Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 31
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Negative DYK hooks and the BLP policy
- 2024 RfA review, phase II
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eduard Zalle[edit]
- Eduard Zalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Unnotable Romanian poet, fails WP:BIO. I cannot find any sources to prove the subject's notability. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – B.hotep •talk• 09:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bubbles borton[edit]
- Bubbles borton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject does not appear to be notable and there are no refs proving so. It also needs cleanup and is biased. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Clearcut case, in my view. Jusdafax 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G3 Okay, this is just silly. I did the old google search just to make sure that there wasn't a "Bubbles Borton" out there, and got the article as the only hit. This is a pretty detailed fantasy with eight #1 hits and a New Year's Eve concert at Times Square, and (I admit I liked this) a chart-topper called "I Love Pancakes". Not bad for a hoax. Mandsford 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per G3. He released his first single before he was a year old? Come on. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. Like Mansford hinted at, there are a whopping three Google hits: two Wikipedia (one of which leads to the speedily deleted Bubbles Borton films) and one mirror. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G3 WP:SNOW it could even be a CSD G10. --Triwbe (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gerard Deulofeu[edit]
- Gerard Deulofeu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a footballer who has never played professionally and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. All coverage of this person is fairly routine journalism and therefore fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not yet notable. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 14 yr old wonderkid like a million others who is the passing subject of tabloid sports journalism in some circles. Not yet done anything notable. Like many such, he may make it...but he may not. Recreate if and when, but delete until such time as he does something that will separate him from the multitudes of "didn't quite make it" kids. If I read the documentation correctly, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. --ClubOranjeT 09:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Andaman Islands earthquake[edit]
- 2009 Andaman Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, no deaths or causalities, just another routine news report. —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Earthquakes are geophysical events, so I do not see what not news has to do with it one way or another; their importance does not depend on newspapers in most cases. This had a magnitude of 7.5, which is fully acceptable as significant. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A 7.5 quake 17km down would be considered major under the proposed guidelines, but even in the absence of those, this event went beyond WP:NEWS and still gets regular mention in India [1]. Although I support articles arranged by region as an alternative to giving articles for most events, there weren't many earthquakes as strong as this one in 2009. The 7.0-7.9 range quake happens less than 20 times a year, and many of those are deep focus quakes that don't qualify under the proposal. Mandsford 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Earthquakes above 7.0 are automatically "worthy," in my estimation. Scholarly presentation, written to style. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe DeGuardia[edit]
- Joe DeGuardia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 29th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability as a boxer (New York City Golden Gloves is not enough) or lawyer. Article is a mess that needs sources. Astudent0 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Astudent0. His most notable activities seem to be as a boxing promoter, but I couldn't find independent sources that showed he passes WP:GNG for that, either. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Waterloo Road characters. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Stevenson[edit]
- Josh Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The first deletion discussion for this article was a massive group AfD which ended in no consensus because there were so many different articles being discussed, even though all editors participating in the discussion voted either "delete" or "merge". As the previous discussion made it clear that each of these articles should be considered individually, I am only introducing one article into this discussion. This Waterloo Road character certainly fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge, preserving content. there are no established guidelines for notability of fictional characters. Every sentence on every version of the relevant pages has been continuously debated for the last three years with no resolution. The nearest thing to being accepted in the compromise idea that there should be a merge in most cases, but it has never been fully accepted by those on either side of the issue. I still think it's a good idea almost always, & the only possible way of achieving a solution. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a list of characters article, per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and spin out later if there are good sources Arskwad (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the exception of moreno oso, all of the keeps are from accounts which have no edits other than to the article or this page. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage from reliable sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OCUK - Outrigger Canoe Club UK[edit]
- OCUK - Outrigger Canoe Club UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no independent sources cited at all. I have failed to find evidence of notability elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As per WP:CLUB this organization is the subject of citations and according to the WP:CLUB's first criteria which is directly quoted, "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". ----moreno oso (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)S[reply]
- According to the same standard (WP:CLUB), it is required that: "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.". This is not evident. CosmicJake (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. It has been the subject, actual title of articles on other websites to include a dot gov UK site. In addition, the cached Google Search URL states that the club raised 10,000 pounds which is about $25,000 back in 2002 and the "largest club in the UK". By that very criteria, notability is met. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it can be verified that the scope of OCUK is national in scale. Since the scuttlebug.org website doesn't seem to exist any more, I would need a pretty good reason why this can be considered a reliable source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The scope of the club is irrelevant in this case as there is no coverage in reliable sources. All I see are directory entries. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - The Club's relevance is noted internationally in footnote 8, International Va'a Federation. I don't see scuttlebug.org but ocuk.org exists . -- User:tayles9587 (User talk:Tayles9587) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC). — Tayles9587 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- KEEP - OCUK is noted on the Great River Race website, International Va'a Federation and Paddle around the pier amongst others. ocuk.org is the most relevant website displaying the club's achievements and intentions.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennylw81 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) — Jennylw81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Sources cited do not amount to significant coverage. They verify that the club exists, but they do not verify that the club has any notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that a canvass has been made with new editors coming to this AfD and the article. It has a COI issue which may be the reason for the canvass. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment - I am not sure who the anonymous IP is that just editted the article BUT, it found a reliable site mentioning OCUK participated in an international tournament with their times/placement. WP:CLUB's two criteria are now met (quoted specifically):[reply]
- 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
- 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the #Primary criteria, above.)
My Keep is re-affirmed. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see thisDIFF. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The scope of their activity is not international in scope just because they competed in a single race in New York. But setting that aside, the second criterion doesn't just speak to verifiability, but significance of coverage as referenced by the qualifier "#Primary criteria, above". I have yet to see any significant coverage. Race results aren't significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That was just one example. They also bought their canoes from another nation. Significance for clubs is always marginalized unless the Mickey Club, said in all good faith, is considered. Mega clubs will receive mega coverage. Marginalized/new/small clubs - smaller coverage. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete directory listings and result pages are not significant coverage., The article is a long way from establishing notability. Nuttah (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps merge into Chiswick#Sports.--PinkBull 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Delete does not meet WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Junior Classical League state chapters#Ohio. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohio Junior Classical League[edit]
- Ohio Junior Classical League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:CLUB and the debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Junior Classical League and related pages, state chapters of a national organization are non-notable. While this article is somewhat long and previous versions longer, having significant non-notable, unencyclopedic fluff, coverage is only local in scope and entirely self-sourced. The limited encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. The only independent sourcing to this is a congratulatory notice in the Congressional Record. Reywas92Talk 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The national organization is notable and is well represented by the article National Junior Classical League. All the other articles about local chapters have been deleted, and this one should be also. This is not just my opinion; this is policy. Quoting from WP:GROUP, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization."
- BTW, responding to a comment someone made in another discussion just before it was closed: It doesn't matter if the articles about the chapters are stubs or if they are fully fleshed out articles. With rare exceptions, individual chapters of a national organization are simply not notable, per Wikipedia policy. I can tell there has been a lot of work put in here by members of the NCJL, who even created their own wikiproject; it's too bad they didn't read WP:CLUB before launching that project. I suggest that the information they have been putting here would better belong somewhere like Facebook - rather than in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete individual chapters of this sort are almost never notable, and there's nothing here to indicate otherwise. I admire the devoted work of the contributors, but there a millions of uncovered notable topics. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to National Junior Classical League state chapters#Ohio. I would like to keep this article, but I don't have an argument for it so I'm compromising to redirect to OJCL's section on the state chapters list. Oxguy3[dubious – discuss] 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misti Dawn[edit]
- Misti Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG/PORNBIO - No reliable sources to establish notability. EuroPride (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Playdough (hip hop group)[edit]
- Playdough (hip hop group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find coverage, fails WP:MUSIC - borderline WP:CSD#A7 Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider Uprok Records "one of the more important indie labels"? I worry that if Playdough fails notability, it would logically cause a cascade effect that affects Uprok Records and its artists, many of which have pages. I am not saying I am against that, I am just raising the question of notability in a larger scope than the article you are proposing for deletion. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not commenting on Uprok Records - The reason for the AfD was that the article makes no real claim to the notability of Playdough and a online search fails to turn up anything significant. The fact it was Uprok Records and not, for example, EMI is of no issue. Codf1977 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC says that if an artist has released two records for "important indie labels" then the artist may be notable. This artist has released two records. One for Uprok Records and one for 7Spin Music (previously I missed this and assumed Uprok for both albums). Both of these labels have articles suggesting they are notable and therefore "important" labels. It would therefore follow that Playdough is notable. I am not particularly found of this conclusion but it follows from the notability guidelines. The alternative, that Playdough is not notable, suggests that at least one of these two labels is not notable, and therefore more deletions should follow. Of course, these are guidelines and exceptions can be made but in this case, it seems more likely that other articles should be deleted too. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not commenting on Uprok Records - The reason for the AfD was that the article makes no real claim to the notability of Playdough and a online search fails to turn up anything significant. The fact it was Uprok Records and not, for example, EMI is of no issue. Codf1977 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider Uprok Records "one of the more important indie labels"? I worry that if Playdough fails notability, it would logically cause a cascade effect that affects Uprok Records and its artists, many of which have pages. I am not saying I am against that, I am just raising the question of notability in a larger scope than the article you are proposing for deletion. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a label being notable does not make it an "important" label for wp:music (read it again). lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 n-dimensional space. Tim Song (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nine-dimensional space[edit]
- Nine-dimensional space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page is following the same template as seven-dimensional space and eight-dimensional space, but unlike those pages does not contain any special-case applications. It would serve better as a redirect to n-dimensional space. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete These were created at the same time as copies of Six-dimensional space at the end of last year, I assume with hope they'd be expanded with relevant applications, but it seems there are none in nine dimensions: the polytopes are covered at 9-polytope and there's nothing else here of worth, and the series of articles should stop at eight. If in future an editor finds something of interest that would make a worthwhile article it could be recreated, again from one of the lower dimensions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - significant coverage here - [2] (snippets only) and there's another paper concerning 9-dimensional space at [3]. Also, a few applications exist - conductivity theory: [4],dynamics [5] and also in string theory - [6] and [7]. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines for mathematical constructions and so forth are, but it seems to have applications, if that's an indicator of notability. Claritas § 09:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A detailed analysis of each reference:
- Difficult to tell, because "9-dimensional" only occurs a few times, but probably a result which wouldn't be suitable for the article if it did exist.
