 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Moving Jelly Brothers

    [edit]
    The Moving Jelly Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Band that appears to fail WP:MUSIC. There are some very tenuous links to White Town, but notability is not inherited. sparkl!sm hey! 08:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I cannot find any references supporting notability for this band. It may be due to the era in which they were active (pre-internet), but Google books also show no results either. Based on the text in the article, the band appears to have made it as far as up-and-coming before flaming out, so the assertion of notability itself is rather weak. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Nja247 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtroom View Network

    [edit]
    Courtroom View Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    May be ad or not meet the notability rule. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of football players from small colleges

    [edit]
    List of football players from small colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Subjective page that seems to be used for bookkeeping purposes only. Violates WP:OR because the definition of "small" college is subjective. Perhaps move the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related page:

    List of basketball players from small colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete both, as no defining criterion exists for "small" college. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. There are criteria: players from colleges where the college doesn't have its own Wikipedia category for players. Of course, a category should probably just be made. I've seen categories with as few as three players listed, while some of the schools in this list have more than that. (No one would ever accuse SUNY Albany of being a football powerhouse.) —Wrathchild (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The definition problem could easily be fixed by limiting it to schools whose football programs are NCAA Divisions II and III, and those that are NAIA. Not voting a keep, however, since there are other problems on setting limits. I suppose that the intent is to list blue-linked players who played football for a "small" college, but that would still be a large number. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Region of Shaba

    [edit]
    Region of Shaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Lack of coherent material, context, unreferenced Frozenguild (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elliott_james_windsor&action=edit&redlink=1
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_29&oldid=1142643749"