- Not clear, as only the first page of the paper is available, but doesn't seem to be suitable for inclusion even if there were an article. It has to do with 3-vectors over C9, and 9-dimensional space only relates to R9.
- Appears to be about a specific quantum-mechanical system which has 16 states, which can possibly be reduced to 9 by symmetry considerations. It also seems to be a complex 9-dimensional space.
- Nothing there at all. It's 4n+9-dimensional space.
- There might be something in string theory. I seem to recall that most string theory lives in 10- and 11- dimensional space, so this might refer to a 9-dimensional manifold in 11-space. However, this paper refers to an artificial 9-dimensional space consisting of the tensor product of 2 3-dimensional spaces.
- Definitely a specific 9-variable problem, not a general question about 9-dimensional space.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A detailed analysis of each reference:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If something comes up, it could be recreated, but there's nothing there now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possible Transwiki to commons, currently nothing more than an image gallery and there is no suggestion that this special case is particularly notable. Paul Carpenter (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unless and until something emerges that gives the case n=9 in "n-dimensional space" any special significance, this article will remain totally ridiculous. No notability whatsoever. As the discussion above shows, the search for "9-dimensional" has only brought up incidental mentions, so actually confirmed this. Hans Adler 06:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article came about as the result of a campaign by a single editor of "copy, paste, and add one". See this thread. Ultimately, User:Arthur Rubin arrived at the current compromise solution, presumably in the hopes that User:4, the only apparent supporter of this campaign, would add enough content to the article to make it worth having. Well, that was in December, and so far the article has not progressed from its copy-pasted state, except (during the course of this AfD) to include some formulas that are already in the n-sphere article, and images of 9-dimensional polytopes. As already suggested above, if article-worthy content surfaces, then the article can always be recreated by copying one of the lower dimensions again. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to n-dimensional space. There is nothing here that is not an explicit example of an n-dimensional phenomenon. TimothyRias (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per TimothyRias and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If its the same as n-dimensional space then redirect it. Otherwise Keep. Clicking on Google news and Google books and Google scholar show all results for all of them, this an actual thing. Dream Focus 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep or Redirect References have been added to establish notability. Its strange how even elite subjects get put up for deletion when theyre related to engineering. I recall the squad had to completely re-write the related and excellent Plastic deformation in solids article to save it from deletion. Please ask editor Logger9 or administrator materialscientist if you require confirmation of this topics importance to structural engineering. Sources covering the applicability to string theory are abundant. PS - I hope no one feels bad that they've missed these key applications, its a normal feature of accademic immersion in this area to loose perspective of geometries outside your area of study. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The string theory reference is almost plausible. The material deformation is not. The 9-dimensional "space" is the image of the tensor product of 2 three-dimensional spaces, as is reference 5 above. (It's not clear to me whether the 3-dimensional spaces relate contravariently or covariently, making it unclear whether the space divides into 3- and 6-dimensional spaces, or 1- and 8-dimensional spaces.) It's topologically 9-dimensional, but not Euclidian. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Even if FeydHuxtable's additions were notable, those parts of the 2-paragraphs which are accurate should be trimmed to sentences and merged into a subsection of "Applications", such as:
- 9-dimensional space is used in superstring theory[1] and material science.[2]{{disputed}}
- 10-dimensional space is used in m-theory[3]. 10-dimensional space-time is used in superstring theory.[1]
- 11-dimensional space-time is used in m-theory.[3]
- 24-dimensional space is the first dimension in which an irregular packing is known to be better than any regular packing.[4] (Or whatever is true of the Leech lattice.)
- ...
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the first point: The spaces are covariant, and in fact it is only the symmetric (6-dimensional) part that is relevant, I think. But the fact that tensors of various dimensions are used does not mean that this can be a serious source for the notability of this article. The Riemann tensor in 4 dimensions has 20 independent components—does this suddenly mean that the hypothetical article 20-dimensional space is notable because of the existence of a tensor with this many components? No, of course not (even though there is a natural "Euclidean structure" on such tensors). The chief concern here as I see it is one of WP:OR. Without sources that treat 9-dimensional space as a specific topic in its own right, attempts to gather and catalog various objects that happen to be 9-dimensional will inevitably be an unpublished synthesis. One the second point, regarding the specific applications in string theory, this would seem to be content more suitable for an article that specifically discusses the significance of the various dimensions appearing in string theory rather than an article on nine-dimensional space. That would seem to be a much more sensible way to organize this kind of information. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the strong keep. I usually take the view that redirecting is as bad as deletion but I guess if even the legendary dreamFocus and Bearian can accept a redirect its churlish to stand in the way of consensus, especially as what youre suggesting above seems a good way to improve the n-dimensional article.
Im just going to talk about the two references cos it would be a shame to have any merged content marred with unsightly tags.
For strings the reference seemed to be ideal for notability: its Oxford University Press so near the summit of our RS hierarchy, its a secondary source and as the author doesnt have a horse in the race its totally independent of the subject. The fact that string theory posits 6 extra spatial dimensions shouldnt be controversial. This was common to all five leading flavours. The primary literature is somewhat opaque and some of the best secondary articles in journals or reliable periodicals like New scientist are behind pay walls. But one can confirm this from countless popular science books, see this one by Cambridge 's Gibbons or this one by arch simplifier physicist David McMahon With strings the common view was there are 9 spatial dimensions plus time. After Witten unified the contradictions between the leading versions of string theory by positing an extra spatial dimension the main stream view is that there are 10 spatial dimension + the temporal. Admittedly there is a sizeable minority view that sees all the dimensions above the 3rd as having a partially temporal character. Theres even an interesting fringe view that there are in fact only 10 dimensions, with time being only one direction in the 4th dimension. But I think the summary in the article is an acceptable simplification and as you concede its totally supported by the reference.
For deformation, Im going to try to put this in simple terms for the benefit of anyone trying to follow this discussion without mathematical training. When you say 9D space isnt Euclidian i guess youre using the word as a synonym for spatial which is common usage among some mathematicians, but for most Euclidian refers to the 3D geometry where the 5th postulate holds true – the space of visual experience. To understand 9D space as its used for deformation one needs to liberate oneself from optical limits. Here 9D space it totally different from the reality imagined for strings and modes of thought from that field aren 't helpful , most especially not trying to visualise the extra dimensions in the manner of Rob Bryanton. Start by considering a regular point in 3D, defined by 3 coordinates. But then instead of thinking of the coordinates as positions along the 3 visual dimensions, just think of them as 3 independent numbers. Then theres no reason why a point cant be defined by n separate numbers, for our purposes nine. Its in this simple but abstract way that we use 9D space for deformation. Unlike with strings there is no significant qualitative difference between the 6 higher dimensions and first 3 (admittedly the typical math only sees vectors being assigned values on 6 out of the 9 dimensions, but this is only due to symmetry between the stress and strain tensors) As dream focus says, it exists. This is totally mainstream, weve been using higher dimension number systems since the early 17th century, and 9D space for work on deformation for almost 100 years. As per the article "Abstract nine-dimensional space occurs frequently in mathematics, and is a perfectly legitimate construct."
Its good to encounter delete voters who know what theyre talking about for a change. As the material seems to be in good hands ill bow out of this discussion. I hope the tags wont be added back, and to be honest Id rather my additions were totally deleted rather than tagged, but whatever you decide. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Material science section removed, by request. By "Euclidian", I actually meant a Riemannian manifold (or locally Euclidian manifold.) In string theory, that's a given, but there's no natural local inner product in the "materials science" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to n-dimensional space. No claim of mathematical notability whatsoever, source given for superstring theory is about modeling superstring theory, and 9-dimensional space is depreciated by that source. Abductive (reasoning) 03:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per User:Abductive. RussianReversal (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 You Can't Do That on Television#Cast. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alasdair Gillis[edit]
- Alasdair Gillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable former actor who appeared in a single series. Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER, and without significant coverage in reliable sources, cannot meet WP:BLP. Prod removed by new editor User:Kugao with edit summary of "rm prod, notable Canadian actor was a regular on the long running series "You Can't Do That on Television". However, WP:ENTERTAINER requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" not one, and Gillis has not had any other roles or work outside of YCDTOTV. He has no significant coverage in any reliable sources at all, just the usual spurt of fansites for the series, and a very amusing article on The Onion (which is obviously not RS).[8] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Couldn't find substantial coverage, and he doesn't seem to have anything else to his name.
decltype
(talk) 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to You Can't Do That on Television#cast. He was a cast member on a popular television series. Coverage is scant. [9] is the only one of substance I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to You Can't Do That on Television. Edward321 (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Days of April (film)[edit]
- The Last Days of April (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded article about an unreleased film. WP:NFF says that films that "have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", which appears to apply in this case. I can find no substantive treatment in independent, reliable sources for this production; the sole review linked under "External links" is in a blog that I don't think qualifies. Zero hits in a Google News archive search. Deor (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Checked Google news and internet movie database news feed, neither yielded any results for this film. Akerans (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two no-consensus closes over the last five years, this time there is a consensus. DGG is quite right that there is no deadline, so if anyone wants to work on this article in user-space, please let me know. Courcelles (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional military organizations[edit]
- List of fictional military organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List which fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:IINFO. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and a large list of fictional military organisations seems to be edging on that. It's so broad that the list doesn't really serve any purpose - it details both fictional regiments from real armies, fictional armies of real places and fictional armies of fictional nations. Furthermore, "fiction" has become an extremely broad term - this list covers not only literature, but film and video-games. Two previous AFDs lead to no consensus. Claritas § 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- After two AfDs and 18 months after the last nomination the article is still sourceless and overflowing with OR. Therefore it's almost certainly unfixable. Reyk YO! 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no deadline on improvements--why not try doing that instead of nominating for deletion. I know its tempting to try to delete all the relatively low grade articles, but it takes a long time to improve the immense number that we have. As for some specifics, fiction is always interpreted here as including film and videogames, and for that matter comic and video programs, not just published books. Why shouldn't it be? Most important stories, and most important plot elements occur similarly in all of them--and this particular one is a very good example of just that. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not acceptable to use WP:NODEADLINE as a means of dodging WP:BURDEN indefinitely. Policy states that material should be promptly sourced, or removed, if challenged. Two AfDs and 18 months time demonstrates that the former can't be done so removal remains as the only option. Reyk YO! 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this is an indiscriminate collection of information. I must also second the comments of Reyk, that if the article has remained unsourced for so long, it should be deleted. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is simply a list of trivia. Not everything can be cleaned up. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research abounds; each entry should have been sourced as being a fictional military organization to have been let into the list. Now that this is at AfD I concur with deletion since it's quite obvious that the overly broad scope of the list (WP:SALAT) inhibits the development of an article that fits within our policies. The sum total of the list doesn't amount to any sort of encyclopedic understanding of fictional military organizations other than "there's a lot of 'em!". The individual entries have nothing in common other than the overly broad criteria for inclusion. As the nom pointed out, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO come into play here. ThemFromSpace 09:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is no deadline but after years of asserting potential it's time to admit this one cannot be fixed. Fails policies as indiscriminate and without the right sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arnie Bong Fernandez Arquiza[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Arnie Bong Fernandez Arquiza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-notable person created by a single-purpose account, and the references are to books that don't exist (one of them even says "unpublished") Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason for deletion, I believe. No basis for claims. Try visiting the library of the Philippines so that you may find out if the boks really exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovebongarquiza (talk • contribs) 13:44, 31 May 2010— Ilovebongarquiza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As of the moment, I don't find your nomination substantial. In the Philippines, Bong Arquiza is indeed famous. The reference books stated in his page can be found in the national library of our country. You may visit it for purposes of verification. And in line with his notability, you may google his name and you'll see the number of search results you will find. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.114.232 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC) — 112.202.114.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- A lot of Google hits alone doesn't equal a person's notability; the hits have to be based on reliable sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete possibly speedily. No notability. An unpublished book and a privately published one are not a basis for supporting notability. Nor are links to twittering, blogging and so on. He's been in several organisations. So? So have many of us. He witnessed the signing of a charter. How many others did the same? There are three ghits for '"University of the Philippines Charter" Arquiza'. This is one, another appears to show the subject didn't get elected as one of 12 USC Councilors, the third seems to be an appeal for support in the aforementioned election. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and warning This is not a vote by numbers, so if you are creating an account to repeat messages of support without addressing the problems found by the nominator and myself, then don't bother. Also, do not change other people's posts. I have just restored the nomination to its original wording. Leave it alone. Any repeat of this may lead to you being blocked from editing - even if you use an IP address rather than an account name. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Taking everything at its face value, it still isn't notable. Privately published books and unpublished manuscripts do not show notability, and there is nothing claimed here that might make one think otherwise. No specific leadership role is claimed, and being present at a large public event is not a claim of notability. Personally, i wouldn't hesitate at a speedy A7 for lack of a plausible claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't seem to be a notable activist. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no evidence of notability. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Britain's Strongest Man[edit]
- Britain's Strongest Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Request for a list of references was requested in March 2008. I've looked online for any references to an organization or event, but I can only find discussions in forums. This event does appear to have taken place, and does appear to have been shown on TV in the past, but no references appear to exist to support this article. Not sure what to do in this case, but an AfD appears to be possibly the only valid solution. HighKing (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Editors please note; this article has been PROD'd for one simple reason, it contains the words British Isles. The nominator is User:HighKing whose primary concern is to eliminate, or at least severely reduce, the instances of British Isles in Wikipedia. His reason for proposing deletion is not valid. There are almost a quarter of a million Google hits for the phrase "Britain's Strongest Man" and very many of them relate to the TV series of that name. Furthermore, the article is part of a series of articles detailing all aspects of "Strongest Man" competitions. This is nothing more than an egregious attempt to game the system. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I have seen the program before, so it is notable, and also, I support Midnight Blue's point of view. Minimac (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Every motive HighKing cites: "This event does appear to have taken place, and does appear to have been shown on TV in the past, but no references appear to exist to support this article. Not sure what to do in this case, but an AfD appears to be possibly the only valid solution" are reasons for finding more citations, not for a prod. Moloch09 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great ... reasons for finding more citations. So can anyone find one? That is the point. There may be hundreds and thousands of hits, but no citations. None. Nada. So before blindly voting for keep, think about the fact you are electing to keep an article with no citations, and none can be found. You are correct that the best thing to do is to look for citations. I did already. I invite others to also do so. There has been a notice looking for references on this article for two years. The point we've reached now is, what do we do with an article with not one single citation? --HighKing (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep. Annual event that has featured regularly on prime-time national television. Plenty of Google News coverage, and also a few from Google Books, e.g. Understanding Television, Glued to the Box by Clive James.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - AS per above and many articles like this one. Sources abound. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of repeating myself, I've not said that the event doesn't exist. In fact, I've explicitly said above that it does appear to have both existed and been on the telly. I've said that there are no citations for the article.
- Exactly what do the links above mean to the article? Can we find a citation or reference describing the event? A citation for the winners? Anything besides it was on the Telly and that Derek Hobson was a host of a fetish of physical strength with sado-masochistic images of a body under duress? (not my words, but from the links above) --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you looking for? We have an unreferenced article. It's one of many. Your nomination indicated that you could only find references in forums. The coverage in newspapers satisifies that concern. Your nomination indicates that you were concerned the event didn't take place. The newspaper articles covering winners shows taht it did in fact take place. What you are asking about now appears to be specific details that need verification. That's an editting concern and is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. Actually, it's what I suppose I was really asking. If an article has no references for any of the data such as history or past winners, but that there's enough references to denote notability, then I agree it's an editing concern and not for Afd. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you looking for? We have an unreferenced article. It's one of many. Your nomination indicated that you could only find references in forums. The coverage in newspapers satisifies that concern. Your nomination indicates that you were concerned the event didn't take place. The newspaper articles covering winners shows taht it did in fact take place. What you are asking about now appears to be specific details that need verification. That's an editting concern and is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this is a national event, seems a shame to delete it. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very notable. I once competed myself. Mister Flash (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this please? The event is notable. All other concerns are editing concerns and I withdraw this afd. --HighKing (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes close it, but you are so predictable HK. Now that the PROD has failed you've tried to remove British Isles via another route. Will you ever give up on this? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously notable competition, with tons of coverage. HighKing, your campaign against use of the term 'British Isles' is getting beyond a joke now. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home and Away characters. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naomi Preston[edit]
- Naomi Preston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable minor character who appeared in a soap sporadically for two months. No lasting impact on real world, no lasting impact in fictional world. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Home and Away characters. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete short lived characters can be covered in the plot of other articles. nothing to write here that meets WP:V Shooterwalker (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home and Away characters. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Derrek[edit]
- Derrek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable character, seen on screen for about two weeks in total. Entire article is supposition. Matthewedwards : Chat 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect to Home and Away or to List of Home and Away characters. BTW the AfD here says it's for the article Derrek, but that is just a redirect page to Derrek Quaid - which I assume is the article we are actually discussing here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete guest stars can be covered in the plot of other articles. nothing to write here that meets WP:V Shooterwalker (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryona[edit]
- Ryona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely original research with no references to reliable sources. Previously deleted back in 2007, and nothing seems to have changed since then to make this a notable concept. (I freely admit I have not even attempted to look for reliable sources for this - I have no wish to do so. It's up to those who want it kept to demonstrate they exist.) I have searched for reliable sources, and as far as I can tell none exist - unless entries on Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes count.[10] [11] Robofish (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources exist according to Google Books or Scholar. There is no "ryonani" either. -- deerstop. 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'Weak keep good evidence why wp:before should be a requirement, if people are going to boast about ignoring it. The reason for it is that the default is keep, so if you want something deleted, you need to show why. With the possible exception of recently entered blps, the standard for deletion is unsourceable, and you need to actually show that. I consider the existence of the message board enough presumptive evidence that it would take a thorough failed search in the Japanese language to show otherwise DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- how to deal with things that are quite possibly sourceable, but in places where we can;t readily get to them, is a recurrent problem for which there is no good solution. I'm prepared to go by whatever indications we have,to avoid cultural bias; some people not unreasonably want firmer evidence. 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Procedural Keep: It's not our job to find sources; it's yours, as the nominator, to suggest why they probably don't exist. I freely admit that I haven't looked for reliable sources for this - I have no wish to do so. It's up to those who want it deleted to demonstrate that they probably don't exist. Buddy431 (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral: Nominator has now appeared to have made a good faith search for sources allowing notability. As I previously said, I don't really care one way or another, so I'll not put much effort into this. It appears that the term is actually used, but there are no sources immediately apparent that would establish notability. Buddy431 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article is only documenting a neologism, thus failing that WP:Policy. There are no reliable sources I could find for either Ryona or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that so much as define this term, and the interwiki link is a lie; it leads to the Japanese article ja:サディズム on Sadism. Abductive (reasoning) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. --Malkinann (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary Seeing that there are no real references for the word my feeling is that it is not used in english that much, however if it is a real word, wiktionary seems like a good place to put it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to sadism per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Japanese entry for Ryona redirects to their page on Sadism, but that page doesn't mention the term. Polarpanda (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary per Knowledgekid. The term exists but isn't notable, so an entry there is the best option. Alzarian16 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research and unverifiable dicdef. Unless someone can site a reliable source—Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes are no reliable sources—this has no business on Wiktionary. —Farix (t | c) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, are merge discussion on the article's talk page is strongly recommended, judging by the comments here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendocore[edit]
- Nintendocore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A rather singular (as in: only one band seems to use it) but nonetheless generic foocore neologism. What little content there is, reads as WP:OR. It has not taken off, anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question- The second and third AFD's both seem to have reliable sources that discuss this topic in depth. While they're not in the article, they do seem to exist. Is there any reason why these sources aren't acceptable per the WP:GNG?Umbralcorax (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral at present If this can be made into an artice about the genre, using significant coverage from multiple reliable sources then it should stay. If it's going to remain an advert for Horse the Band, then it should go (or at best be merged). At present it's worthless. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per being both sourced and notable subgenre/fusion genre, though not mainstream. --Qsaw (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You assert notbility but at present none is being demonstrated. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Horse the Band. They coined it and the vast majority of sources directly relate to the band. I am not seeing enough sources for this to have its own article, and am shocked it has survived five AFDs. This is similar to Showbread and their own made up genre, Raw Rock, which now is mentioned in their musical and lyrical style section. If there are other bands that can be sourced to perform this "genre," they could also be mentioned at Horse the Band after a brief description of Nintendocore. (...Other bands known to perform this style of music include
The Advantage,[1] 8 Bit Weapon,[2]etc.) Fezmar9 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I had taken those sources from previous AFDs but had not taken the time to read through them. According to this article, Nintendocore is a fusion of Nintendo sounds and metalcore. However, neither The Advantage nor 8-Bit Weapon perform metalcore. The Advantage is a rock band and 8-bit Weapon is pure electronics. It looks like Horse the Band really is the only group in this made up genre. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep survived four afds. 65.0.16.108 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is irrelevant to this discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject passes WP:GNG. The AfD's have several sources, as did the article, before someone prodded it following the fifth AfD(! Talk about misuse of PROD!). The issue is not the current state of the article, it's the near-constant abuse the article receives from people who are stubbornly convinced it isn't worth mentioning. The full history should be restored, and sources re-added from before the prodding. Chubbles (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I agree completely with Chubbles. As long as the page contains enough reliable references supporting that MORE THAN ONE notable band are recognized as Nintendocore. That seems like the major issue to me. If there simply are not good references explaining the subgenre or proving that other bands perform it, the page should be merged with Horse the Band, as Fezmar9 suggested.--♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Horse the Band and if possible fully protect Nintendocore as redirect.--Cannibaloki 17:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are other nintendocore bands as well, such as Powerglove, Metronome and more. --Qsaw (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have any sources for those? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are other nintendocore bands as well, such as Powerglove, Metronome and more. --Qsaw (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Horse the Band. I don't believe this subject is notable on its on, so it's better suited as a section on their page. Similar to "Gulf and western" on Jimmy Buffett's page. RG (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chubbles. After glancing at the history, it does seem that enough sources are present to pass any reasonable interpretation of the notability guidelines. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pollotarianism[edit]
- Pollotarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for speedy as blatant OR, but that's not speediable. It does, however, appear to be entirely accurate. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "appear to be entirely accurate"? this is nothing else than original research at it's best. Greetings --Nolispanmo 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a shame that Wiktionary isn't on the sidebar, because that's where this belongs. As the news search above shows, it's a term that someone made up a couple of years ago and that hasn't caught on. I'm not sure if the coined word was originally intended as a joke, since the meaning is basically a person who has philosophical objections to consuming food prepared by the deaths of cattle, pigs, sheep, fish, etc., but who, for some reason, doesn't have the same objections if it's just the decapitation of a chicken with a butcher's axe. The variations would be numerous pesco-pollotarianism (they eat fish and chickens but not meat) or "carni-pollotarianism" (doesn't eat fish) or "carnipescopollotarianism" (eats meat, fish and chicken) etc. I recognize that this may refer to people who are making a dietary choice for health reasons, but that's like comparing a lactose-intolerant person to a vegan. Mandsford 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delele No sources given for the topic itself, only for background info. Having said that the concept does make sense to me, since both raising beef and fishing have greater negative impacts on the environment than raising chickens, and are more expensive as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaws Project[edit]
- Jaws Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. The last AfD closed as no consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability and I can't find any significant coverage. The author is a member of the project, and the POV shows. Haakon (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. Ekerazha (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiggle Diskette[edit]
- Wiggle Diskette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. very limited demo release, really doesn't warrant a page here. leave this one to TMBW. ※ gtw 06:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the author of the article admits that this is the work of more than one person for college, the copyright would be either retained by the college (who have not granted permission for it to be used) or with all the authors (and only the one author has 'granted' permission for it to be used). By its very nature, this is OR. Although this is numerically a close call, the copyright problems and OR sways the decision in favour of deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy in facebook[edit]
- Privacy in facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Author admits this was written by a group as a College paper [12] so likely breach of WP:COPYVIO. Also breaches WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTOPINION. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Privacy in facebook" and "Privacy on facebook" are both very plausible search terms. Both need to redirect to a new section of Criticism of Facebook, which should be Criticism of Facebook#Privacy. Per WP:PRESERVE, the reliable sources in this article must not be removed from Wikipedia, though they might reasonably be merged or placed on the talk page for Criticism of Facebook for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until Merge as per S Marshall. This information shouldn't be lost just because of categorical impatience. Moloch09 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't quite say we should keep the material. What I said was that we must keep the reliable sources. On whether the material is kept, I'm agnostic.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BEFORE - with re-writing, it could become an encyclopedic article. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given that this appears to be a copy of a written product by multiple individuals (initial edit summary by article creator: "i and my class mates create this as our academic assignment at Orebro university , Sweden"), I think WP:COPYRIGHT is a valid concern. As a group project, it would require everyone's approval to license this work appropriately, a task I'm not sure is particualrly feasible or worth doing. Thus, deletion seems the most reasonable route. I agree that it's a plausible search term, however, and a redirect to Criticism of Facebook should definitely be left in its place; a future sub-article on this topic isn't unreasonable. As for the sources, I don't see much that seems too obviously useful, but I'd be willing, on request, post-deletion, to move citations & links to Talk:Criticism of Facebook that might be relevant. — Scientizzle 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Truth About You[edit]
- The Truth About You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, speculative article about a non-notable, unreleased album. Delete. I42 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's certainly no need for a separate article. I redirected it to the article about the band, but the contributor rebuilt it. Deb (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with Deb above. The band article already discusses the album and why it wasn't released. An unreleased album could possibly become notable if the rest of the world takes notice, but that's not the case with this one. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was move to God and gender in Hinduism. Without redirect. Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu[edit]
- Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research topic. No notable sources to this topic. Wikidas© 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many schools of Hinduism such as the Shakta school believe in the Divinity in the female conception. This is a significant distinction from the Abrahmanic faiths; see pg. 30 of http://books.google.com/books?id=RmGKHu20hA0C&pg=PA30&dq=God+female+form+Hinduism&cd=6#v=onepage&q=God%20female%20form%20Hinduism&f=false
- There are several references cited in the article:
- Surendranath Dasgupta,A History of Indian Philosophy (1991) p. 31
- Santilata Dei, Del Santilata, Vaisnavism in Orissa (1988) p. 167
- Beck, Guy L. (2005). Alternative Krishnas: regional and vernacular variations on a Hindu deity. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press. pp. p. 68. ISBN 0-7914-6415-6.
- Kakoli Basak, (1991) Rabindranath Tagore, a Humanist - p. 11
- Rosen 2002, p. 54
- Valpey 2006, p. 110
- Schweig 2005, p. 125
- Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature - p. 4290, Amaresh Datta, Mohan Lal,1994
- Schwartz 2004, p. 35
- These appear to be reliable references. I did not create the article in the entirety. Thus, I disagree that this article is based on original research.
- Move to God and gender in Hinduism as sub-article of Gender of God and cleanup. — goethean ॐ 01:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to God and gender in Hinduism. There's significant coverage on this topic, and presence of original research in the article shouldn't be a reason to delete. Claritas § 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to User:Wikidas, there is plenty of English-language coverage. Keep (rename if appropriate); or persuade me that the article is unsalvageable. East of Borschov (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Claritas. The article should be renamed to God and gender in Hinduism. The title change to Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu is problematic for the uninitiated. Raj2004 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to rename and cleanup. It is the "Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu" article that I have serious problem with. God and gender in Hinduism sounds okay, there are (some) sources to it. Don't know if that clarified it for you. The "Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu" is a complete OR, if article kept on this name it should be deleted. Wikidas© 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone redirected the article God and gender in Hinduism to Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu. It's an exact copy. Someone should eliminate the redirect. I think I will. Raj2004 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the exact info from Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu to God and gender in Hinduism. Please delete the Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that you need to wait for this afd to be closed and then do a proper page move. Then the talk page will be retained. — goethean ॐ 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, Goethean. I did not delete Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu and left it to Wikidas and users such as yourself to make that decision. Raj2004 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article was God and gender in Hinduism. Someone redirected to a new title without discussion. Raj2004 (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with God and gender in Hinduism and delete Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu. No redirect necessary IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "On 14:58, 19 May 2008 Dbachmann moved "God and gender in Hinduism" to "Hindu views of gender of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu". Actually, a WP:RM procedure should be followed to retain history. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 19:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ishwar Devasthan[edit]
- Ishwar_Devasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The article is confusing and does not cite sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumquark (talk • contribs) 2010/05/30 20:45:15
- Comment: per WP:BEFORE 1, 2, 9 and 10, article should be assessed for deletion based on criteria for inclusion as an encyclopaedia article, not its format or content shortcomings. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article does not state the importance of the temple. Could not find any worthy references on the net. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:GNG (No indication of notablity) and WP:RS ([13]). Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No proof of notability. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K. Jai Stone[edit]
- K. Jai Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No WP:reliable sources to establish WP:notability, The claim to have coined the term Brandology would seem to be bogus as a company of that name has existed since 1999 - 4 years before Stone was supposed to have coined it. Reference 1 only had a couple of quotes by Stone, nothing about her. Ref 2 simply had a picture. noq (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Nothing to verify the claims in the article - particularly the claim to have invented the term "Brandology" which Noq did a good job of demolishing. There are two references offered. One is listed twice and shows her getting an award from the Atlanta Business League; good as far as it goes. The other is a long ESPN article about racecar drivers, and if it has anything to do with her, I didn't see it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rhye's and Fall of Civilization[edit]
- Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable outside of close-knit videogame fan community. A couple of mentions in reviews, but these specifically deal with the main game, not with exhaustively detailing each mod. There's not enough outside coverage to meet WP:RS. Also, there's the ready-made promotional nature of such coverage, since this article is becoming the *primary* source of info about the mod. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per all the press coverage found here. Gary King (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major expansion to a very popular game. Plenty of external links and references including press coverage for notability. -OberRanks (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For reasons above and per WP:CARES - the Civ "close-knit videogame fan community" is large enough to make this article notable (and its inclusion with an official expansion and coverage in mainstream press means it is actually notable outside that community, anyway). —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 07:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources are good. The claim about promotional nature is confusing: does it say that we should delete this article because it's being used improperly outside Wikipedia? Or that we should delete it because this use may affect the article in the future? Fortunately, we don't seem to have evidence that these future changes are an insurmountable problem. I'm not familiar with any definition of notability that requires article subjects to be well enough known, and if there is one, we should hunt it down before it can breed. How in particular would Wikipedia be better off without having an article on Rhye's and Fall of Civilization at all? --Kizor 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of press coverage from reliable sources, extremely popular mod for a major icon of pc games, included in an official release of the program, no question of "notability".Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - consensus is pretty clear, and both WP:N and WP:RS are satisfied by the coverage listed above. Let's close up shop and move on. --Teancum (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Ain't Country[edit]
- This Ain't Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are generally not notable. Previously deleted via Prod. SummerPhD (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is some notable controversy (with news coverage) over WHY this album was not released, and that is an item of historical interest that is already covered at Hank's biography article. No need for an article about the album itself unless it gets released on its own someday. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was snow keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo (song)[edit]
- Woohoo_(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules Jagoperson (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage from secondary sources? Check. Positioning on major charts? Check. A notable release from two major artists? Check. Therefore, it passes WP:NSONGS. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' - Coverage, reception, and charting, passes WP:NSONGS with flying colors. Candyo32 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Are you joking? you provided no reason for the nomination itself, "It doesn't meet wiki rules" is not a valid reason. The article clearly passes WP:NSONG. Its charted in two countries, Clearly has good refs, Two notable artists. Whats the problem? ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 05:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ..:CK:..s comments. Crystal Clear x3 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sourced, reviewed, charted. Obvious keep. Nom should check out WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Sourced, charted and officially released on iTunes. Theuhohreo (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. --BGTopDon's User Page Contributions 02:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It's an official single and deserves its own page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.108.58 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all the comments above. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although i don't agree with this, it is a clear snow ball. The AfD should be closed and the article needs improving. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the nom were to recognize this and withdraw, then someone could close it as speedy keep. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candyo32 and KingOfThemedia. Also, past outcomes have kept charted songs. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's snowing. TbhotchTalk C. 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not only did it chart, it charted on the US Billboard Hot 100, which is the big one as far as the music industry goes. Nomination rationale is also weak/unclear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence presented that there are any reliable sources, the only sources apparently being blogs -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renegade Trads[edit]
- Renegade Trads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of WP:notability. No WP:reliable sources given and google searches do not show anything other than blogs. noq (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or possibly summarise and put in the dictionary). The whole article appearws top be based on blogs, which are by nature not WP:RS. That is unless the article is much improved durign the AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus to merge it to a particular article, so best to leave as is for now. Further discussion can be held on the article talk page. NW (Talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes were made[edit]
- Mistakes were made (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is mainly a fairly random list of uses of the phrase "mistakes were made" in news reports. To the extent it does have any substantive content, this is basically covered in the article non-apology apology, which covers precisely the same topic-matter in effect ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While not the greatest of WP's articles (but still far from the worst), two very good sources are given which discuss the term itself. A list of examples follows, but that is not a really a problem. Merge as suggested by nominator would also be fine, if you think having one second rate article is better than having two. Otherwise I don't see any real advantage to doing that.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? So you're really proposing a merge, but making a deletion nomination? Merge, as they cover such similar topics and the reader is better served by having one more comprehensive article. Fences&Windows 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Fences and windows. (and I agree that AfD is not a good place to propose merges). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not proposing a merge. I think it should be deleted because the content is already covered in another page. Not could be covered. Is. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this content is not covered there. The phrase "mistakes were made" is a notable example of a non-apology apology and there is sourced content about its use in this article, but it is only mentioned in the See also section of that article, not within the body of the article. Fences&Windows 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to non-apology apology, since it is a case of that. I was going to suggest merge to "mistake" since it is a special use of that word, but there is no article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No valid deletion argument has yet been articulated, certainly not by the nominator who claims this topic is "already covered" in non-apology apology when that is patently not the case (search on the word "mistakes" in that article to see what I mean). Fences and windows provides good examples of usage, but those examples do not "equate" the phrase "mistakes were made" with "non-apology apology," rather the former is a prominent example of the latter per the sources cited. The last source cited by Fences, the Washington Post, argues that employing "mistakes were made" rhetorically "has been a favorite technique of American presidents." That's an interesting (and notable!) detail worth adding to the article, particularly because it supports material already there—it's certainly not a reason for merging content that is already sourced well enough (via the New York Times and Bill Safire, separately from the Times) to have its own article. I'm only !voting here because I came looking for our article on this famous phrase in U.S. politics and was hoping for some good examples, which were indeed there. Unfortunately it had been prodded (which I removed) and now we are at AfD. Of course this article could be better, but deleting or even stripping content for a merge would be silly and no one has really offered a persuasive argument for doing so, meaning WP:PRESERVE is still operative. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Nothing but definition and usage examples here, which is dictionary content. Any encyclopedic analysis of the phrase's use that might be added here would actually belong in the article we already have on that topic (non-apology apology). Powers T 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a perfectly good stand-alone article, well-referenced, for a cliched phrase. Not exactly the same as a "non-apology apology", and I see no pursuasive argument to delete or to merge it, so neither redirect or merger would improve the encyclopedia. The nomination is of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The NYT article is a solid source. And here's another good source which features it in the title: Mistakes were made (but not by me): why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. This book indicates that we might consider merger into self-justification. There seem to be many ways to go with this material but they do not require deletion and our editing policy is not to delete if we can sensibly avoid it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Well established and well sourced concept. The very fact that there was a book written about this concept (the book has its own Wikipedia article) argues for its distinct notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four Parks – One World: Walt Disney World Official Album[edit]
- Four Parks – One World: Walt Disney World Official Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Walt Disney World exclusive release that fails WP:NALBUMS. There is no significant coverage of this album and the article provides no sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This album is notable as the Official Walt Disney World 2008 Album. This Album contains the music that is played throughout the entire Walt Disney Resort Area, Theme Parks, Resorts and Attractions. The information is verifiable with hundreds of references to the album found with a google search. Inniverse (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of hits to retailer sites, no doubt. It is obvious the album exists and just because anyone can buy it doesn't make it notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS, fails general notability guideline - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 08:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Popularity and fans don't indicate notability, significant coverage in reliable sources does. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these yearly albums are significant to Disney fans and this article could be very useful in correlating different tracks on different years.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney about this discussion.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 17:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British Somali Youth League[edit]
- British Somali Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that this local community organisation is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Can't even verify it exists. Every single Google hit is a Wikipedia scraper. Zero News/Books/Scholar hits. cab (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In fact, it's probably a speedy. I can concur there's absolutely no coverage outside of WP. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: undoubtedly a good cause, but fails the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" test. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any news article / not notable. Traxs7 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Shirt58, undoubtedly a good cause, but fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total slacker[edit]
- Total slacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation, with new references. Still looks like A7-fodder. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<br?>do not delete
This is a professional band--that has been reviewed and acknowledged by the WORLDS LEADING PRESS. Check the references provided,
this page has asserted nobility and and importance in the NEW YORK music scene. This page follows most if not all -A7-fodder guidelines.feelingfine89 feelingfine89(talk)
13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feelingfine89 (talk • contribs)
Just added various east coast radio stations that have continue to play this bands muusic, and they are signed to 2 NYC Indie record labels--- this band fits all regulations for wiki band page.THANK YOUFeelingfine89 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per WP:BAND and WP:CSD#A7. None of the sources cited in the article appear to give the band any assertion of notability, and being signed to 2 NYC record labels doesn't necessarily give it a national "spotlight" of any kind. Random the Scrambled (?) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, Feelingfine89 is the only registered user who has made any contribution whatsoever to the page. Random the Scrambled (?) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND and User:Mr. Random. Traxs7 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Slight consensus towards deletion, but comments and discussion seems to show that editors were unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources per WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infernal Live[edit]
- Infernal Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Demos are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. the band passes the criteria for bands. qö₮$@37 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, but demos are still generally not notable, even if the band is, per WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - well, if this demo paved the way for the band's success, and therefore notability, i think that's notable enough. qö₮$@37 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, but demos are still generally not notable, even if the band is, per WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fact of the matter notability is not inherited for demo albums - significant coverage is required to support a separate article on this subject. Rehevkor ✉ 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, please keep, the demo is one of best. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, everything this band did was notable within the realm of the genre, written about extensively in all publications dealing with extreme metal, including notable genre authors such as Garry Sharpe-Young, Ian Christe, etc.. Their demos received wide acclaim within the metal world during the early 1980s period of 'tape trading'. Lastly, the contents of the demo are being released by Relapse Records within the year, heralded by the label's May 10, 2010 press release. I agree that, if deleted, info should be incorporated into a section of the artist page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's presumed notability is inherited when per WP:MUSIC is most certainly is not. There is little to no coverage from what I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - no consensus to delete so far. However, for those gunning to purge, could you please extend a little courtesy and allow for a short period for me to work on all of these demo pages? There are a few mentions in published works on the subject of heavy metal. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD generally lasts for a week. Please also keep in mind AfD is not a vote, the strength of the [not] votes is often taken more into account than the number. In my eyes the significant (the main word here) coverage required to support and article has not been issued, there are claims of notability but no evidence, but a closing admin could well see differently. Rehevkor ✉ 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - no consensus to delete so far. However, for those gunning to purge, could you please extend a little courtesy and allow for a short period for me to work on all of these demo pages? There are a few mentions in published works on the subject of heavy metal. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Has anyone bee able to dig up the sources required to support this article? Rehevkor ✉ 13:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be confusing votes with consensus. No evidence of notability has been produced by anyone. Rehevkor ✉ 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and you're entitled to your opinion. However, there still isn't consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An Afd "is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." Wikipedia:Vote#Deletion.2C_moving_and_featuring So far, the argument to delete is as follows: Demos are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, this demo does not have such coverage. The counter arguments are: 1) The band is notable (a moot point). 2) This demo is "one of the best" (a moot point). 3) You intend to add sources to prove the demo is notable (this will be persuasive when you add them). If you intend to save the article, rather than wasting time telling us you don't believe there is a consensus, add sources to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD not being a vote is a fact, not an opinion. If you really want to give a strong rational to keep the article you should to provide evidence of the notability. Rehevkor ✉ 04:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and you're entitled to your opinion. However, there still isn't consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be confusing votes with consensus. No evidence of notability has been produced by anyone. Rehevkor ✉ 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, what we have here is an effort to delete the pages of Death 'demos' that are themselves notable - those heavily-traded, independently-released albums, all included on the 2004 CD Zero Tolerance (Hammerheart), and being reissued again by Relapse Records in the upcoming year. The strength of the argument to delete falls on these being merely demos - it fails in that these were more than 'demos'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A claim of notability is nothing without sources to back it up. That is what we are trying to tell you. Demos are inherently non-notable per WP:MUSIC, significant coverage on the subject is a requirement. Rehevkor ✉ 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which tracks are you saying are on Zero Tolerance (album)? The article lists several sources, but not this one? That said, tracks (or the whole album) appearing on that complilation does not make this demo notable. Substantial coverage in independent relaible sources would. This discussion seems to need one of two things: sources for the claimed notability or additional voices. Claims that sources will be added at some point in the future are not the same as sources. Additional voices don't seem to be coming, even with ASniper's request at Talk:Death_metal#Assistance_required. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: I'm extremely tempted to call this a delete, given the failure of anyone to provide any evidence whatsoever that WP:MUSIC is met; I decided that a relist might be beneficial, however, given the lack of participation. But please bring forward something more than bare assertions. Tim Song (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No one has brought forth significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated recently on a similar AfD page, if any Death tape was to go, this would be the one...it can always be mentioned on the band page. This tape is either always lumped together with other demos, or I have to dig out all my old copies of Metal Forces, etc. I simply don't have the time going this alone. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - demos aren't generally notable, and couldn't find significatn coverage by reliable source to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian J. Brook[edit]
- Sebastian J. Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor who does not appear to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. A search for reliable sources discussing him found a handful of mentions of him as editor of a Doctor Who website, but no significant mentions of his acting career. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Brook's website, Doctor Who Online, was the subject of a prior deletion discussion in 2007. At the time, the site did not appear to meet the criteria of WP:WEB, but now it may; the news sources that mention Brook as the editor of DWO may be sufficient to merit undeletion of the Doctor Who Online article, even if Brook's article is deleted. The site may be more notable than its editor. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article has now been updated to include more references to Brook's career as well as relevant links. —Wikiwhovian —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete "currently best known for his role in the Shania Twain music video "Party for Two""? Not all that notable so far as I can see if that's the case. Edits a fansite. Seems to specialise in catering-linked roles - maitre d', waiter, pizza guy and kitchen porter - none of which appear to be more than sideline parts. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non notable actor. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actualize Consulting[edit]
- Actualize Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet notability requirement. 4 of 5 links are to the company's own website. Created by account with no other edits. Pnm (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Consulting business offering business process engineering and technology implementations for financial institutions, whatever that means. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the CA magazine source is a trivial mention. While their PR page does have a clip of one employee's interview on a WUSA newscast, there's just not any coverage of the company itself. Does not meet WP:CORP. — Scientizzle 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upfront mortgage lender[edit]
- Upfront mortgage lender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability. Could not find a reputable, non-self-published source. Pnm (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possibly by speedy as g11, promotional. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lede screams spam as the certification is made by a commercial site, not a neutral third party. Obviously a fake certification designed to get page clicks. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Siegrist[edit]
- Benjamin Siegrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 04:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 05:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having never played a senior game for Aston Villa, or for the Swiss national team, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and he is only mentioned in passing in routine journalism, which means he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. even if would being for procedural reason, there is enough consensus to keep without the sock reason JForget 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deaf Children Australia[edit]
- Deaf Children Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although a organisation with good intentions, that does not justify the lack of nobility or well known third-party sources. <redacted> Kalakitty talk 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck, sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - (Assume that nominator meant "lack of notability" and not nobility!) On the face of it, a charity which has been in existence since 1860 would seem to be inherently notable, although the article does a terrible job of establishing that. Still, the quality of the article is not determinative of its suitability for the encyclopedia, so this should stay and someone should adopt it and give it the working over it needs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It didn't take me long (about 2 seconds) to find enough sources upon which a verified article could be built. I think it meets WP:CORP. I also agree that the size, scope and history of the organisation make it notable and we have enough information to verify those matters.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: I am happy for my keep !vote to be disregarded in the final analysis. While I think the subject of this article is notable, I have no objection to this article being deleted for the reasons given by Mattingbn. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is an advertisement masquerading as an article that would require a complete rewrite to turn into a encyclopaedic article. See WP:ARTSPAM. If someone wants to completely rewrite it, then I may reconsider. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - Bad faith nomination by vandal user. The organisation's website maintains a comprehensive list of media coverage running to several pages (here); I'm obviously not suggesting the organisation's website is a reliable source but the coverage it's linking to is, and it's simpler to direct you there than repeat it here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - subject is notable per press coverage, article is fixable. Thparkth (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comedy Central's 100 Greatest Stand-Ups of all Time[edit]
- Comedy Central's 100 Greatest Stand-Ups of all Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article consists of a list of the 100 greatest as defined by a TV channel. Trivia as per: WP:HTRIVIA Wintonian (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although I think that the article needs a lot of work, I was actually surprised at how much this 2004 survey has been cited in the years since it was presented [18], even now [19], and biographies of comedians note it as a distinction. As far as I'm concerned, it meets WP:GNG, and it's not trivial. Mandsford 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mandsford. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DovidKopel - I felt that their should be some sort of page with this information. Either about the TV program itself, or a generic listing of different statistics of best stand-up comeidians. I had watched the specials and found that there was no record of the information on Wikipedia and was surprised. I opt that this should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovidkopel (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mind either way, but how is this not trivia? also the suggestion of making it about the TV program seems to be a good one. --Wintonian (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not trivia as it's (apparently) a notable award, in the sense that it's received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. We might not personally find it as noteworthy an award as an Oscar or a Nobel Prize but sadly our personal judgement yields to the considerations of the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't relise there was an award up for grabs, it just looked like some list that was drummed up by a TV channel willy nilly. --Wintonian (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard that accusation levelled at the Oscars. :-) Nevertheless further research has revealed it's probably better to treat this as a notable TV program rather than award - see below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Commentors please note, the correct title of the article should be Comedy Central Presents: 100 Greatest Stand-Ups Of All Time, and if survives AfD it should be moved to that name. (A search under that name on Wikipedia (here) reveals a large number of articles that would benefit from the existence of an article of that name.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree this should stay. Its a common reference to notability in itself. It should be changed to the link with its proper name with a redirect from this name. Of course, I think we should have more redirects to aid people in finding things like this. But then I have this odd idea that WP should be a source of information, rather than a bunch of deleted red links.OsamaPJ (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Macintosh 128K/512K technical details[edit]
- Macintosh 128K/512K technical details (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Half mumbo-jumbo about the specs, and the rest could either be merged (or already exists) in Macintosh 128K. The current title is not appropriate, as it suggests something contrary to WP:NOTDIR. AfD from 2006 ended in a merge, but it never actually occurred. —fetch·comms 02:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — the extra details are not useful to most readers, and the rest is already in the main article. PleaseStand (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though I hate myself for saying so. I personally love this kind of technocruft. But there's no independent notability here - it needs to be in the main article. Thparkth (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING comes to mind. PleaseStand (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any relevant info into the main article. Delete the rest, as who is going to search "Macintosh 128K/512K technical details" when looking for Macintosh 128K/512K? Airplaneman ✈ 04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style), specifically WP:DETAIL. Without a separate article, there would be considerable overlap between large sections of Macintosh 128K, Macintosh 512K, and Macintosh 512Ke. While I'd still really like to see some additional footnotes in this article, I don't see any glaring content errors and the content of the article itself is certainly not in dispute. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The content is probably verifiable, and seems useful. (And interesting.) I agree that the title is bad. --Pnm (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Suitable way of covering the complex subject to avoid duplication. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — and rename. mono 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename if necessary. There are enough reliable sources that discuss this to write a separate verifiable article. - EdoDodo talk 15:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Akirn (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Larry Sanders Show (fictional show)[edit]
- The Larry Sanders Show (fictional show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article doesn't add anything of significance or use to the topic. It's written in an in-universe style, and the material it details is already covered in the article about the show itself, so it need not even be merged. WCityMike 01:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Entirely in-universe description of a fictional television show. Material is short in scope and does not need to be spun out from The Larry Sanders Show. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into parent article. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can be summarized in one sentence in the main article, no need to merge. No plausible article name, so no redirect needed. – sgeureka t•c 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable fictional show that does not have independent, significant coverage in any reliable sources; nothing noteworthy for merging and not a good redirect, so delete. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not need a separate article. Deb (talk)
- Delete — No need for separate article. mono 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty much a content fork that turns pieces of the plot section into its own article. don't need two articles on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samantha Jennings[edit]
- Samantha Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Awards are for very short independent films she produced. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - badly fails WP:CREATIVE. Specifically, (a) all her films are shorts, (b) none of her films have won major awards (such as the Oscars or have been featured in major film festivals, such as the Cannes Film Festival's Short Program or at MoMA, (c) none of her films have been shown on major short films series on TV, such as PBS's POV or HBO. "Executive producer" is an especially slippery category: she may be merely an investor, a marketer, or an accountant. IMdB does not help answer any of those questions. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Time to start searching in Australian news sources. Her nominations, such as the 2004 Inside Film Awards for So Close to Home, seem notable enough in Australia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 26 May 2010 (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) 00:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I share Bearian's concerns that she may not meet the specific notability guidelines, I'm also concerned that there are no independent sources about Jennings, so she does not meet WP:GNG. Also, it doesn't look like any improvement was made to the article during the week of the AfD listing that's gone on so far. If Australian sources are located for her, as MichaelQSchmidt suggests searching, then I will reconsider my !vote. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Will reconsider if improvement occurs. mono 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SR 3017 in Farrell[edit]
- SR 3017 in Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable street [20]. Dough4872 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quadrant routes are not inherently notable, and there doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about this one. – TMF 01:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – non-notable street. Secondarily, the article title is incorrect and violates WP:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG. —Fredddie™ 05:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - List of State Routes in Pennsylvania seems to imply that State routes (up to #0999) should be treated as notable and quadrant routes (1000 and upwards) probably NN. The objection to the present name would be resolved by moving it to a more appropriate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quadrant routes are not notable. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everything above. --PCB 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PA 3006[edit]
- PA 3006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable street [21]. Dough4872 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quadrant routes are not inherently notable, and there doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about this one. – TMF 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – non-notable street. Secondarily, the article title is incorrect and violates WP:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG. —Fredddie™ 05:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - List of State Routes in Pennsylvania seems to imply that State routes should be treated as notable and quadrant routes probably NN. The objection to the present name would be resolved by moving it to a more appropriate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quadrant routes are not notable. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Quadrant routes fail WP:N. mono 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it can be significantly expanded (say, to GA or higher). Not only does it fail WP:N but also it is too short and jargonic to provide any information whatsoever. --PCB 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cash and non-cash incentives[edit]
- Cash and non-cash incentives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is basically just an OR essay. I'd merge it, but I wouldn't know where to merge it to. Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-encyclopedic content. Article is presented as an (unsourced) essay and would require a fundamental rewrite (and possibly rename) to conform to Wikipedia standards. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jminthorne (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future leaders of Manitoba[edit]
- Future leaders of Manitoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a nonnotable recently-established local award, despite the local news sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and looks like and very solid sources.
([[User talk:|talk]]) 13:58, 24 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.144.27 (talk) — 24.79.144.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep The sources seem solid enough and it seems like a fairly notable group, although mainly of interest to Manitoba itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... I'm new to wikipedia, but this article is backed up in the Winnipeg Free Press and Winnipeg Sun (two large Canadian newspapers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.71.218 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — 142.161.71.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I was there... hugh event -- the mayor of Winnipeg was a presenter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.6.214 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — 205.200.6.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Such an award is notable or not depending on whether it has received significant, independent coverage. This award has not. It received brief mentions in two respectable newspapers - basically, two-paragraph items stating that the event took place. Not enough to amount to "significant" coverage. Maybe the award will become more noteworthy in the future, but for now it doesn't qualify. (BTW, about the three single-purpose ISP accounts who showed up here to comment on the article - their only other interest on Wikipedia is Adam Smoluk, one of the winners of the award. Just FYI.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2010 (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) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - coverage is not extensive enough to establish notability. Thparkth (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Four sources with slight coverage don't add up to significant coverage. One reputable source providing significant coverage would be sufficient. See Wikipedia:ORG#Decisions_based_on_verifiable_evidence. --Pnm (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seamless AB[edit]
- Seamless AB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find significant coverage for this company. —fetch·comms 20:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like most publicly traded companies, there is enough coverage out there to make it notable. See WP:LISTED. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (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) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, references are standard stock investor blurbs and press releases. I looked, but cannot find any significant coverage, as required by WP:LISTED. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Galaxy Sessions[edit]
- Galaxy Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While unreleased demos are presumed (rebuttably) to be nn under WP:MUSIC, this is a released collection of demos from a notable band with multiple major label releases. As such, it's a legit entry in their discography and no valid cause for deletion has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2010 (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) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Demo or not, it fails the general notability guidelines, as the article provides no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and my good faith searches have failed to uncover any. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: According to WP:MUSIC, a notable band does not equal inherent notability for their albums. Joe Chill (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:MUSIC. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Math Sheet Demos[edit]
- Math Sheet Demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While unreleased demos are presumed (rebuttably) to be nn under WP:MUSIC, this is a released collection of demos from a notable, award-winning band with multiple major label releases. As such, it's a legit entry in their discography and no valid cause for deletion has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2010 (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) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find sources to establish notability of this demo (and demos, even by notable bands, are not inherently notable).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GodWeenSatan: The Oneness. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
L.M.L.Y.P.[edit]
- L.M.L.Y.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable song, WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to GodWeenSatan: The Oneness -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (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) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to GodWeenSatan: The Oneness. I could not find enough significant coverage of the song to constitute a separate article. Jujutacular T · C 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back from the Dead (demo)[edit]
- Back from the Dead (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Demos are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No such sources provided, unable to find. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2010 (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) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability of this demo.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck the Facts (album)[edit]
- Fuck the Facts (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The band (one person at the time) didn't release this as a demo, it was a "full-length" cassette release. Since the band has signed to Relapse and had a bit more press, most places list anything before 2001 as a demo, but that isn't the case. see the note on the discography page.
- For example, here Topon calls the upcoming Escunta his "3rd full length release" at a time when only this self-titled and Vagina Dancer were out (besides splits and comps). Another link is dead now (Geocities), but I will try and find a replacement. Cheers! Ibanez Guy (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we've been through this before. Just because an article is (inaccurately) in the "Demo Albums" category does not mean it is nothing but a demo and should be shot down without the proper good faith research. This is an album and should be judged accordingly. I am not voting because the nomination is based on an inapplicable argument, and therefore this AfD is illegitimate. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Per the article, "All tracks were recorded at Topon's home four-track studio." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Does recording method define the terms the band used to market the release somehow? I'm not trying to be smart, I am really wondering how demo is defined on Wikipedia. The article says a demo is "recorded for reference rather than for release." Which isn't the case here as this was clearly intended for release. Roman Candle was recorded on a 4-track, but it isn't a demo. :) Ibanez Guy (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response' There is no strict definition of what constitutes a demo recording for the purpose of Wikipedia. This has consequently lead to a number of AfDs that were complicated and ugly--e.g. The Roxx Regime Demos. A proper studio album certainly could be recorded at home on a four-track, but it is simply likely that if someone was recording to four-track in his house, it was intended for a demo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin, given your strict adherence to rules and guidelines that you've proven elsewhere, be careful saying things like "it is simply likely..." I have a feeling you would demand significant proof from others who say things like this. P.S. Still not voting. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response' There is no strict definition of what constitutes a demo recording for the purpose of Wikipedia. This has consequently lead to a number of AfDs that were complicated and ugly--e.g. The Roxx Regime Demos. A proper studio album certainly could be recorded at home on a four-track, but it is simply likely that if someone was recording to four-track in his house, it was intended for a demo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Does recording method define the terms the band used to market the release somehow? I'm not trying to be smart, I am really wondering how demo is defined on Wikipedia. The article says a demo is "recorded for reference rather than for release." Which isn't the case here as this was clearly intended for release. Roman Candle was recorded on a 4-track, but it isn't a demo. :) Ibanez Guy (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Per the article, "All tracks were recorded at Topon's home four-track studio." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A released album, not a demo collection. Nominator's unverified opinion as to what a "proper" album is does not appear to be well-informed or to reflect reality; cf Nebraska and 10 Song Demo, similarly recorded releases from quite major artists. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (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) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metatron and the Gleaming Red Serpent[edit]
- Metatron and the Gleaming Red Serpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2010 (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) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability of this demo.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rubin Whitmore II[edit]
- Rubin Whitmore II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable producer; the sources appear to be self-serving more than anything else mhking (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 17 RIAA plaques (gold to platinum) + having videos aired on VH1 / MTV / VET, both facts verified on the UW-Oshkosh website (an independent reliable source), demonstrates to me that his contributions are notable. Royalbroil 12:31, 22 May 2010 (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) 00:03, 24 May 2010 (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) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah McElcheran[edit]
- Sarah McElcheran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem notable plus no refs Moxy (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - She appears to be a well-respected session musician. The one reference in the article refers to her as Toronto session veteran Sarah McElcheran. This article provides a little bit more coverage about her. She is mentioned in a lot of articles, but I'm not finding enough significant coverage to make this a keeper. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (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) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment at this point I'm on the fence, but of note I added sourced info regarding her being a member of a swing band. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 28 May 2010 (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) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Cash[edit]
- Peter Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem notable outside his band work..no need to a stand alone article. Moxy (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that he's been in more than one notable band, meaning that we can't privilege one band over the other as a redirect target. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes crierion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO, as pointed out by Bearcat above, he has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I just added two references to the article establishing his involvement. J04n(talk page) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Criterion 6 and supporting refs for this. Voceditenore (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2010 (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) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Argolin (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. The article could use some more citations, but sources do exist, including Billboard magazine, the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia, The Ottawa Citizen, among others. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Lesperance[edit]
- Pete Lesperance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seem to be only notable from his former band Moxy (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Argolin (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been noted in Canadian newspapers and magazines not just for being part of Harem Scarem, but also for releasing one solo album, and then forming the band Fair Ground. I've added multiple sources since the AfD discussion started. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per referencing provided by Paul Erik. Thanks for your efforts. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most coverage verifies he is a guitarist rather than indepth coverage. [22]. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to Harem Scarem, I can not find anything to establish the notability of Fair Ground, nor can I find anything about his solo album Down in It other than it exists]. Not enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:27, 28 May 2010 (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) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Still an unsourced BLP which doesn't appear to pass WP:ATHLETE - yet. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obi Muonelo[edit]
- Obi Muonelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to establish notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found quite a few sources: Google News archive search, for example. Sure, the article needs sources and copyedit, but from all those hits, he seems notable enough right now. —fetch·comms 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Google does have articles about him. Also he is trying to get into the NBA and if he does he would pass Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Traxs7 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not currently notable. Saying he might be in the NBA later isn't a rationale for keeping. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas LaBier[edit]
- Douglas LaBier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As has been pointed out, this article appears to be nothing more than self promotion. See: Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé -- Xichael (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep the book is in 600 worldCat libraries. Added to his other writings, its enough forn otability. The article3, of course, needs rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I believe he fails to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The ISBN number in the main body of the article is a clear attempt to sell books. It needs to go regardless of whether this worthless fluff biography is kept or deleted. ISBN numbers are nothing more than bar codes for the convenience of publishers and booksellers. They should be eliminated at all times, in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a bookselling device. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree. ISBN codes are useful to Wikipedia and its readers for multiple reasons, most of which do not have anything to do with helping people buy books (and why would that be bad, anyway?). They help fulfil WP:V by making it easy to verify that the claim of a book being published is true, and they provide easy links to Google books (where in many cases one can read portions of a book online) and to worldcat (where one can find libraries that hold the book). As long as we agree that an article is on a notable subject and that mentioning a book is relevant for the subject, we should keep the ISBN. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- just asDavid E says, the ISBN is a industry-wide standard identifier. In fact, our entire WP:Book sources structure is built around them, as our way of avoiding promotional links to specific dealers. The article is indeed more than a little promotional, and will need to be edited, but that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Google news archive search finds adequate coverage of his work and his book in multiple major newspapers. But the article needs to be rewritten to be less promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Watchers of Catal Huyuk[edit]
- The Watchers of Catal Huyuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability of this demo.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom and others; not notable Traxs7 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC 80.84.55.196 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.